What's new
By:

Faster than I predicted

DutchJazzer said:
lp2ho8.jpg



back on topic they dont sue pornogrphy for discriminating cus they are *******.
they wont win that fight.


funny thing is it is wrong to force pronostars to do gay ****.
but not wrong to force people to do gay **** against their princaple.


**** they gay right groups right up the ***
Click to expand...

Called it.
 
Oh my Dutch is the best!!!

pronostars...

Between the misspellings, the typos and the lost in translation factor, his posts can be good for a real LOL mkment
 
LogGrad98 said:
I wonder this: why would a gay couple seek out and then sue a company that has made it pretty clear they wouldn't like to cater to gay couples? It seems this is what is happening. Is it a purposeful attack, so to speak? Take this wedding chapel for instance. They have not been hiding anything about their preferences, so why would the gay couple specifically seek out this chapel, in not just to make a spectacle and example out of them? Could there be ulterior motives at play?

(taking the obvious religious connotations out of the argument, say if a similar law were passed about religious institutions for ****s and giggles) If I wanted to be married by a mormon bishop because of religious affiliation, but I didn't want to be married on a freaking basketball court, and if I knew that the beautiful protestant church in the middle of town would not allow a mormon wedding there, I would not make a huge stink about it, I would just seek out a venue that was ok with this being a mormon wedding.
Click to expand...

Don't want this to get lost in the dutch-isms. Interested in hearing thoughts on this...
 
LogGrad98 said:
Don't want this to get lost in the dutch-isms. Interested in hearing thoughts on this...
Click to expand...

I think either scenario is possible.

They simply may not have known

or

They could have targeted that business to force compliance witht their views.

In my opinion actions like this do far more harm than good to their own cause. Refer to the Oregon baker and the New Mexico Photog.
 
LogGrad98 said:
I wonder this: why would a gay couple seek out and then sue a company that has made it pretty clear they wouldn't like to cater to gay couples? It seems this is what is happening. Is it a purposeful attack, so to speak? Take this wedding chapel for instance. They have not been hiding anything about their preferences, so why would the gay couple specifically seek out this chapel, in not just to make a spectacle and example out of them? Could there be ulterior motives at play?

(taking the obvious religious connotations out of the argument, say if a similar law were passed about religious institutions for ****s and giggles) If I wanted to be married by a mormon bishop because of religious affiliation, but I didn't want to be married on a freaking basketball court, and if I knew that the beautiful protestant church in the middle of town would not allow a mormon wedding there, I would not make a huge stink about it, I would just seek out a venue that was ok with this being a mormon wedding.
Click to expand...

sorry for the hijack...

I am truly JUST GUESSING about this but it would not surprise me one bit if the local ACLU chapter was a primary instigator in this.

There may not have even been a actual gay couple wanting to get married there. It may have been more of a a hypothetical situation set up by the ACLU.

Not that I've done any real research into this case, but from what I did read, I don't recall any mention of an actual couple.
 
LogGrad98 said:
I wonder this: why would a gay couple seek out and then sue a company that has made it pretty clear they wouldn't like to cater to gay couples? It seems this is what is happening. Is it a purposeful attack, so to speak? Take this wedding chapel for instance. They have not been hiding anything about their preferences, so why would the gay couple specifically seek out this chapel, in not just to make a spectacle and example out of them? Could there be ulterior motives at play?
Click to expand...

For much the same reason black people used to sit at lunch counters reserved for whites only, even though there were available seats at other restaurants. The businesses that refuse gay marriages are making a claim, intended or unintended, that they think gay marriages are inferior and unworthy.

LogGrad98 said:
(taking the obvious religious connotations out of the argument, say if a similar law were passed about religious institutions for ****s and giggles) If I wanted to be married by a mormon bishop because of religious affiliation, but I didn't want to be married on a freaking basketball court, and if I knew that the beautiful protestant church in the middle of town would not allow a mormon wedding there, I would not make a huge stink about it, I would just seek out a venue that was ok with this being a mormon wedding.
Click to expand...

Until the recent change, the chapel in question was, legally, more like a banquet hall than protestant church.
 
One Brow said:
For much the same reason black people used to sit at lunch counters reserved for whites only, even though there were available seats at other restaurants. The businesses that refuse gay marriages are making a claim, intended or unintended, that they think gay marriages are inferior and unworthy.
Click to expand...

So it was likely an attempt to set up the chapel rather than a real request. Isn't that a frivolous lawsuit?

One Brow said:
Until the recent change, the chapel in question was, legally, more like a banquet hall than protestant church.
Click to expand...

Hence my caveat in parentheses at the beginning.
 
moevillini said:
sorry for the hijack...

I am truly JUST GUESSING about this but it would not surprise me one bit if the local ACLU chapter was a primary instigator in this.

There may not have even been a actual gay couple wanting to get married there. It may have been more of a a hypothetical situation set up by the ACLU.

Not that I've done any real research into this case, but from what I did read, I don't recall any mention of an actual couple.
Click to expand...


My thought gets a little conspiracy theoryish, but I see this playing right into the fears of the anti-gay marriage crowd and getting them more riled up then anything.

I'd have to re-read the article about the wedding hall, but I don't believe they were actually sued. I thought they were just informed that their refusal to marry gay couples could put them on the wrong side of the law. Again, I could very well be wrong.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
LogGrad98 said:
So it was likely an attempt to set up the chapel rather than a real request. Isn't that a frivolous lawsuit?
Click to expand...

If they had every intention of going through with the service, then regardless of any other motivations, it is not frivolous.

LogGrad98 said:
Hence my caveat in parentheses at the beginning.
Click to expand...

Such a law aimed at religious buildings would be struck down, hard, by the courts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top