Christian Man Asks Thirteen Gay Bakeries To Bake Him Pro-Traditional Marriage Cake

[Mark SeaSigh]

What is the Biblical precedent for wedding vows?

Why would you think religious leaders who are granted ordination through the government and are mostly from non-profit corporations that are incorporated into that governement would be joining you in "holy matrimony" anyway?

Marriage is a covenant with God and each other. It shouldn't include the State. Why would you want that? It's no different than the Justice of the Peace, except it's someone setting aside God for the State instead of never representing God at all.

The Bible does define a Vow; you are A Crazy person that calls himself a Christian, and Rejects the God of the Bible.

The Jewish God is My God the LORD God; and Jesus is the Son of God, and the Lamb of God.

So, you do realize I was speaking about a Justice of the Peace Correct?

Do you consider them Holy Men?

I Don't, Why do you?

=M=

The Signing of that Document that Makes you "Legally Married" in the United States is a False Vow, if it Can be broken at anytime, and Known by those Signing it.

She is my Wife already, and we are already Married in God's Sight; Why won't the Pastors of the Christian Churches Marry Us?
I have the Father's Blessing.

Do you hear Me, you silly Extra-Biblical Believer?
If it's not in the Bible, and it came out of a Pasto'rs mouth; Why would you believe Him?

Why did you?

I think the Definition of the thought "Biblical Marriage", is Best defined by Defining the term "Wife" in the Biblical Work.

How does that Sound?

Can your Pastor do that?
Do you have a Pastor that taught you not to marry a Couple that lives together, Or did you turn into an ***umer Long before that?



[Genesis 2:23-24 KJV] 23 And Adam said, This [is] now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.


The Bible is So Perfect; I can't believe you didn't know something in the Second Chapter of the First book of the Bible you say your Religious Sect Studies on a Weekly basis.

Here's A Question;

What did your Pastor Teach You about the Biblical work, that you didn't already know by reading it, before you came to Believe in your Religion?


Woman - Came Out of Man; and Someone a Man leaves his Father and Mother to Live with, forevermore; Which is the Vow as Well. If you hit her, I will hit you; that's just how it Goes.

I'm not going to show you where the term Vow is Defined in the Biblical work; because I think you lack Understanding and Knowledge and would use it to negative Affect.

"Help Meet" means that she Was made Perfectly for me, to help me(et) in all the Places I lack; to make me the Whole Man that I was intended to be.

You Extra-Biblical Creationists are a bunch of Losers.

Do you want me to help you find the Term "Help Meet" in the Bible; and Help you define it, also?

You Hard-Hearted Foolish Stubborn Christian!!!

You;re so lost you cant even spell words like "Government" without sounding "Lost" (As In, the definition like ' you don't know what you mean, and have no way to back your Current Beliefs).

Now, Since I got "Had To" Define the term "Wife" to you; Why don't you tell me a Little about your personal definition of the Word "Holy Matrimony", and Prove it Wasn't invented by the Roman Catholic Church?

[Hebrews 13:1-25 KJV] 1 Let brotherly love continue. 2 Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares. 3 Remember them that are in bonds, as bound with them; [and] them which suffer adversity, as being yourselves also in the body. 4 Marriage [is] honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. 5 [Let your] conversation [be] without covetousness; [and be] content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee. 6 So that we may boldly say, The Lord [is] my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me. 7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of [their] conversation. 8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. 9 Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For [it is] a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein. 10 We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle. 11 For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp. 12 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. 13 Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach. 14 For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come. 15 By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of [our] lips giving thanks to his name. 16 But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased. 17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that [is] unprofitable for you. 18 Pray for us: for we trust we have a good conscience, in all things willing to live honestly. 19 But I beseech [you] the rather to do this, that I may be restored to you the sooner. 20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, 21 Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom [be] glory for ever and ever. Amen. 22 And I beseech you, brethren, suffer the word of exhortation: for I have written a letter unto you in few words. 23 Know ye that [our] brother Timothy is set at liberty; with whom, if he come shortly, I will see you. 24 Salute all them that have the rule over you, and all the saints. They of Italy salute you. 25 Grace [be] with you all. Amen.

