NationStates

San Lumen wrote:

-Ra- wrote:Or they could just find another videographer who accepts them.

They can just find another hotel or restaurant too?

Cordel One wrote:

-Ra- wrote:No, and you are lying or deliberately misinformed. Segregation was state-backed and -enforced. This is an issue of personal freedom, not state function. If no one wishes to serve them, the gay couple can go to the government office and get married there. The government cannot deny them service. Individuals can.

Discrimination is discrimination with or without state support.

Cordel One wrote:

-Ra- wrote:No, and you are lying or deliberately misinformed. Segregation was state-backed and -enforced. This is an issue of personal freedom, not state function. If no one wishes to serve them, the gay couple can go to the government office and get married there. The government cannot deny them service. Individuals can.

Discrimination is discrimination with or without state support.

Cordel One wrote:

-Ra- wrote:No, and you are lying or deliberately misinformed. Segregation was state-backed and -enforced. This is an issue of personal freedom, not state function. If no one wishes to serve them, the gay couple can go to the government office and get married there. The government cannot deny them service. Individuals can.

Discrimination is discrimination with or without state support.

Ors Might wrote:

New haven america wrote:1. Well you're assumption's wrong because that only applies to the successful ones. Again: Unsuccessful artists don't have the income to be principled
2. Yes he is. He's deny showing them in any light, that is conservative censorship and is probably due to coming from a household that participated in a similar form of censorship, and by being allowed to continue with this behavior he's continuing that censoring behavior. It's ok to admit that you're fine with censorship towards things you might not like, but please stop trying to beat around the bush and say your arguing for civil rights when that's the exact opposite of what you're doing.

1. False. Every artist I know is broke as shit and none of them have made degenerate artwork of two bipedal wolves in Nazi uniforms.
2. Censorship isn’t refusing to provide people with a service. Censorship would be if the guy tried to prevent anyone, even the couple themselves, from recording the wedding.

-Ra- wrote:

Cordel One wrote:Discrimination is discrimination with or without state support.

Freedom is freedom regardless of whether you agree with how a person exercises their freedom.

Novus America wrote:

Cordel One wrote:Discrimination is discrimination with or without state support.

The laws that apply are different. You cannot demand a Catholic Church hold a gay wedding just because the hold weddings.

But a governmental entity probably cannot say they will not have your wedding if they allow others.

New haven america wrote:

Ors Might wrote:1. False. Every artist I know is broke as shit and none of them have made degenerate artwork of two bipedal wolves in Nazi uniforms.
2. Censorship isn’t refusing to provide people with a service. Censorship would be if the guy tried to prevent anyone, even the couple themselves, from recording the wedding.

1. That you know about.
2. Sure it is, a lot of places during the Jim Crow era would try to censor the fact that black people use the establishment by putting them as far from the public eye as possible. Why are you for censorship?

Cordel One wrote:

-Ra- wrote:Freedom is freedom regardless of whether you agree with how a person exercises their freedom.

Novus America wrote:
The laws that apply are different. You cannot demand a Catholic Church hold a gay wedding just because the hold weddings.

But a governmental entity probably cannot say they will not have your wedding if they allow others.

Again with the segregationist arguments. We're kinda going around in circles so I'm gonna head somewhere else now, but these people do deserve rights.

Ors Might wrote:

New haven america wrote:1. That you know about.
2. Sure it is, a lot of places during the Jim Crow era would try to censor the fact that black people use the establishment by putting them as far from the public eye as possible. Why are you for censorship?

1. Fuck, I might be friends with secret furries. GG, mate.
2. I’m sorry that you’ve chosen to be wrong but declining to provide a service isn’t censorship.

-Ra- wrote:

Cordel One wrote:
Again with the segregationist arguments. We're kinda going around in circles so I'm gonna head somewhere else now, but these people do deserve rights.

And religious people deserve the right to practice and observe their religion.

Freedom of religion is enshrined in the US constitution. The right of gay people to get married isn't. The former supersedes the latter.

Cordel One wrote:

-Ra- wrote:And religious people deserve the right to practice and observe their religion.

