Gays will have their cake, and eat it too. Supreme court decision.

So it's ok for a Muslim cab driver to deny you service because you're carrying a bottle of wine, simply because alcohol is against his religion? Even if he's got the only cab within 20 miles?

But then it's illegal for a Christian baker to refuse to bake a gay cake even though there are ten other bakeries within five miles?

I don't understand the difference.

 

And it is the Dept head or direct supervisor that determines that the what is a priority and that the who is a big deal, And they decides a level of compliance that is or is not acceptable Maybe the boss redefines Fundie Francine's job description and Liberal Leon, puts in a new sentence saying that servicing licensing requests is a shared responsibility between two positions. Or he asks liberal Leon to help francine out, so now it is as much his job as hers. Satisfied? . It all leads exactly to the same place that I started. Management manages the dept resources, responsibilities and priorities. As long as the work is done, and nobody's civil rights are violated, I don't care who makes the damn license out, or why someone does not make out the license. I pay someone else to decide what the dept can tolerate with respect to individual desires or wishes, and what the dept cannot.

This is not black or white (*)(*)(*)(*), and you cannot turn it into black or white (*)(*)(*)(*), because people are involved.

 

It's already well known that if you're in San Francisco and you accidently drop your car keys, you kick them all the way to San Jose before you bend over to pick them up.

 

So are you prepared to do something about the INTL terrorists who promote these type of violent rhetoric against "infidels"?

 

That is because people with bottles of booze is not a protected class as determined by a legislative body, which means the employer determines the rule. That is also true of people with dogs unless that dog is a service animal for someone who is disabled because the disabled is a protected class according to federal law. You can refuse to bake that cake in states where sexual orientation is not a protected class.

 

It sounds like you spent a few paragraphs saying you let others make the decision.

But, the issue is what decisions should be legal, isn't it?

 

I lived in Sausalito, right across the Golden Gate, and visited San Fran often, and didn't really see many guys I would peg as gay, other than the Castro. In San Diego, La Jolla, Hillcrest, was JUST as densely gay as the Castro. Then of course Hollywood. So, if I were you, I would really, to be safe, stay out of California entirely.

 

The very IDEA that sexual orientation is a "protected class" is absurd to the idea of protected class. Originally, it was meant to cover those who were discriminated(IE: Blacks) and then it expanded as necessary. Orientation, a "class"? Then I suppose every domestic animal should be protected in the same lens.

But the huge issue with this, is the one that you outlined BT: The only issue at relevance is that they get the license(see: Kim Davis). That's all. If a clerk cannot refuse due to his/her religious reasons, then he must be allowed to do all other work. Why should there only be one clerk? This is an opportunity to expand jobs!(Albeit, in a very small and irrelevant market such as marriage clerks but alas.)

The Supreme Court cannot solve political problems and the only way it does so, is through the gavel. The tragedy is that this is a civil case, it should have never been brought to the Supreme Court. The misuse of the Court has contributed to my feelings of abolition. The Supreme Court is anything but Supreme. It's a shamockery to us all.

 

Which decisions should be legal is already established. The license must be provided. The county clerk's office must provide it, and it must be provided in substantially the same circumstance as any license is provided to a straight couple. that is a done deal. I am just not prepared to tell the county clerks office how it needs to accomplish this goal or who has to do it, or whether they should or should not accommodate the idiosyncrasies of their staff,let alone how they might accommodate it That call is for them to make based on the staffing needs, the quality of their employees, their budget constraints, maybe the union contract if one is in place.

Maybe the smart thing is to hold to a hard line and insist that Fundie Francine make out that license and term her for insubhordination. Maybe its smarter to look for a creative solution that keeps an otherwise good employee on board.

 

30,000 same sex marriages and less than a half dozen refusal of service lawsuits from gay couples.
Is this really a problem? Donald Trump has been personally involved in hundreds of lawsuits.

 

That is not my position either. Religious employees are not entitled to keep their job and refuse. No accommodation is be required. If the employer does not want to pander to them, then that too is fine. I am saying it may be very easy to work around within the dept, and this is what managers are paid to decide.