 

[TracerBullet]

​

​

:rotfl: Good one.

​

I know 'em. You evidently do not. Watch a lot of television I bet. Not movies, they're usually more brutally honest, but television shows depict the most sanitized idealized LGBTQ's I've ever seen, like Barbyandken dolls. Flagrant misrepresentation. IOW a lie. Except that it's not a lie, it's a joke, television show LGBTQ's are a joke that the entertainment industry assumes that you get, so they don't tell you it's a joke, ever, because that'd insult your intelligence, as if you needed to be told it's a joke, rather than that you're smart and you've known all along that television shows' depiction of LGBTQ's is a joke.

We're given a trial, a testing. The way you fail is you lust. That's it; that's the whole thing. If you fail you fail. You don't have to keep failing and sometimes you do. Failing by lusting is sinning, see below.

Oh I know I know.

It's almost like you are saying "some of my best friends are..."

​

You do not understand them.

:rotfl: Good one.

Paul said, "...whatever is not from faith is sin."

Sin belies no faith.

your prejudice sure isn't from faith

 

[resodko]

.... equate gays to child abusers.

they're both perverts...

No...

yes traci, they are

both homosexuals and child abusers are perverts

 

[TracerBullet]

yes traci, they are

both homosexuals and child abusers are perverts

one is a minority and one is an individual that harms children. The pervert is the individual that can't see the differnce

 

[resodko]

one is a minority

yes, thank God child abusers are a minority

and one is an individual that harms children.

also true - homosexuals, by their very existence in our society, harm children by confusing them about what is right and what is wrong


looks like santa brought traci some common sense for Christmas! :thumb:

 

[resodko]

It's almost like you are saying "some of my best friends are..."


:rotfl: Good one.

your prejudice sure isn't from faith

hello, mcfly!

God wants us to be prejudiced against sin :duh:

 

[Jedidiah]

It's almost like you are saying "some of my best friends are..."...

Oh I know what I'm talking about, that's for sure.

...your prejudice sure isn't from faith

... :rotfl: Good one...

 

[genuineoriginal]

Yes, it can … sometimes. Sometimes it can't, or sometimes no control is desired.

I expect that sexually obsessive behaviors are a lot like other forms of addiction, wherein there is a combination of biological inclination coupled with a history of sexual abuse that combine to drive a person's desire to abuse themselves and others. And it's very difficult to control such a driving desire. However, one can learn how not to act on it, and eventually even learn how to "diffuse" the many behavioral triggers.

But that takes oversight, education, practice, and the determination to stick with it. And not everyone afflicted with such a condition will meet these standards.

Your points show why the death penalty with public executions is such a good tool to use.
Those that have no desire to control their lust and fixation are quickly stopped.
Their death is then used as an example that makes others desire to control their lust and fixation.

 

[Dialogos]

You can keep making that argument, but as we've seen it's a failed legal argument.

The argument “failed” because our judiciary has taken upon itself the burden of social activism rather than upholding the constitution, those cases were decided before any arguments were made. Our judicial system is more interested in social engineering than it is adjudicating on the basis of the constitution.

The only reason the baker will bake a wedding cake for couple A and not couple B is because of the sexual orientation of couple B.

Wrong. If a heterosexual Satanist came into the bake shop and asked the baker to bake a cake that said, "Satan binds us together” the baker would similarly refuse on the same grounds.

And these bakery cases are exactly that. The only reason he won't bake a cake for couple B is because of their sexual orientation. If they were of a different sexual orientation (heterosexual), he would bake the cake.

Likely not, if the baker considered the heterosexual wedding event religiously objectionable, he would likely refuse to bake a cake for that event as well. For example, when polygamous marriages become legal you will see Christian bakers refuse to make cakes for second wives.

This is more like a baker saying "I'll bake a cake for blacks, but I won't bake a cake for a wedding between a black and white couple because I don't believe in mixing of the races".

No, it’s more like a baker saying, "I'll bake a cake for a Christian wedding but not for a satanic wedding, because I find that participating in the latter violates my own faith."