Freedom of religion is enshrined in the US constitution. The right of gay people to get married isn't. The former supersedes the latter.

New haven america wrote:

Ors Might wrote:1. Fuck, I might be friends with secret furries. GG, mate.
2. I’m sorry that you’ve chosen to be wrong but declining to provide a service isn’t censorship.

1. No no, you are friends with furries, you just don't know about it yet.
2. So says the individual who's pro-censorship.

Cordel One wrote:

-Ra- wrote:Freedom is freedom regardless of whether you agree with how a person exercises their freedom.

Novus America wrote:
The laws that apply are different. You cannot demand a Catholic Church hold a gay wedding just because the hold weddings.

But a governmental entity probably cannot say they will not have your wedding if they allow others.

Again with the segregationist arguments. We're kinda going around in circles so I'm gonna head somewhere else now, but these people do deserve rights.

Cordel One wrote:

-Ra- wrote:And religious people deserve the right to practice and observe their religion.

Freedom of religion is enshrined in the US constitution. The right of gay people to get married isn't. The former supersedes the latter.

Cordel One wrote:

-Ra- wrote:And religious people deserve the right to practice and observe their religion.

Freedom of religion is enshrined in the US constitution. The right of gay people to get married isn't. The former supersedes the latter.

Ors Might wrote:

New haven america wrote:1. No no, you are friends with furries, you just don't know about it yet.
2. So says the individual who's pro-censorship.

1. What have I done to deserve this?
2. So says the individual who’s pro-being wrong.

-Ra- wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
They can just find another hotel or restaurant too?

It depends. If the couple are in need of necessary shelter or food, then no it should not be legal to deny service. However, if hotel and restaurant is a commodity purchase and the couple can find accommodation elsewhere, then a bed-and-breakfast owner should have the right to deny service to a gay couple.

Cordel One wrote:

-Ra- wrote:And religious people deserve the right to practice and observe their religion.

Freedom of religion is enshrined in the US constitution. The right of gay people to get married isn't. The former supersedes the latter.

-Ra- wrote:

Cordel One wrote:

"I want the civil right to force people to be my wedding videographer."

Some civil right huh?

Also comparing religious Christians with the KKK? Stay classy, leftists.

New haven america wrote:

Ors Might wrote:1. What have I done to deserve this?
2. So says the individual who’s pro-being wrong.

1. You decided to be friends with struggling artists.
2. I see the right's trend of unoriginality continues in every facet of life.

-Ra- wrote:

Cordel One wrote:

(Image)

"I want the civil right to force people to be my wedding videographer."

Some civil right huh?

Also comparing religious Christians with the KKK? Stay classy, leftists.

San Lumen wrote:

-Ra- wrote:It depends. If the couple are in need of necessary shelter or food, then no it should not be legal to deny service. However, if hotel and restaurant is a commodity purchase and the couple can find accommodation elsewhere, then a bed-and-breakfast owner should have the right to deny service to a gay couple.

Why should they be able to? By your logic why shouldn't we repeal the civil rights act?

Cordel One wrote:

-Ra- wrote:"I want the civil right to force people to be my wedding videographer."

Some civil right huh?

Also comparing religious Christians with the KKK? Stay classy, leftists.

Hating gay people isn't a Christian value, most Christians I know would hate being put under that label.

Cordel One wrote:

-Ra- wrote:"I want the civil right to force people to be my wedding videographer."

Some civil right huh?

Also comparing religious Christians with the KKK? Stay classy, leftists.

Hating gay people isn't a Christian value, most Christians I know would hate being put under that label.

-Ra- wrote:

Cordel One wrote:Hating gay people isn't a Christian value, most Christians I know would hate being put under that label.

Not really about hating gay people. It's about staying true to one's religious convictions.

-Ra- wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
Why should they be able to? By your logic why shouldn't we repeal the civil rights act?

Because serving gay people may be retrograde to their religious beliefs, and forcing them to condone same-sex couples and same-sex activities would be a violation of their religious freedom.

Cordel One wrote:Hating gay people isn't a Christian value, most Christians I know would hate being put under that label.

Not really about hating gay people. It's about staying true to one's religious convictions.