Posted on 08/19/2011 12:08:01 PM PDT by massmike
This one’s sure to have gay marriage proponents buzzing. Here Comes the Bride, a bridal store in Somers Point, New Jersey, is feeling the heat after allegedly refusing to sell a wedding dress to a lesbian.
According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, Alix Genter visited the store with six of her closest family and friends. After the woman tried on a number of dresses, she purportedly chose the one she wanted and placed an order for it.
But, when she filled out the associated form, she crossed out the word groom and wrote “partner” instead. Then, she wrote the name of her future wife on the document and left the store. Later on, Genter was perplexed when the store’s owner, “Donna,” called her and said that Here Comes the Bride would not be providing her with a wedding dress.
According to a Philadelphia Inquirer piece, written by Ronnie Polaneczky, Genter was extreme upset upon receiving this call.
Apparently, there‘s also a voicemail from the store’s owner claiming that the wedding was not legal and that the store does not “participate in any illegal actions.”
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
It's not good business and I would assume the store is going to suffer dearly for it.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
Interesting and revealing comments on the thread. Where do the rights of mentally ill sex perverts trump the right of a private business? Usually "mentally ill sex pervert" trumps everyone and everyone, including great teachers who take advantage of their Constitutional right of freedom of speech (link below this comment).
We don't know everything about this story, but there is a strong possibility the mentally ill sex pervert did this to goad the store into reacting so they can be sued and dragged into court. Happens all the time. And to those who think money is god and moral principles worthless, this is the very attitude that has brought us into the abyss.
Oh, and same sex "marriage" has been pushed not because very many homosexuals actually want to "marry", but to destroy the natural family and create a revolution in society. In their own words, will post quotes below.
Here are the reasons homosexual agenda pushing activists have wanted same sex marriage, it’s much more than just any financial benefits.
From LA Times of March 12: ...
“Divided over gay marriage” by Roy Rivenburg Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor who runs the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission, recommends legalizing a wide variety of marriage alternatives, including polyamory, or group wedlock. An example could include a lesbian couple living with a sperm-donor father, or a network of men and women who share sexual relations.
One aim, she says, is to break the stranglehold that married heterosexual couples have on health benefits and legal rights. The other goal is to “push the parameters of sex, sexuality and family, and in the process transform the very fabric of society.” ... [snip]
An excerpt from: In Their Own Words: The Homosexual Agenda:
“Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile, who writes periodically for The New York Times, summarizes the agenda in OUT magazine (Dec/Jan 1994):
“A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution... The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake —and one that would perhaps benefit all of society—is to transform the notion of family entirely.”
“Its the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statues, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into the public schools and in short to usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us.”
Chris Crain, the editor of the Washington Blade has stated that all homosexual activists should fight for the legalization of same-sex marriage as a way of gaining passage of federal anti-discrimination laws that will provide homosexuals with federal protection for their chosen lifestyle.
Crain writes: “...any leader of any gay rights organization who is not prepared to throw the bulk of their efforts right now into the fight for marriage is squandering resources and doesn’t deserve the position.” (Washington Blade, August, 2003).
Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater “understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman.”
He notes: “The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness.” (Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)
Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said:
“Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. . Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. . We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society’s view of reality.” (partially quoted in “Beyond Gay Marriage,”
Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)
Evan Wolfson has stated:
“Isn’t having the law pretend that there is only one family model that works (let alone exists) a lie? . marriage is not just about procreation-indeed is not necessarily about procreation at all. “(quoted in “What Marriage Is For,” by Maggie Gallagher, The Weekly Standard, August 11, 2003)
Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, says:
“Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I’d be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of ‘till death do us part’ and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play.” (quoted in “Now Free To Marry, Canada’s Gays Say, ‘Do I?’” by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 31, 2003)
1972 Gay Rights Platform Demands: “Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit.”
[Also among the demands was the elimination of all age of consent laws.]
The homosexual ageanda is anti-freedom. The goal is to eliminate all freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of association. One little example, there are countless.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2766207/posts
Florida High School removes teacher for criticizing gay ‘marriage’ on Facebook
Seems to me there’s a big difference between selling somebody a dress and similar situations where someone is asked to actually be at and participate in the wedding, as a photographer, for instance.
I would sell anybody a dress, no problem. It’s not my job to ride herd on what they do with it.
The photographer I can understand deciding not to participate.
God bless this woman and her business. Seems like the time is coming when we’re all going to have to make a stand.
Faggots. Always parading their mental illness.
Exactly right bump!
Everyone should read the list of why homosexual activists have pushed for “gay” marriage.
It’s not about monogamy and white picket fences and PTA meetings. Not at all.
Too many people decline to educate themselves to the reality of the homosexual lifestyle.
Opens up a whole network of opportunity for LGBT bridal gear businesses to open up and cash in...in fact, it sounds like they’re providing a big stimulus to LGBT small business and employment. Freedom’s a wonderful thing, if you don’t like the way somebody does business, why sue them if you know how to do it better? GO do it better. You’ll succeed or you won’t, if you do, others are likely to adopt your point of view. But if it’s a fail, dictating fail by fiat because your feelings got a booboo is chopping off your head to cure a headache.
I’m gettin’ kinda libertarian on a lot of this stuff.