So again, you seem to believe the right to practice one's religion is absolute, no matter what laws are broken in the process.

The obligation to honor an Eternal God transcends the obligation to honor the laws of a 230 something year old country and certainly transcends the recent changes (30 years at the most) of our countries obsession with so called gay rights.

More commonly known as "facts".

It is a fact that our activist judiciary uses the court system to advance a gay agenda.

:duh:

So what?

Thinking people can differentiate between what they are doing and what they ought to be doing.

Which is why arguments like the following:

It means from a legal perspective, I'm right and you're wrong.

Are stupid.

All that “legally right” means is that, at present, the wind of judicial decisions are blowing your way.

:doh:

That doesn’t prove the rationality of those decisions, nor the soundness of those decisions, nor even the moral rightness of those decisions.

If you can't see the difference between that which is legally current and morally right, than I have overestimated your intellectual capacities and you can be sure the estimate was on the low side to begin with.

And the stupid arguments keep coming.

So what? Racists say the same things.

This is just sloppy, fallacious reasoning.

It’s essentially the fallacy of the undistributed middle.

“Racists make arguments appealing to religious freedom”
“Those wanting to professionally abstain from same sex weddings appeal to religious freedom.”
Therefore….

Therefore what?

Therefore nothing.

This is just a really poor attempt to create a sense of guilt by association.

The reality is that the invalid arguments against civil rights on the basis of race are irrelevant to this discussion.

Just because you believe something, that doesn't give you an automatic free pass to do whatever you want, especially when your religious beliefs have a harmful effect on other citizens.

My religious beliefs don’t really have an affect one anyone, harmful or helpful. But it is interesting that you couch the discussion in terms of belief because that is exactly what this is really all about. The Christian bakers and photographers and florists all believe something that offend gay rights activists and they are the first to be “punished” for what they believe.

Then society has to decide which is more important....your right to practice discrimination in the name of Christianity, or gays' rights to public services and accommodations.

You can couch it in those terms all you like, the reality is society must determine what is most important… my right to practice my religion unhindered and unabridged by the state or gays’ rights to demand that I professionally participate in the celebration of their so called marriage.

Why do you think every wedding is a religious ceremony?

Because marriage was created by God.

You disagree?

So what?

To Christians, marriage was instituted by God, and that is why forcing their businesses to participate in a marriage that is contrary to their religious beliefs is an infringement on their religious freedom.

So let's say I work for the gov't and a Muslim comes to the door. Can I refuse to let him in because he's a Muslim?

Irrelevant question.

If you're going to be bigoted towards gays, at least man up and admit it.

And if you’re going to be a http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moron at least admit it.

 

[Jose Fly]

The argument “failed” because our judiciary has taken upon itself the burden of social activism rather than upholding the constitution, those cases were decided before any arguments were made. Our judicial system is more interested in social engineering than it is adjudicating on the basis of the constitution.

I'm sure that's what you've told yourself.

Wrong. If a heterosexual Satanist came into the bake shop and asked the baker to bake a cake that said, "Satan binds us together” the baker would similarly refuse on the same grounds.

No, that's discrimination based on the customer's religious beliefs. The cases we're talking about is discrimination based on the customer's sexual orientation.

Likely not, if the baker considered the heterosexual wedding event religiously objectionable, he would likely refuse to bake a cake for that event as well. For example, when polygamous marriages become legal you will see Christian bakers refuse to make cakes for second wives.

Nope. The facts of these cases are pretty clear. Some bakeries run by fundamentalist Christians are refusing to bake cakes for some couples based on their sexual orientation. That's illegal.

No, it’s more like a baker saying, "I'll bake a cake for a Christian wedding but not for a satanic wedding, because I find that participating in the latter violates my own faith."

That would likely be illegal as well, because it's discrimination against a religious group.

The obligation to honor an Eternal God transcends the obligation to honor the laws of a 230 something year old country and certainly transcends the recent changes (30 years at the most) of our countries obsession with so called gay rights.

