Utah gay wedding expo connects couples, friendly businesses

originally posted by: mamabeth
a reply to: Boadicea

I don't know what Bible you read from,I read the KJV,NKJV and the Jewish New Testament.

The one that says:

11 But He said to them, “All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given: 12 For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.”

Prior to this, Jesus answers the Pharisees questions about divorce, specifically the appropriate causes a man might invoke to divorce his wife, using the teachings of Moses, based on their understanding of marriage and divorce.

Do note that marriage in those times were quite different than today.

It must also be noted that there are many historical references in the early Church to same-sex unions; such as the Adelphopoiesis ceremony:

Such ceremonies can be found in the history of the Catholic Church up until the 14th century and in the Eastern Orthodox Church up until the 18th century. Documented in Byzantine manuscripts from the ninth to the fifteenth centuries, prayers established participants as "'spiritual brothers' (pneumatikous adelphous) and contained references to sainted pairs, including most notably SS Sergius and Bacchus, who were famous for their friendship."

You can find more here if you are so inclined.

a reply to: Boadicea

The problem isn't hatred. Hatred alone does not violate anyone else's rights. Denying equal access to public accommodations however does. As equal members of a society, all individuals within that society have an equal right to participate.

One of the benefits of society is the ability to own and operate a business. Another equally important benefit of being a member of a society is having businesses from which to purchase goods and services. It's a mutually advantageous arrangement.

Should the business owner reap the advantages without reciprocating? Perhaps the business owner's customers and suppliers shouldn't make use of roads funded by tax dollars of those he would disadvantage? Perhaps he should get only as much protection from law enforcement and the courts as his contributions and those of his customer's provide for? I could go on and on but I think you see where I'm going with this?

Even if a person chooses not to purchase a good or service from a business, the business owner has already benefited from that person and that person didn't have a choice to discriminate against the business owner.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: ketsuko
I like this idea a lot better than the one where someone gets sued out of a livelihood over a difference of faith and opinion.

No one forced them to open a business.

No one forces anyone to patronize a place that doesn't cater to you either.

Do buddhists seek books on bnuddhism at a Christian bookstore?

That has what to do with what?

Anyway, if all they sell is Christian books - - then they are not discriminating.

Every customer has the same right to buy any of their books.

If all I sell is traditional wedding cakes for traditional wedding ceremonies, anyone is free to buy one of those.

Sorry, if your wedding is not traditional, I don't do cakes for those kinds of weddings. But that's not good enough. I get sued.

A cake is a cake.

No baker is required to put 2 grooms on the top.

To me this thread is sort of like saying "hey look, they made a negro only playground for your kids to play in, how nice, its so sweet and friendly, now they don't have to play with our kids"

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Boadicea

Denying equal access to public accommodations however does [violate rights].

I agree with that statement -- but I think we define "public accommodations" differently! Public accommodations are provided by government via taxpayer dollars, and you're right, denying equal access to government services violates rights. All government services must be offerred and available equally to all. Period.

But the private sector can offer what they will, to who, when and where they choose.

As equal members of a society, all individuals within that society have an equal right to participate.

And everyone does have an equal right to participate... to make mutually agreeable and beneficial contracts for goods and services with anyone so inclined. No one has the right to force anyone to provide goods or services... nor to punish them for not doing so.

One of the benefits of society is the ability to own and operate a business. Another equally important benefit of being a member of a society is having businesses from which to purchase goods and services. It's a mutually advantageous arrangement.

A benefit of society? I suppose. But I would qualify that to say that we all have an inalienable right to make a living for ourselves, and to trade our goods/services resulting from our labor under the conditions we set for ourselves. If others don't like our conditions, then we don't do business. Either/all parties can choose not to do business with another for whatever reason they choose.

Should the business owner reap the advantages without reciprocating?

I don't follow. The business owner cannot require anyone to purchase his goods/services (well, with the possible exception of Obamacare!) The business owner can only offer the best he has and hope for customers. The customer decides where and if to purchase anything.

Perhaps the business owner's customers and suppliers shouldn't make use of roads funded by tax dollars of those he would disadvantage? Perhaps he should only get only as much protection from law enforcement and the courts as his contributions and those of his customer's provide for? I could go on and on but I think you see where I'm going with this?

You're giving me too much credit! I'm not sure where you're going with this!!! So if my response is way off base, my apologies.

But first, I would say that all of those are government provided services... public accommodations... and so no, we cannot deny them equal access. Second, as long as they are paying their taxes, their "fair share" as deemed by the government, then they are contributing.

However, I would have no problem using the law to reward those who do serve the public without discrimination, whether through the tax code or incorporation laws or ??? I'm open to suggestions.

Even if a person chooses not to purchase a good or service from a business, the business owner has already benefited from that person and that person didn't have a choice to discriminate against he business owner.

