Christian Chapel Owners Threatened With Jail For Refusing to Marry Gays

[Dos Equis]

Informing someone that they could THEORETICALLY violate a law BEFORE they've violated it is not the same thing as accusing them of violating a law.

It's slightly less oppressive than Gestapo tactics. Slightly.

lol.  Are you just incapable of acknowledging when you are wrong?  lol

There is no way any person in this country should face jail time for violating an anti-discrimination statute.  Fines?  Yes.  Shut down their business?  Yes.  But jail?  Puh-leaze.     Straight up Gestapo. 

[Al Doggity]

lol.  Are you just incapable of acknowledging when you are wrong?  lol

There is no way any person in this country should face jail time for violating an anti-discrimination statute.  Fines?  Yes.  Shut down their business?  Yes.  But jail?  Puh-leaze.     Straight up Gestapo. 

'

You said they are being threatened with jail time. No one has threatened them with jail time. No one has accused them of anything. The closest thing you had was a quote from the city attorney saying that they might theoretically be in violation of a law..

[avxo]

The  reason for these civil rights statutes is precisely because the people they are most likely to affect are the least likely to be "uniquely positioned" to punish businesses.

So it is your position that a business owner shouldn't be able to decide who to do business with? Let's test you...

Should a lawyer be able to decide which clients to accept, or should he be required to represent anyone that walks in the door? If not, why not?

Should a mechanic be able to choose to not service motorcycles or should he be required to service whatever motor vehicle someone drives into his shop? If not, why not?

Should a strip club owner be able to choose to not allow a 300lbs cross-dressing builder from moonlighting as a stripper in his establishment?

Should a sushi restaurant owner be able to choose to not hire a sushi chef that is allergic to tuna fish?

And if you think that it's OK for business owners to make the above decisions, why shouldn't they be able to say "I don't want to serve black people" or "I don't want to hire gay people" or whathaveyou? What is achieved by forcing people to hide their bigotry instead of allowing them to expose themselves as bigots?

[avxo]

You said they are being threatened with jail time. No one has threatened them with jail time. No one has accused them of anything. The closest thing you had was a quote from the city attorney saying that they might theoretically be in violation of a law..

The statute in question allows for jail time. This isn't theoretical - it's the law. And it's unacceptable.

[Al Doggity]

So it is your position that a business owner shouldn't be able to decide who to do business with?

Discriminating based on race, sex, religion, sexual orientation? No, I don't.

[Al Doggity]

The statute in question allows for jail time. This isn't theoretical - it's the law. And it's unacceptable.

The city attorney in Dos Equis' quote used the word "theoretically".

[avxo]

Discriminating based on race, sex, religion, sexual orientation? No, I don't.

Why not? Why shouldn't people be able to run their businesses as they see fit? If their behavior is unacceptable - and I would hope that discriminating based on race, sex, religion and sexual orientation are - they won't be in business long.

Also, I notice that you avoided answering any of my questions. Why? Do you find the answers uncomfortable?

[avxo]

The city attorney in Dos Equis' quote used the word "theoretically".

Sure - in the same way that if you kill someone, theoretically you could get life in prison. The law is what it is - one of the possible punishments listed is a monetary fine and another is jail time. Regardless of whether the Knapps face jail time or not, it is unacceptable to have jail time on the books as a punishment for this violation, and I very much doubt that the statute would be upheld in Court if it were challenged.

[Straw Man]

You obviously didn't bother to read my post - which shouldn't surprise me I guess. I am going to try one more time; if you continue to refuse to read what I write, then I simply won't bother responding to you anyone; it's counterproductive for me to engage into debate with people who refuse to read what I write or which act like idiots.

In the sense that businesses usually have to be licensed, the licensing authority can impose whatever restrictions they want. However, as I said, I don't think that's right. If the Knapps want to have "The Knapps No-Homo Wedding Chapel" they should be able to - nobody should be forced to provide a service to others - and deal with the fallout from their customers. The government shouldn't be in the business of twisting people's arms into being tolerant.

I read it but we're not talking about Star Trek themed weddings

We're talking about a business that wants to discriminate based on sexual orientation...right?

[avxo]

I read it but we're not talking about Star Trek themed weddings

We're talking about a business that wants to discriminate based on sexual orientation...right?

Sure but that's a tangential issue. We agree that current law makes it illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation but allows discrimination based on your Trek/Wars affiliation. The question I was posing ultimately boils down to why is it OK to discriminate based on one but not the other and why one must be regulated but another mustn't?

[Al Doggity]

Why not? Why shouldn't people be able to run their businesses as they see fit? If their behavior is unacceptable - and I would hope that discriminating based on race, sex, religion and sexual orientation are - they won't be in business long.

The thing is your "hope"  historically doesn't mesh with reality.  Most of the people who fall into the categories described above will either be minorities within their communities or have little recourse in terms of power. If you have a community like idaho, which is predominately conservative and probably has a small gay population, there's very little chance of businesses suffering public backlash for accepting patronage from gay customers.