So you would prefer to live in a Christian theocracy?

It is a fact that our activist judiciary uses the court system to advance a gay agenda.

I'm sure that's what you tell yourself.

All that “legally right” means is that, at present, the wind of judicial decisions are blowing your way.

Yep. Society is moving away from discrimination, not towards it.

If you can't see the difference between that which is legally current and morally right, than I have overestimated your intellectual capacities and you can be sure the estimate was on the low side to begin with.

Society is under no obligation to adopt your personal moral code, nor is it under any obligation to adopt the moral code of any particular religion. We are a secular democratic republic, so we make these decisions as a society.

Society is trending away from your bigoted morality. I know you don't like it, but that's your problem.

It’s essentially the fallacy of the undistributed middle.

“Racists make arguments appealing to religious freedom”
“Those wanting to professionally abstain from same sex weddings appeal to religious freedom.”
Therefore….

Therefore what?

Therefore nothing.

This is just a really poor attempt to create a sense of guilt by association.

No, it's the fact that the legal principles in both cases are the same. Just as there are Christians (e.g., you) who believe same-sex marriage is wrong and therefore they should be able to discriminate against gay couples, there are Christians who believe interracial marriage is wrong and therefore they should be able to discriminate against interracial couples.

In both cases society has decided that your religious beliefs don't trump the rights of others to have access to public businesses and services.

The reality is that the invalid arguments against civil rights on the basis of race are irrelevant to this discussion.

Nope...same legal principle.

My religious beliefs don’t really have an affect one anyone, harmful or helpful.

In these cases they do.

But it is interesting that you couch the discussion in terms of belief because that is exactly what this is really all about. The Christian bakers and photographers and florists all believe something that offend gay rights activists and they are the first to be “punished” for what they believe.

Nope. They are still free to believe whatever they want...no one is stopping you from maintaining your bigoted beliefs. It's what you do that counts, and when you discriminate against a protected class, you are breaking the law.

You can couch it in those terms all you like, the reality is society must determine what is most important… my right to practice my religion unhindered and unabridged by the state or gays’ rights to demand that I professionally participate in the celebration of their so called marriage.

I couch it in those terms because that's exactly what this is about. Society has to decide which is more important....your right to practice discrimination in the name of Christianity, or gays' rights to public services and accommodations.

Because marriage was created by God.

You disagree?

So what?

We don't live in a theocracy.

To Christians, marriage was instituted by God, and that is why forcing their businesses to participate in a marriage that is contrary to their religious beliefs is an infringement on their religious freedom.

No one is forcing them to do anything. But if they choose to open a business to the public, they must abide by the same laws as everyone else, including anti-discrimination laws.

Irrelevant question.

No it's not. You said a gov't official should be able to discriminate on the basis of religion. So again, if I work for the gov't, can I refuse to let any Muslims into the gov't building where I work?

 

[Livelystone]

Kudos to you Knight :up:

 

[genuineoriginal]

Society is trending away from . . . morality. I know you don't like it, but that's your problem.

Some of us have learned from history and don't want to be doomed to repeat it.

_____
Causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire - Decline in Morals

One of the main causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire was the Decline in Morals. The decline in morals, especially in the rich upper classes, nobility and the emperors, had a devastating impact on the Romans. Immoral and promiscuous sexual behaviour including adultery and orgies. Emperors such as Tiberius kept groups of young boys for his pleasure, incest by Nero who also had a male slave castrated so he could take him as his wife, Elagabalus who forced a Vestal Virgin into marriage, Commodus with his harems of concubines enraged Romans by sitting in the theatre or at the games dressed in a woman's garments. The decline in morals also effected the lower classes and slaves. Religious festivals such as Saturnalia and Bacchanalia where sacrifices, ribald songs, lewd acts and sexual promiscuity were practised. Bestiality and other lewd and sexually explicit acts were exhibited in the Colosseum arena to amuse the mob. Brothels and forced prostitution flourished. Widespread gambling on the chariot races and gladiatorial combats. Massive consumption of alcohol. The sadistic cruelty towards both man and beasts in the arena.
_____​

 

[Jose Fly]

Quote mining....yet another low. Ironic coming from someone trying to stress "morals".

