I'm glad we are using the dictionary to sort this out. I'm sure the guy who wrote it knows best
Supreme Court ruling- refusing to photo gay wedding is discrimination
by SadElder 112 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
DuvanMuvan
wait Rattigan350 so are you fine with a restuarant owner not allowing black people to eat at his restuarant in this day and age?
sorry didnt see that last part you put.
But why isn't it the same?
-
Viviane
You need to use another dictionary. Dictionary.com is more of a Wikipedia, not a scholarly dictionary. Oxford, Merriam-Webster, etc. are examples of scholarly dictionaries.
Oh, sorry, YOU need to use another dictionary. Do you REALLY think that anyone would allow someone that can't even do their own research to suddenly start deciding which sources are acceptable? Silly wabbit, that's kwazy!
Quoting one union of a same sex couple is cherry picking a rare instance.
BZZZZ! Wrongo! Cherry picking is ignoring data that doesn't support your argument and only selecting those data points that do! Rejecting a perfectly valid example means you, kwazy guy, are the one cherry picking!
The fact is that the term marriage is defined as between man and woman. So, why are same sex couples trying to change the definition.
That is one of the definitions it has had over time. Ignoring that fact won't make it go away!
Why would same sex partners WANT to use a term that so closely associates their union with thousands of years of same sex union?
Let's re-frame the question! Why would proponents of monogamous marriage WANT to use a term that rarely ever meant what they now want to claim it always meant? Why would a society that supposedly empowers women WANT to use a term that historically meant women and pubescent girls forced into that arrangement were property with next to no rights? Why would a society that condemns pederasty WANT to use a a term that, by moderns standards, was the equivalent of forced and statutory rape?
Or, why would black folk WANT to eat at restaurants that serve salad when they have all those delicious fried chicken joints?
-
Viviane
And this is not the same as Whites Only signs. Like Lambsbottom above said "I am proud to be anti-gay marriage.". I also am anti-gay marriage. There is no such thing. It is called being friends..
It's the exact same thing. Hey, some people are proud when they make racist jokes.
A Witness photographer can refuse to do a Catholic wedding.
Oh, and, depending on how the person is hired, actually, yeah, that could also be illegal.
-
wearewatchingyouman
Don't worry. Soon enough it will be illegal to refuse service to people without money, because you're discriminating against the poor. You know, since being poor isn't a choice and all. Then we can all be equal, and none of this will matter because no individuals will own businesses.
-
DuvanMuvan
wearewatching i feel like that's unfair to make that comparison between the two scenarioes (scenarios?).
If someone who was poor but had enough money to pay for something was refused service anyway just for being poor then yeah that's discrimination.
-
Viviane
Don't worry. Soon enough it will be illegal to refuse service to people without money, because you're discriminating against the poor. You know, since being poor isn't a choice and all. Then we can all be equal, and none of this will matter because no individuals will own businesses.
-
keyser soze
Soon enough it will be illegal to refuse service to people without money
Talk about a red herring. If somebody can't pay for your services, they aren't a customer, they're charity.
-
Rattigan350
"wait Rattigan350 so are you fine with a restuarant owner not allowing black people to eat at his restuarant in this day and age?
But why isn't it the same?"
No shoes, no shirt, no service. Business can set codes of conduct for customers. Forcing people to do work they don't want is slavery.
Photographers are mostly sole proprietors. In which they can refuse to do any work they want. I had a small business and I could make up any reason to not do work for anyone. We don't do that job, we are closed, our equipment can't do that, etc. But then they don't get paid. However as employees, the person can refuse and the company can assign another employee to do the job.
While restaurants can put signs up that say "Whites Only". It is private property and they can do what they want. But it is bad for their business. The Jim Crow laws mandated such things, and did not make it a choice. It is like Branch Ricky hiring Jackie Robinson. He did that because why not get all of that money from the black fans.
Today, if a racist waiter sees blacks at a table, he can refuse to serve them and tell another waiter to server them. If the business did something like that, though, the negative press would shut them down.
America was founded on Freedom of religion. That then became extended to other groups because of bad treatment to them. Women gained the right to vote and equal pay. Blacks gained rights. Now abuses are illegal. If people abused gays, then that is illegal under the assault and battery laws.
-
Viviane
No shoes, no shirt, no service. Business can set codes of conduct for customers.
Completely irrelevant.
Forcing people to do work they don't want is slavery.
It is, and no one is being forced to do anything.
Photographers are mostly sole proprietors. In which they can refuse to do any work they want. I had a small business and I could make up any reason to not do work for anyone.
So they can refuse to do any work they don't want to do, as long as they lie about the reason? OK.
While restaurants can put signs up that say "Whites Only". It is private property and they can do what they want.
Actually, that's wrong and wrong.
Today, if a racist waiter sees blacks at a table, he can refuse to serve them and tell another waiter to server them.
Not legally!
If people abused gays, then that is illegal under the assault and battery laws.
That doesn't seem relevant.