I'd say that in that sense they're even. Both contribute in the form of various taxes, as determined by the government, and both have the same equal right to all government services.

originally posted by: Boadicea


I agree with that statement -- but I think we define "public accommodations" differently! Public accommodations are provided by government via taxpayer dollars, and you're right, denying equal access to government services violates rights. All government services must be offerred and available equally to all. Period.

But the private sector can offer what they will, to who, when and where they choose.

The only definition that really counts is the legal one.

definitions.uslegal.com...

originally posted by: veracity
To me this thread is sort of like saying "hey look, they made a negro only playground for your kids to play in, how nice, its so sweet and friendly, now they don't have to play with our kids"

As said, my experience is with having a disabled mom in the 50s.

Most polling places were at city hall with lots of steps. If you couldn't get volunteers to carry you and your wheelchair up those steps you didn't vote.

Equal rights/treatment had to be forced.

Anyone who thinks the disabled were accommodated VOLUNTARILY need a history lesson.

Most businesses threw my mom out because they feared she'd damage their merchandise or make other customers feel uncomfortable.

Free Market BS.

Equality had and has to be forced.

I wonder how many of you would be losing your freaking minds right now if this was a straight wedding expo.

I imagine every business owner spotted there would have an army of political activists harassing them, their customers, and their vendors until they would eventually have to close their doors.

originally posted by: Bone75
I wonder how many of you would be losing your freaking minds right now if this was a straight wedding expo.

Good lord you try hard and fall flat.

There are 'straight' wedding expos all the time. They're called 'Wedding Expos"...

It's because of the intolerance of the haters and bigots that there is a need to have gay wedding expos.

originally posted by: aorAki

Good lord you try hard and fall flat.

There are 'straight' wedding expos all the time. They're called 'Wedding Expos"...

It's because of the intolerance of the haters and bigots that there is a need to have gay wedding expos.

What about an expo for wedding suppliers (or whatever) that have explicitly shared Christian values?

Talk about people losing their s#.

And you know it.

ETA: Oh, and let's hold the expo in San Francisco, where we can offend as many non-straight people as we possibly can at once. The biggest bang for our buck.

Anyone else take note of where this little party was held?

Ya think that might be for a reason?

originally posted by: aorAki

originally posted by: Bone75
I wonder how many of you would be losing your freaking minds right now if this was a straight wedding expo.

There are 'straight' wedding expos all the time. They're called 'Wedding Expos"...

Lol that's exactly the response I was expecting.

Just like all spring breaks are white spring breaks right?

a reply to: Boadicea

So,I can assume you are interested in this new Bible I have heard that will be
gay friendly?

a reply to: mamabeth

Why do you hate gays?

What, explicitly, is it about 'them' that causes you to judge them so harshly?

Better question.

Why would a persecuted minority group feel the need to organize an event for themselves?

And I bet there are no signs telling straights they aren't welcome.

Many LGBT targeted businesses have closed these last few years. Why? Because they are no longer needed.

Sad to say, an LGBT Wedding event is still a need.

a reply to: aorAki

You are really in for a rude surprise...I don't hate gays!
BUT,because I am against gay marriage that automatically
labels me a homophobe and a hate-filled racist.

a reply to: mamabeth

No, just an ignorant bigot. What would your God think about your judgments?

Kudos to them. Sadly you just know sone bigots will cry out "gay agenda! " "keep it away from my kids!" Etc.

originally posted by: mamabeth
a reply to: aorAki

You are really in for a rude surprise...I don't hate gays!
BUT,because I am against gay marriage that automatically
labels me a homophobe and a hate-filled racist.

Yes. I'm afraid it does. You can't have it both ways.

originally posted by: Boadicea
There is no virtue in forcing anyone to serve others in any way or for any reason.

Laws are for those with no ethics.
Those with no ethics must be FORCED by law to live peacefully amongst his neighbors, or is exiled.
Perhaps as people learn to Love, such 'ethics/Virtues' will grow naturally, from within.
But until then, I'll be damned if I want to live somewhere where every low IQ ignorant bigot can determine for himself whether to serve me in a store based on his discrimination of my color, or mustache, or whatever is going through his tiny bigoted 'mind' at the moment that I just need to pick up a quart of milk and some bread!
I don't need some fcuking hypocrite singling me out and giving me discriminatory grief!!
If you don't like it, move to someone else's town!
You open your store in MY town, you behave nicely!
And that goes for everyone in it!
Or visiting it! *__-

Xtians always need someone to persecute, it's their religious practice!
Don't want Shariah?
Then don't be a hypocrite and allow Xtian Shariah!

a reply to: kaylaluv

The only that really counts is the legal one.

True enough. And I disagree on what "public" accommodations should be.

I should have been more specific.