Also, I notice that you avoided answering any of my questions. Why? Do you find the answers uncomfortable?

I didn't avoid answering your question, I just took it for granted that the answer to all was obvious. Legally, businesses owner can and should be able to serve/hire whoever they want. But they should not be allowed to discriminate along race,sex, religion etc. lines.

[Al Doggity]

Sure - in the same way that if you kill someone, theoretically you could get life in prison. The law is what it is - one of the possible punishments listed is a monetary fine and another is jail time. Regardless of whether the Knapps face jail time or not, it is unacceptable to have jail time on the books as a punishment for this violation, and I very much doubt that the statute would be upheld in Court if it were challenged.

NO, theoretically, in the same way that there is a law on the books that may or may not apply to them, no one has accused them of violating, and as you just posted, might not even be upheld if the city tried to apply it to them. Which, not incidentally, it hasn't.

[Al Doggity]

Sure but that's a tangential issue.

Really? It's tangential? How many people are being kicked out of churches for Star Wars weddings? Can't they just go to the place where people are marrying ducks now that gay marriage is legal in several states.

[Straw Man]

Sure but that's a tangential issue. We agree that current law makes it illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation but allows discrimination based on your Trek/Wars affiliation. The question I was posing ultimately boils down to why is it OK to discriminate based on one but not the other and why one must be regulated but another mustn't?

discrimination based on sexual orientation is a tangential issue?

why are you trying to trivialize a human rights issue with this silly Star Trek example of yours

[avxo]

The thing is your "hope"  historically doesn't mesh with reality.  Most of the people who fall into the categories described above will either be minorities within their communities or have little recourse in terms of power. If you have a community like idaho, which is predominately conservative and probably has a small gay population, there's very little chance of businesses suffering public backlash for accepting patronage from gay customers.

So the "solution" is to force them to accept gay patronage?

I didn't avoid answering your question, I just took it for granted that the answer to all was obvious. Legally, businesses owner can and should be able to serve/hire whoever they want. But they should not be allowed to discriminate along race,sex, religion etc. lines.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't say that "business owners should be able to serve/hire whoever they want" and then in the very next sentence say that "they should not be allowed to discriminate along race,sex, religion etc. lines."

Either people can run their businesses as they see fit or they can't.
Either you think that people should be free to act as they see fit or you think that people should be forced to act how you see fit.
There's no in-between.

[Al Doggity]

So the "solution" is to force them to accept gay patronage?

Yes.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't say that "business owners should be able to serve/hire whoever they want" and then in the very next sentence say that "they should not be allowed to discriminate along race,sex, religion etc. lines."

Okay. Then, I'll combine the sentences:

"Business owners should be able to serve/hire whoever they want as long as they don't discriminate along race,sex, religion etc. lines."

[avxo]

Really? It's tangential? How many people are being kicked out of churches for Star Wars weddings? Can't they just go to the place where people are marrying ducks now that gay marriage is legal in several states.

Yes, it's tangential in the sense that both cases involve discrimination - it's just that you don't see one as discriminatory because... well... I'm not sure why. You try to boil it down to an issue of numbers. I'm curious, does it really matter if one person is discriminated against instead of one million? Tell us, how many people does it take before discrimination becomes wrong? A hundred? A thousand? A hundred thousand?

discrimination based on sexual orientation is a tangential issue?

No - but the point of the example is that just about any choice you make involves discrimination. No shirt, no shoes, no service? You're discriminating against those who like to go topless or shoeless. Why is that acceptable?

why are you trying to trivialize a human rights issue with this silly Star Trek example of yours

Except I'm not trying to trivialize this. I support the rights of gay people to get married and I don't think that the government should be able to decide who can and cannot get married; I believe that "marriage" as we know it today, should be split into two components: a civil and a religious component. The civil component should be available to consenting adults without regard for sex, orientation or anything else really. The religious components is up to whatever religious organization those getting married want to use and can employ its own criteria, but it's just the "cherry" on top of the proverbial sundae - it confers nothing special in the legal sense, over the civil marriage.

But I digress. The example I cited doesn't trivialize any human rights issue but highlights something imporant: you claim to not like discrimination, but in reality that's bullshit. What you don't like is when people discriminate based on factors that you personally find offensive, and that is what you wish to control.

[avxo]

Yes.

Well, now that we established that you believe that people should be forced to behave the way you want them to behave I am curious: do you believe that the Knapps have the right to close their business on the grounds that they do not wish to allow gay couples of use their facilities, or should they be forced to continue to operate?

Okay. Then, I'll combine the sentences:

"Business owners should be able to serve/hire whoever they want as long as they don't discriminate along race,sex, religion etc. lines."

Well, that makes you no less a hypocrite.

By the way, do answer this question: should a strip club owner be able to not hire a crossdresser and go for a female stripper instead? His decision is based solely on one factor: that one applicant is male and another is female, so clearly this is discriminating on the basis of sex. Is this acceptable?

