Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well, if one has problems with legal marriage of one kind or another, perhaps they should not be in the wedding business.
So now the cult of LGBT is going to be allowed to dictate which business people can run? And have their handful of rogue judges dictating to the states, removing their power to regulate the privelege of marraige too? Yeah, this cult is getting out of hand really fast. Time to nip it in the bud.
Some of us like the 1st Amendment...a LOT.
"Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.
I notice you are using obfuscation and repetition to answer my question directly. Don't tell me what Colorado says. Don't tell me what anyone else says. Tell me what either you say or what you believe the US Supreme Court will say when I ask this question (and do it without spamming 5 one-paragraph posts in a row to try to bury the page. I'm not going to forget that I asked you this question.. I'll save it and repost it on the next page and so on until you do)
Does the 1st Amendment say it's freedom of religion meant for individuals or groups of them (churches)?
This is a thread about public accommodation laws- and I am showing you the distinction between business's- covered by PA laws- and Church's- not covered by PA laws.
If you don't like the answer- well tough.
once again from the Colorado PA law
(1) As used in this part 6, "place of public accommodation" means any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public; any place to eat, drink, sleep, or rest, or any combination thereof; any sporting or recreational area and facility; any public transportation facility; a barber shop, bathhouse, swimming pool, bath, steam or massage parlor, gymnasium, or other establishment conducted to serve the health, appearance, or physical condition of a person; a campsite or trailer camp; a dispensary, clinic, hospital, convalescent home, or other institution for the sick, ailing, aged, or infirm; a mortuary, undertaking parlor, or cemetery; an educational institution; or any public building, park, arena, theater, hall, auditorium, museum, library, exhibit, or public facility of any kind whether indoor or outdoor.
"Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.
My State has a law on the books that says marriage is between a man and a woman. Do you know what it took to invadlidate that law for the fags? It didn't take a legislative body rewriting it. It took a judge interpreting that it was wrong. If you don't think that can happen here, guess again fool.
Well, if one has problems with legal marriage of one kind or another, perhaps they should not be in the wedding business.
So now the cult of LGBT is going to be allowed to dictate which business people can run? ..
You are delusional.
Colorado State law forbids discrimination- not your imaginary cult.
What you didn't do is take into account that it wasn't a legislative body that overturned a STATE law. It was a faggot loving judge."Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.
I notice you are using obfuscation and repetition to answer my question directly. Don't tell me what Colorado says. Don't tell me what anyone else says. Tell me what either you say or what you believe the US Supreme Court will say when I ask this question (and do it without spamming 5 one-paragraph posts in a row to try to bury the page. I'm not going to forget that I asked you this question.. I'll save it and repost it on the next page and so on until you do)
Does the 1st Amendment say it's freedom of religion meant for individuals or groups of them (churches)?
This is a thread about public accommodation laws- and I am showing you the distinction between business's- covered by PA laws- and Church's- not covered by PA laws.
If you don't like the answer- well tough.
once again from the Colorado PA law
(1) As used in this part 6, "place of public accommodation" means any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public; any place to eat, drink, sleep, or rest, or any combination thereof; any sporting or recreational area and facility; any public transportation facility; a barber shop, bathhouse, swimming pool, bath, steam or massage parlor, gymnasium, or other establishment conducted to serve the health, appearance, or physical condition of a person; a campsite or trailer camp; a dispensary, clinic, hospital, convalescent home, or other institution for the sick, ailing, aged, or infirm; a mortuary, undertaking parlor, or cemetery; an educational institution; or any public building, park, arena, theater, hall, auditorium, museum, library, exhibit, or public facility of any kind whether indoor or outdoor.
"Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.
My State has a law on the books that says marriage is between a man and a woman. Do you know what it took to invadlidate that law for the fags? It didn't take a legislative body rewriting it. It took a judge interpreting that it was wrong. If you don't think that can happen here, guess again fool.
Oh my apologies- I forgot to include every batshit crazy homophobic bigots fantasies into the equation.
And once again- because I never get tired of pointing it out:
f*gs....n*ggers....k*kes....c*nts......same kinds of words used by bigots for the same purpose.
You are delusional.
Colorado State law forbids discrimination- not your imaginary cult.
Does Colorado state law trump the individual's federal 1st Amendment civil right to exercise their religion?
Does Colorado state law trump the individual's federal 1st Amendment civil right to exercise their religion?
Depends on the law, what it is and how it's written. If a law is written such that it does not target specific religious beliefs and has general applicability, then yes - a state law limits can be valid......Of note, in Elane Photography v. Willock, the New Mexico Photographer case - they made the claim that the 1st Amendment exempted them from an otherwise generally applicable law. The New Mexico Appeals Court rejected that position, The New Mexico Supreme court rejected that position, and when an appeal was made to the United States Supreme court the writ of certiorari was denied upholding the New Mexico Supreme Court.