 

[genuineoriginal]

Quote mining....yet another low. Ironic coming from someone trying to stress "morals".

Are you really complaining against other people using references?

 

[Dialogos]

No, that's discrimination based on the customer's religious beliefs.

No, it’s discrimination based on the owner’s religious freedom. I know you don’t get this, and I know that the courts refuse to see it, but they are wrong and so are you.

The cases we're talking about is discrimination based on the customer's sexual orientation.

Nope, its discrimination based on the owners religious liberty.

Nope. The facts of these cases are pretty clear. Some bakeries run by fundamentalist Christians are refusing to bake cakes for some couples based on their sexual orientation. That's illegal.

Nope. The facts are that some bakeries run by real Christians are refusing to bake cakes for an event that is religiously offensive to them.

So you would prefer to live in a Christian theocracy?

Did I say that, moron?

I would prefer to live in a country that honors the First Amendment to its constitution and allow people the right to abstain from participation in a ceremony that one finds religiously objectionable.

Yep. Society is moving away from discrimination, not towards it.

Wrong. Society is moving toward discrimination of religious persons in order to grant special rights towards special privileged classes.

Society is under no obligation to adopt your personal moral code,

Did I say that society was obliged to adopt my moral code?

Society is not obligated to adopt my moral code but if we are going to be a society that protects religious freedom, then it is obligated not to force me to violate my moral code in order to appease some privileged class.

Society is trending away from your bigoted morality. I know you don't like it, but that's your problem.

Jose Fly, you can toss around inflammatory labels like “bigot” all you like. I don’t care what you think of what I believe. Morally speaking, I think you are a complete idiot. You have no basis to make any moral critique on anyone so I take you using terms like “bigoted” as you merely spouting hot air.

No, it's the fact that the legal principles in both cases are the same. Just as there are Christians (e.g., you) who believe same-sex marriage is wrong and therefore they should be able to discriminate against gay couples, there are Christians who believe interracial marriage is wrong and therefore they should be able to discriminate against interracial couples.

First, it has nothing to do with discriminating against gay “couples” it has everything to do with the right to abstain from participating in ceremonies one finds religiously objectionable.

Second, there are so called Christians who believe interracial marriage is wrong. There are Christians who believe marriage between adult siblings is wrong. There are Christians who believe that marriage between a human and an animal is wrong. There are Christians who believe that same sex marriage is wrong. There are Christians who believe that polygamy is wrong.

You would probably agree that these Christians are right to think the way that they do in some of these cases.

A Christian baker would refuse to bake a wedding cake between two men, a man and his sister, a man and two women and a man and a dog all for the same reason, he finds the ceremony religiously objectionable.

But that’s really not the issue, as much as you, and the judicial activists want to make it the issue. The issue is whether or not someone must face civil penalty for refusing to participate in a ceremony they find religiously objectionable. Currently, they do, which is a violation of their first amendment right as it abridges their free exercise of religion.

Nope. They are still free to believe whatever they want...no one is stopping you from maintaining your bigoted beliefs. It's what you do that counts, and when you discriminate against a protected class, you are breaking the law.

I see. So when it becomes illegal for a Rabbi, Imam, Pastor or Priest to refuse to officiate a so called same sex wedding, you will side with the judicial activists and trample on the first amendment, won’t you?

I couch it in those terms because that's exactly what this is about. Society has to decide which is more important....

Society? Whose society?

The liberal society of judicial activists?

Ok.

So what?

My question is why does any “society” get to ignore the first amendment?

Your right to practice discrimination in the name of Christianity, or gays' rights to public services and accommodations.

You mean my right to practice my religion or gays’ rights to demand privileged status.

We don't live in a theocracy.

We don’t have much of a democracy left either in some parts of this country.

No one is forcing them to do anything.

Liar.