Yeah, and how's that working out for you? Is the country getting more or less freedom as liberal societal norms take over the culture?
Look, the law is coded morality. You can either embrace the traditional conservative moral law codified which will admittedly oppress certain groups preferred behavior or norms.
Or you can embrace the liberal morality codified which will oppress everybody eventually.
There'll be no libertarian compromise. It's never existed and it never will. It's not compatible with human nature any more than the communists (whose goal was anarcho-communal living and called themselves libertarians first).
Someone's going to get a hold of the levers of power in a society, so who do you want and where do you want that power directed?
I would sell anybody a dress, no problem. It’s not my job to ride herd on what they do with it.
Similar here. There’s also the issue of not being easily provoked. Should someone writing something on the paper provoke you. Frankly, I have in my work experience have all sorts of wierdos try to provoke me with writing wierd stuff on paper or making some rediculous , and frankly, if enough of them succeeded in provoking , I would have lost my job, and they would have successfully made a fool out of me. However, if one person isn’t satisfied and throws a hissy fit, time to ask security to get them out of there, because that’s where it’s not my problem, and the person’s actions are constituting a legitimate problem.
Again, there’s plenty of times you might wonder why some person asked for tons of junk food, or some wierd set of shoes, or some lipstick at the checkout line, sometimes, the sooner that person leaves the store the better, and just don’t sweat it.
The levers of power? The story is about a wedding dress.
The libertarian solution is the only one in this situation, and it's also the conservative solution.
The store owner has every right to refuse service to someone, and the refused buyer has every right to raise hell about it if they choose.
Case closed.
Yeah, levers of power. You know, discrimination lawsuits? Where the loser has the government come and confiscate their property by force and give it to the winner? Surely you've heard of those. They've been going on quite a while now.
The libertarian solution is the only one in this situation, and it's also the conservative solution.
No, the conservative solution is the one where society is structured rigidly enough where a homosexual wouldn't even contemplate attempting the purchase in the first place.
...the conservative solution is the one where society is structured rigidly enough where a homosexual wouldn't even contemplate attempting the purchase in the first place.
That would be the liberal way to go, not libertarian. Libertarians believe in freedom of assocition, especially for business owners and consumers, and so do conservatives.
Do you want to make it illegal for lesbians to buy wedding dresses? What if the store owner wants to sell her a wedding dress? What if a lesbian wants to buy a wedding dress for a Halloween costume?
I don't think you really thought this through.
The best option is for businesses and consumers to make choices on their own. No need for nanny state laws or discrimination lawsuits.
Ultimately homosexuals want to have all social, medical/psychological, religious norms or standards defined so that they are “normal.” They have already accomplished this to a great degree as witnessed from the arts and entertainment where they are glorified, victimized and seen entirely egalitarian. Never will you see them in a negative portrayal even in a way that might statistically be correct when it comes to certain diseases etc. The problem is that no matter how much we want to pretend that this behavior is normal and that their are no consequences, reality will eventually catch up with one, may that be in the form of AIDS/HIV, hepatitis, anal tears, infections of urinary track and bladder, Syphilis (65% of all cases are with gay men), proctitus (even referred to as “gay bowl”), HPV which is rampant among homosexual men in particular. Likewise, the purpose of all life is to procreate and homosexual couples are not capable of this unless they resort to unnatural measures such as artificial insemination (ironically these are often the same folks that speak the vernacular of natural/organic etc).
Furthermore, because these people often seek attention even if they were regarded as equal in all ways, they would still complain and self victimize. This is simply because of their motivation for being gay in the first place. Nothing will ever be enough, nothing will ever please them. Like the porn industry they have to take it one step further all the time to the point where we are literally seeing the mutilation of humans, albeit no laws are broken as they do a triple anal insertion and a doctor gets to treat the prolapse later. It's a culture where people want to break the rules and push the limits, they need over stimulation to even realize they are alive, they live in a box and sexuality is one of the few areas a person can express themselves in, many need their attention. With that in mind, realize that no law granting them anything will ever make them go away. They are now out of the closet and they will bang their drum in your face because it's their right. You're supposed to cheer them on, BTW.
Apparently in your dictionary the words “liberal” and “libertarian” are interchangeable. Please consult the dictionary the rest of the world uses.
You must have next to that dictionary a rather unique history book where the Libertarians overthrew the czar and created communist Russia. Be assured, the author of this dubious book is quite alone in that theory.
This might give you a clue as to what my post was saying apart from you linguistic and historical flights of fancy...I’ll make it simple for the bibliophobic. Liberty. Libertarian. There’s a reason the words sound so much alike. Libertarians reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, and people have the liberty to seek other services or provide the service they prefer. Liberals would codify who you could serve and who not, reserving power for themselves. This is repetitive echo of my original reply; it is evident you do not read the posts you comment on.
"Donna" has done the job for them. Free of charge.
The first rule of a successful business: "The customer is always right".
That being said, you see here Alix looks like a Joisey girl. A wedding dress isn't going to help her look much different. But it's her money.
Not interchangeable, but I do know that libertarianism originated as a leftist philosophy and evolved under its auspices.
It's actually the leftist movement that predates Marx, and is the one that he and Engels sought to perfect a philosophy for its implementation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.