You are delusional.
Colorado State law forbids discrimination- not your imaginary cult.
Does Colorado state law trump the individual's federal 1st Amendment civil right to exercise their religion?
Depends on the law, what it is and how it's written. If a law is written such that it does not target specific religious beliefs and has general applicability, then yes - a state law limits can be valid.
Do you knonw who wrote the following?
They assert, in other words, that "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" includes requiring any individual to observe a generally applicable law that requires (or forbids) the performance of an act that his religious belief forbids (or requires). As a textual matter, we do not think the words must be given that meaning. It is no more necessary to regard the collection of a general tax, for example, as "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" by those citizens who believe support of organized government to be sinful than it is to regard the same tax as "abridging the freedom . . . of the press" of those publishing companies that must pay the tax as a condition of staying in business. It is a permissible reading of the text, in the one case as in the other, to say that, if prohibiting the exercise of religion (or burdening the activity of printing) is not the object of the tax, but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended. Compare Citizen Publishing Co. v. United States, 394 U.S. 131, 139 (1969) (upholding application of antitrust laws to press), with Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 250-251 (1936) (striking down license tax applied only to newspapers with weekly circulation above a specified level); see generally Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue, 460 U.S. 575, 581 (1983).
Our decisions reveal that the latter reading is the correct one. We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition. As described succinctly by Justice Frankfurter in Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 594-595 (1940):
Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.
Of note, in Elane Photography v. Willock, the New Mexico Photographer case - they made the claim that the 1st Amendment exempted them from an otherwise generally applicable law. The New Mexico Appeals Court rejected that position, The New Mexico Supreme court rejected that position, and when an appeal was made to the United States Supreme court the writ of certiorari was denied upholding the New Mexico Supreme Court.
>>>>
Does Colorado state law trump the individual's federal 1st Amendment civil right to exercise their religion?
Depends on the law, what it is and how it's written. If a law is written such that it does not target specific religious beliefs and has general applicability, then yes - a state law limits can be valid......Of note, in Elane Photography v. Willock, the New Mexico Photographer case - they made the claim that the 1st Amendment exempted them from an otherwise generally applicable law. The New Mexico Appeals Court rejected that position, The New Mexico Supreme court rejected that position, and when an appeal was made to the United States Supreme court the writ of certiorari was denied upholding the New Mexico Supreme Court.
Denied on procedural grounds. Was there a US Supreme Court Decision on the merits? No. All this gay BS is being mysteriously punted and there's a political reason for that. But now no longer. The Court will have to reaffirm once and for all like it did in Windsor, that lifestyles are not race and as such they are behaviors. Behaviors are regulated locally and do not have dominance over the 1st Amendmen which is the protection for an INDIVIDUAL to practice his or her religious faith every single day of the week, no matter where that person's feet are standing..
You are delusional.
Colorado State law forbids discrimination- not your imaginary cult.
Does Colorado state law trump the individual's federal 1st Amendment civil right to exercise their religion?
Depends on the law, what it is and how it's written. If a law is written such that it does not target specific religious beliefs and has general applicability, then yes - a state law limits can be valid.
Do you knonw who wrote the following?
They assert, in other words, that "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" includes requiring any individual to observe a generally applicable law that requires (or forbids) the performance of an act that his religious belief forbids (or requires). As a textual matter, we do not think the words must be given that meaning. It is no more necessary to regard the collection of a general tax, for example, as "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" by those citizens who believe support of organized government to be sinful than it is to regard the same tax as "abridging the freedom . . . of the press" of those publishing companies that must pay the tax as a condition of staying in business. It is a permissible reading of the text, in the one case as in the other, to say that, if prohibiting the exercise of religion (or burdening the activity of printing) is not the object of the tax, but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended. Compare Citizen Publishing Co. v. United States, 394 U.S. 131, 139 (1969) (upholding application of antitrust laws to press), with Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 250-251 (1936) (striking down license tax applied only to newspapers with weekly circulation above a specified level); see generally Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue, 460 U.S. 575, 581 (1983).
Our decisions reveal that the latter reading is the correct one. We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition. As described succinctly by Justice Frankfurter in Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 594-595 (1940):
Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.
Of note, in Elane Photography v. Willock, the New Mexico Photographer case - they made the claim that the 1st Amendment exempted them from an otherwise generally applicable law. The New Mexico Appeals Court rejected that position, The New Mexico Supreme court rejected that position, and when an appeal was made to the United States Supreme court the writ of certiorari was denied upholding the New Mexico Supreme Court.