Davis was not an employee. She was an elective official and the head of the dept, and she did not find a solution, she expected gay couples to go elsewhere for the license. That is outrageous. They should not have to figure how to make this happen, she should have, and it better not inconvenience the gay couple!

 

Lost cause man.

The Snowflake generation doesn't even know what a man and woman are ..they are beyond confused and perverse

 

But but but La Jolla is full of Surf Nazis !!!

How to the gays feel about that ?

There's been Surf Nazis in La Jolla going back to the 1950's.

Photo of Surf Nazis in La Jolla, 1957. -> http://encyclopediaofsurfing.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/surf_nazis_Windansea-Version-4.jpg

More Surf Nazis on there wat to the beach. -> http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_pbT9iunrg...AA58/Kh1jK60DHBA/s400/aog-surf-nazis_2niv.jpg

The Mobil Surf Nazi Brigade. -> https://learnenglishorstarve.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/surf-nazis-1958.jpg?w=594

 

How about two hairy dudes in high heels, lacy cuffs and wigs?

 

The gays all have surf Nazi poolboys. Duh.

 

You are quite correct. It is absurd. There should be no reason to protect from bigotry. It is to our shame, as a country.

 

I fail to see any rational relationship between this post and the topic of this thread.

 

I suggest you get your facts straight. The Muslim cab drivers in Minneapolis refused service to customers with dogs and alcohol specifically on religious grounds. http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2827800&page=1

"It is against our faith and the airport is discriminating against Muslim drivers," says a cab driver who would only give his first name, Hashim.
​

Hashim, you need to find another job. And get real: You are not being discriminated against... rather it is you who are doing the discriminating you simpleton.

These jerks ultimately filed a lawsuit against the airport commission who imposed penalties on drivers who refused to take certain fares. Fortunately (and surprisingly given Minnesota's highly politically-correct atmosphere), the airport prevailed and the court ruled that drivers could not refuse a fare at the airport. 75% of the cabbies there are Somali Muslims. I understand many of them have left the trade. Good.

 

The difference is that political correctness dictates we must kow tow to Muslims.

 

What happens then when nobody in the government office wants to help the queers? What do you do then? Making special accommodations for government employees so they don't get their feelings hurt becomes a bureaucratic quagmire - and I'd like to suggest we have enough of those. Again, you are ignoring the distinction between a private business and a government office. A private business can set its own rules. The government must act dispassionately in it deliberations, acts, and records. You can go to a different bakery - you cannot go to a different government. And the government - and by extension its civil service functionaries - must by necessity serve all citizens equally, regardless of how icky a hideously ugly triple-divorcee may find some of them to be.

 

More importantly, it's really none of your business. YMMV.

 

Actually that is not even remotely true. When you are a licensed cab driver, there are very specific rules under which circumstances you may refuse a fare - and having a dog at the airport or a bottle of duty free liquor is not one of those circumstances. Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed and the Muslim jerks who filed a lawsuit against the Minneapolis Airport Commission so they could refuse to pick up passengers they didn't want to take were told to pound sand straight up their Muslim asses by the court.

 

It's a license, and it has absolutely ZERO importance. Is there a marriage police? There isn't. Given that there isn't, all reasonable accomodations should be made. Hell, one made the proposal to have the COUPLES print out the licenses, all they'd have to do then is sign it. That's a win-win for everyone. She doesn't have to approve anything, and its easier for the couples. Hell, give them a STAMP of approval and have them stamp it.

The licenses are outdated, making a non issue into a complex one, because self-determination has been damned in the West.

 

Maybe you misunderstood the part where I said the government agency MUST accommodate, and it MUST accommodate at the same time and place and it may not discriminate or treat the couples differently. I am just not telling them how they get there. If nobody wants to serve gay couple then someone is going to have to suck it up, and suck it up quickly. There is an absolute duty to provide the service. I don't care if their feelings are hurt. I don't care that their religious beliefs are compromised. We do not disagree on any of that. If the clerks office wants fire Fundie Francine for refusing to , it has my utmost and unqualified blessing. It also can choose from any number of options that allow her to recuse and have someone else do it in the same office because when they have someone else do it, they are in compliance.

 

Good. Insane homosexuality is even an issue. And all because of religious zealots.

Ugh