[Al Doggity]

Yes, it's tangential in the sense that both cases involve discrimination - it's just that you don't see one as discriminatory because... well... I'm not sure why. You try to boil it down to an issue of numbers. I'm curious, does it really matter if one person is discriminated against instead of one million? Tell us, how many people does it take before discrimination becomes wrong? A hundred? A thousand? A hundred thousand?

No, that little blurb was just meant to highlight how off-base I found the analogy. As I said earlier, the people who are protected by these civil rights statutes are usually minorities or have limited power in society.

The comparison makes no sense. Gay-weddings are not theme weddings. Gays can have Star Wars theme weddings. Straights can have Elvis themed wedding. Asians can have Cosby themed weddings. If a business can't accommodate them all, then that's just how it goes. But if a business refuses to perform a wedding because the couple is Indian, then that's a civil rights violation.

[Primemuscle]

Ok?  And?  Are you saying they are lying?

If they do not, the Knapps say that they could “face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines,” according to a press release from Alliance Defending Freedom. The firm says they could reportedly face up to 180 days in jail or $1,000 in fines for each day they refuse.

I don't know how it's done in Utah, but in Oregon, they could be fined and also could serve time in jail. Ask the folks who refused to accommodate gay customers at their businesses here.

[Al Doggity]

Well, now that we established that you believe that people should be forced to behave the way you want them to behave

I believe people should operate their businesses legally. Look, civil rights statutes create a societal balance that does not exist naturally. If there are two Maori families  in an all-Irish city and the majority of the doctors in the city refuse to treat the Maori families, then it is a public safety issue. Even if the majority of citizens of the city don't harbor strong anti-Maori sentiment, the most likely reaction to them not getting treatment is likely apathy. If there's a growing Asian population in a predominately Italian city and the Italian business owners refuse to  hire Asians, that's an economic crisis brewing. Not just for asians, but for the whole city. I'm not going to go on with example after example. Based on what you've already posted, it's not really something that inspires argument in me. You either get it or you don't.

[avxo]

I believe people should operate their businesses legally.

I agree - the law is what it is and people should comply with it. The question is whether the law is proper and moral. I submit that it is not.

Look, civil rights statutes create a societal balance that does not exist naturally. If there are two Maori families  in an all-Irish city and the majority of the doctors in the city refuse to treat the Maori families, then it is a public safety issue.

Let's assume that a law was passed requiring the doctors to treat the Maori families. Doctors who were strongly against treating Maoris for some reason decide to go on a semi-permanent vacation. What will you do then? Force them to work and provide health services?

Even if the majority of citizens of the city don't harbor strong anti-Maori sentiment, the most likely reaction to them not getting treatment is likely apathy. If there's a growing Asian population in a predominately Italian city and the Italian business owners refuse to  hire Asians, that's an economic crisis brewing. Not just for asians, but for the whole city. I'm not going to go on with example after example. Based on what you've already posted, it's not really something that inspires argument in me. You either get it or you don't.

Right - so the Italians who are refusing to hire Asians are only hurting themselves. You can't stop irrational people from acting irrationally - you can only expose them and let their irrational behavior take care of them, as it invariably will.

[Dos Equis]

Right - so the Italians who are refusing to hire Asians are only hurting themselves. You can't stop irrational people from acting irrationally - you can only expose them and let their irrational behavior take care of them, as it invariably will.

Nah.  One of the things MLK said during the Civil Rights Movement was you need the law to control behavior.  He was right.  It will not change anyone's heart, but the law can force irrational people to do the right thing (or suffer the consequences). 

[Straw Man]

Yes, it's tangential in the sense that both cases involve discrimination - it's just that you don't see one as discriminatory because... well... I'm not sure why. You try to boil it down to an issue of numbers. I'm curious, does it really matter if one person is discriminated against instead of one million? Tell us, how many people does it take before discrimination becomes wrong? A hundred? A thousand? A hundred thousand?


No - but the point of the example is that just about any choice you make involves discrimination. No shirt, no shoes, no service? You're discriminating against those who like to go topless or shoeless. Why is that acceptable?



Except I'm not trying to trivialize this. I support the rights of gay people to get married and I don't think that the government should be able to decide who can and cannot get married; I believe that "marriage" as we know it today, should be split into two components: a civil and a religious component. The civil component should be available to consenting adults without regard for sex, orientation or anything else really. The religious components is up to whatever religious organization those getting married want to use and can employ its own criteria, but it's just the "cherry" on top of the proverbial sundae - it confers nothing special in the legal sense, over the civil marriage.

But I digress. The example I cited doesn't trivialize any human rights issue but highlights something imporant: you claim to not like discrimination, but in reality that's bullshit. What you don't like is when people discriminate based on factors that you personally find offensive, and that is what you wish to control.

attempting to conflate gay marriage with wanting a Star Trek themed wedding is trivializing their access to equal rights in my opinion

I do understand that tactic though

[Straw Man]