>>>>
Does Colorado state law trump the individual's federal 1st Amendment civil right to exercise their religion?
Depends on the law, what it is and how it's written. If a law is written such that it does not target specific religious beliefs and has general applicability, then yes - a state law limits can be valid......Of note, in Elane Photography v. Willock, the New Mexico Photographer case - they made the claim that the 1st Amendment exempted them from an otherwise generally applicable law. The New Mexico Appeals Court rejected that position, The New Mexico Supreme court rejected that position, and when an appeal was made to the United States Supreme court the writ of certiorari was denied upholding the New Mexico Supreme Court.
Denied on procedural grounds. Was there a US Supreme Court Decision on the merits? No. All this gay BS is being mysteriously punted and there's a political reason for that. But now no longer. The Court will have to reaffirm once and for all like it did in Windsor, that lifestyles are not race and as such they are behaviors. Behaviors are regulated locally and do not have dominance over the 1st Amendmen which is the protection for an INDIVIDUAL to practice his or her religious faith every single day of the week, no matter where that person's feet are standing..
The writ was denied, there is no indication that it was denied "on procedural grounds". It's funny when you make up things.
This wasn't a case from a long time ago, the SCOTUS denied cert in 2014, after the Windsor decision from 2013.
>>>>
Does Colorado state law trump the individual's federal 1st Amendment civil right to exercise their religion?
Depends on the law, what it is and how it's written. If a law is written such that it does not target specific religious beliefs and has general applicability, then yes - a state law limits can be valid......Of note, in Elane Photography v. Willock, the New Mexico Photographer case - they made the claim that the 1st Amendment exempted them from an otherwise generally applicable law. The New Mexico Appeals Court rejected that position, The New Mexico Supreme court rejected that position, and when an appeal was made to the United States Supreme court the writ of certiorari was denied upholding the New Mexico Supreme Court.
Denied on procedural grounds. Was there a US Supreme Court Decision on the merits? No. All this gay BS is being mysteriously punted and there's a political reason for that. But now no longer. The Court will have to reaffirm once and for all like it did in Windsor, that lifestyles are not race and as such they are behaviors. Behaviors are regulated locally and do not have dominance over the 1st Amendmen which is the protection for an INDIVIDUAL to practice his or her religious faith every single day of the week, no matter where that person's feet are standing..
You are delusional.
Colorado State law forbids discrimination- not your imaginary cult.
Does Colorado state law trump the individual's federal 1st Amendment civil right to exercise their religion?
Depends on the law, what it is and how it's written. If a law is written such that it does not target specific religious beliefs and has general applicability, then yes - a state law limits can be valid.
Do you knonw who wrote the following?
They assert, in other words, that "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" includes requiring any individual to observe a generally applicable law that requires (or forbids) the performance of an act that his religious belief forbids (or requires). As a textual matter, we do not think the words must be given that meaning. It is no more necessary to regard the collection of a general tax, for example, as "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" by those citizens who believe support of organized government to be sinful than it is to regard the same tax as "abridging the freedom . . . of the press" of those publishing companies that must pay the tax as a condition of staying in business. It is a permissible reading of the text, in the one case as in the other, to say that, if prohibiting the exercise of religion (or burdening the activity of printing) is not the object of the tax, but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended. Compare Citizen Publishing Co. v. United States, 394 U.S. 131, 139 (1969) (upholding application of antitrust laws to press), with Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 250-251 (1936) (striking down license tax applied only to newspapers with weekly circulation above a specified level); see generally Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue, 460 U.S. 575, 581 (1983).
Our decisions reveal that the latter reading is the correct one. We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition. As described succinctly by Justice Frankfurter in Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 594-595 (1940):
Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.
Of note, in Elane Photography v. Willock, the New Mexico Photographer case - they made the claim that the 1st Amendment exempted them from an otherwise generally applicable law. The New Mexico Appeals Court rejected that position, The New Mexico Supreme court rejected that position, and when an appeal was made to the United States Supreme court the writ of certiorari was denied upholding the New Mexico Supreme Court.
>>>>
What you didn't do is take into account that it wasn't a legislative body that overturned a STATE law. It was a faggot loving judge."Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.
I notice you are using obfuscation and repetition to answer my question directly. Don't tell me what Colorado says. Don't tell me what anyone else says. Tell me what either you say or what you believe the US Supreme Court will say when I ask this question (and do it without spamming 5 one-paragraph posts in a row to try to bury the page. I'm not going to forget that I asked you this question.. I'll save it and repost it on the next page and so on until you do)
Does the 1st Amendment say it's freedom of religion meant for individuals or groups of them (churches)?