They are clearly forced to provide service or face civil retribution. And it won’t be long before Pastors, Imams, Rabbis and Priests will be forced to perform same sex marriages or go before so called civil rights tribunals and not much longer after that it will be illegal to withhold your children from the homosexual indoctrination portion of health classes in public schools and children who refuse to participate in the GSA “day of silence” will be expelled from school.

But if they choose to open a business to the public, they must abide by the same laws as everyone else, including (self contradictory and unjust) anti-discrimination laws.

There, fixed it for ya.

No it's not. You said a gov't official should be able to discriminate on the basis of religion.

I said that gov’t officials should be able to abstain from participating in ceremonies they find religiously objectionable.
Pay attention moron.

 

[Jose Fly]

Are you really complaining against other people using references?

Sheesh...are you really that clueless?

You took my statement "Society is moving away from discrimination, not towards it" and changed it to "Society is trending away from . . . morality", something I never said, and attributed it to me. That's "quote mining" and is very dishonest.

And you're apparently completely oblivious to the hypocrisy of doing such a dishonest thing while at the same time calling for better morals.

 

[Jose Fly]

No, it’s discrimination based on the owner’s religious freedom. I know you don’t get this, and I know that the courts refuse to see it, but they are wrong and so are you.

Yes, things are so just because you say they are. And anyone and everyone who says otherwise is automatically wrong...because you say so.

Thanks for your input.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Sheesh...are you really that clueless?

You took my statement "Society is moving away from discrimination, not towards it" and changed it to "Society is trending away from . . . morality", something I never said, and attributed it to me. That's "quote mining" and is very dishonest.

And you're apparently completely oblivious to the hypocrisy of doing such a dishonest thing while at the same time calling for better morals.

I see you are trying to make a claim you cannot support.

Here is the exact quote of what you actually said:

Society is trending away from your bigoted morality. I know you don't like it, but that's your problem.

Yes, society is trending away from morality, thanks to idiots that claim people that stand for morality are bigoted.

No, it is not my problem, it is a problem for the societies that are being destroyed by a move away from morality, as demonstrated by the reference to one of the causes for the fall of the Roman Empire.

You may want to ignore history, but that will only result in the destruction of the society you are turning immoral.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Yes, things are so just because you say they are. And anyone and everyone who says otherwise is automatically wrong...because you say so.

No, you are automatically wrong because you stand for perversion and oppose morals.

Religious rights are protected in part because they promote morality.
You should try to figure out what the rest of the reasons to protect religious rights before condemning those rights for interfering with your desire to promote immorality.

 

[TracerBullet]

Did I say that, moron?

I would prefer to live in a country that honors the First Amendment to its constitution and allow people the right to abstain from participation in a ceremony that one finds religiously objectionable.

I prefer to live in a country that doesn't confuse discrimination with faith.

Wrong. Society is moving toward discrimination of religious persons in order to grant special rights towards special privileged classes.

You mean like the special right to discriminate against gays and lesbians

Did I say that society was obliged to adopt my moral code?

Society is not obligated to adopt my moral code but if we are going to be a society that protects religious freedom, then it is obligated not to force me to violate my moral code in order to appease some privileged class.

Yet you defend the idea of a society that forces minorities to live as second class citizens in order to appease some privileged class

But that’s really not the issue, as much as you, and the judicial activists want to make it the issue. The issue is whether or not someone must face civil penalty for refusing to participate in a ceremony they find religiously objectionable. Currently, they do, which is a violation of their first amendment right as it abridges their free exercise of religion.

just lie it is a violation of the religious rights of racist bakers to bake cakes for interracial couples

I see. So when it becomes illegal for a Rabbi, Imam, Pastor or Priest to refuse to officiate a so called same sex wedding, you will side with the judicial activists and trample on the first amendment, won’t you?

I know you don't care much for facts but her is one anyway: No Rabbi, Imam, Pastor or Priest is legally obliged to perform any wedding ceremony.

You mean my right to practice my religion or gays’ rights to demand privileged status.

wanting to be treated equally and with simple courtesy isn't a privileged

Liar.

They are clearly forced to provide service or face civil retribution.

Just like those poor racists have to actually provide services to non-whites. Oh won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?!?!?!