This is a thread about public accommodation laws- and I am showing you the distinction between business's- covered by PA laws- and Church's- not covered by PA laws.
If you don't like the answer- well tough.
once again from the Colorado PA law
(1) As used in this part 6, "place of public accommodation" means any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public; any place to eat, drink, sleep, or rest, or any combination thereof; any sporting or recreational area and facility; any public transportation facility; a barber shop, bathhouse, swimming pool, bath, steam or massage parlor, gymnasium, or other establishment conducted to serve the health, appearance, or physical condition of a person; a campsite or trailer camp; a dispensary, clinic, hospital, convalescent home, or other institution for the sick, ailing, aged, or infirm; a mortuary, undertaking parlor, or cemetery; an educational institution; or any public building, park, arena, theater, hall, auditorium, museum, library, exhibit, or public facility of any kind whether indoor or outdoor.
"Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.
My State has a law on the books that says marriage is between a man and a woman. Do you know what it took to invadlidate that law for the fags? It didn't take a legislative body rewriting it. It took a judge interpreting that it was wrong. If you don't think that can happen here, guess again fool.
Oh my apologies- I forgot to include every batshit crazy homophobic bigots fantasies into the equation.
And once again- because I never get tired of pointing it out:
f*gs....n*ggers....k*kes....c*nts......same kinds of words used by bigots for the same purpose.
Keep pointing out whatever you want. It doesn't change that you are a second class faggot loving retard.
Muslim Cabbies that violate civil laws are blasted for trying to enact Sharia Law. Christians that do the very same are seen as victims and moan about their religious liberties being violated when told, like Muslims, they cannot use their faith as excuse to violate civil law. Sorry folks, you cannot have it both way. Your faith isn't a valid excuse to violate the law.
That ^^
And we don't get to pick and choose who gets rights and liberties.
Gays, women, blacks, Jews, kkk, tee potty, Repubs, Westboro, Dems and every other group you can think of - they all have the same rights...
What tide? Republican vs Democrat, it always goes in and out. Stop being less relevant, as most of the country is already over the wedding cake and same-sex marriage.Stop shoveling shit against the tide.
Yeah, that's why this thread keeps getting action nearing 60,000 views and 7,000 responses with 82% voting against gay marraige on this very subject BTW: Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 701 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
I'm amazed that every week, more and more votes load up on the "hell no" option in the poll, or just votes in general. So the topic is the most popular one ever at this most popular political website on the net, suggesting that the country most certainly IS NOT "over" a man being forced to abdicate his faith at his bake shop to accomodate gays forcing him to. And the country most certainly IS NOT "over" the topic of so-called "gay marriage".
The best one is the one where a bigot gets in an accident, and needs blood. But the only person that matches the rare blood type was gay.What tide? Republican vs Democrat, it always goes in and out. Stop being less relevant, as most of the country is already over the wedding cake and same-sex marriage.Stop shoveling shit against the tide.
Yeah, that's why this thread keeps getting action nearing 60,000 views and 7,000 responses with 82% voting against gay marraige on this very subject BTW: Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 701 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
I'm amazed that every week, more and more votes load up on the "hell no" option in the poll, or just votes in general. So the topic is the most popular one ever at this most popular political website on the net, suggesting that the country most certainly IS NOT "over" a man being forced to abdicate his faith at his bake shop to accomodate gays forcing him to. And the country most certainly IS NOT "over" the topic of so-called "gay marriage".
You're using a topic on THIS board to state how Mainstream America feels? Okay.
He is not being forced to "abdicate his faith" because he is selling his services to the general public and he is discriminating against a protected class of citizens. You can't discriminate. That's against the 14th amendment.
If a homosexual person is dying and the paramedic said "Nope, I won't save him because it's against my religion" would you be okay with that?
What if was a Muslim paramedic saying to you "I won't save you because it's against my religion", I would assume you would be okay with that if you wanted to stay logically consistent.
In my opinion this situation is nothing like the one that the baker is in. No one has ever died because a wedding cake was not made. The refusal to make one has never once been a detriment to a person's well being. Whether a cake is made or not is not a matter of life and death.If a homosexual person is dying and the paramedic said "Nope, I won't save him because it's against my religion" would you be okay with that?
What a stupid response, but what can one expect from a retarded libtard.He was sentenced to undergo sensitivity training, pay for all of his employees to undergo sensitivity training and ordered to provide quarterly reports to the court detailing every time he declined a specialty service.
This could be considered a punishment.
Baker forced to make gay wedding cakes undergo sensitivity training after losing lawsuit Fox News
OMG, Tipsykatzenfotze, the sky is falling, the sky is falling!
