Hmmm...I thought churches didn't have to worry about performing gay marriages...what about this...

[martybegan]

This isn't a church.

It's a wedding chapel which is a place of business.

If they're not willing to serve all of the public then they shouldn't be in business.

I support the law of Idaho and hope that these business people either start obeying the law or go to jail.

It's a business that performs a religious ceremony. You don't own the business, pay their taxes or lease/mortgage/overhead. The fags can go to a fag friendly chapel. Tyrants that want to deny one's religious freedoms need to go to jail.

It is a business that advertising performing a secular wedding ceremony. They are not a tax exempt church, get over it.

Link to where they advertise a SECULAR wedding service please?

Go to their web site and look at the requirements to have a ceremony performed there...you need the marriage license from across the street and a reservation. No church membership or declaration of religious affiliation needed. They are not a church, they are a business subject to the business laws of the locality. They want to make a profit, not act as a church.

Again, where in the 1st amendment does it say you lose your religious freedom when you make a profit.

 

[Seawytch]

It is a business that advertising performing a secular wedding ceremony. They are not a tax exempt church, get over it.

Again, what does tax exemption have to do with faith? Why is that a qualifier for being able to exercise your 1st amendment rights?

It has everything to do with whether or not it is a business subject to the business laws of the locality or a church, exempt from them...but you knew that.

So business law trumps rights granted under the constitution.

I don't see "unless you pay taxes" as a caveat in the 1st amendment.

Do you people even feel embarrassment over making up crap as you go along? Do you feel shame for being in league with the same people who made Jim Crow laws in the late 19th/early 20th century?

Public Accommodation laws have been around since the 60s and have upheld SCOTUS scrutiny. There is no "right" to own a business...it's a privilege.

So great massa government get to tell us how to make a living??

Oh lawdy lawdy.

How does it feel to use the same concepts as a plantation running slave owner?

Somebody had his hyperbole flakes for breakfast. PA laws came into being in the 1960s. AAAAHHHH tyranny!

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Again, what does tax exemption have to do with faith? Why is that a qualifier for being able to exercise your 1st amendment rights?

It has everything to do with whether or not it is a business subject to the business laws of the locality or a church, exempt from them...but you knew that.

So business law trumps rights granted under the constitution.

I don't see "unless you pay taxes" as a caveat in the 1st amendment.

Do you people even feel embarrassment over making up crap as you go along? Do you feel shame for being in league with the same people who made Jim Crow laws in the late 19th/early 20th century?

Public Accommodation laws have been around since the 60s and have upheld SCOTUS scrutiny. There is no "right" to own a business...it's a privilege.

Wrong SeaBytch. It's a right.

Why are you so amazingly stupid? Anything you want to do , is a right, fuck everyone else eh?

Link?

Link? You're the one who made the assertion that owning a business was a privilege not a right, YOU provide a link you dumb bytch

 

[martybegan]

Again, what does tax exemption have to do with faith? Why is that a qualifier for being able to exercise your 1st amendment rights?

It has everything to do with whether or not it is a business subject to the business laws of the locality or a church, exempt from them...but you knew that.

So business law trumps rights granted under the constitution.

I don't see "unless you pay taxes" as a caveat in the 1st amendment.

Do you people even feel embarrassment over making up crap as you go along? Do you feel shame for being in league with the same people who made Jim Crow laws in the late 19th/early 20th century?

Public Accommodation laws have been around since the 60s and have upheld SCOTUS scrutiny. There is no "right" to own a business...it's a privilege.

So great massa government get to tell us how to make a living??

Oh lawdy lawdy.

How does it feel to use the same concepts as a plantation running slave owner?

Somebody had his hyperbole flakes for breakfast. PA laws came into being in the 1960s. AAAAHHHH tyranny!

They were designed to prevent hotels from refusing guests, not to let your force people to perform marriage ceremonies.

But keep pushing this. Americans have a habit of not being fans of government pushing people around. You are going from the side of freedom to the side of tyranny. You make despots everywhere proud.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

It has everything to do with whether or not it is a business subject to the business laws of the locality or a church, exempt from them...but you knew that.

So business law trumps rights granted under the constitution.

I don't see "unless you pay taxes" as a caveat in the 1st amendment.

Do you people even feel embarrassment over making up crap as you go along? Do you feel shame for being in league with the same people who made Jim Crow laws in the late 19th/early 20th century?

Public Accommodation laws have been around since the 60s and have upheld SCOTUS scrutiny. There is no "right" to own a business...it's a privilege.

So great massa government get to tell us how to make a living??

Oh lawdy lawdy.

How does it feel to use the same concepts as a plantation running slave owner?

Somebody had his hyperbole flakes for breakfast. PA laws came into being in the 1960s. AAAAHHHH tyranny!

They were designed to prevent hotels from refusing guests, not to let your force people to perform marriage ceremonies.

But keep pushing this. Americans have a habit of not being fans of government pushing people around. You are going from the side of freedom to the side of tyranny. You make despots everywhere proud.

Faggots are going to do us all a favor and end up getting ALL PA laws repealed . Go queers.

 

[Iceweasel]

PA laws came into being in the 1960s. AAAAHHHH tyranny!

But only recently have been used to force homosexual acceptance onto business owners. Did the law change or did the political agenda change? The fact that you think starting a business is a privilege granted by the state is the root of the difference. We are not subjects of the state. At least not yet.

 

[Dana7360]

This isn't a church.

It's a wedding chapel which is a place of business.

If they're not willing to serve all of the public then they shouldn't be in business.

I support the law of Idaho and hope that these business people either start obeying the law or go to jail.

It's a business that performs a religious ceremony. You don't own the business, pay their taxes or lease/mortgage/overhead. The fags can go to a fag friendly chapel. Tyrants that want to deny one's religious freedoms need to go to jail.

That doesn't make it a church. So the business has to follow the laws of the state.

They have a business license. When they applied for and accepted that business license they agreed to follow all the laws for business in that state. If they discriminate against homosexuals they're violating the law.

If they want to be a church fine. Be a church. But they're not a church and they must follow all laws for business in that area.

I find it disgusting that you and people like you are advocating for a business to break the law and use religion to excuse it.

You christians really don't show much respect for your faith. jesus wasn't about profit. In fact, he said a camel can get through the eye of a needle much easier than a rich person can get into heaven. Your jesus also preached for the rich to sell everything they have and give it to the poor. You christians don't do that and in fact use your faith to make money. You also use that same faith to say you have the right to discriminate against you fellow human beings.

Which would disgust jesus.

 

[Iceweasel]

It's a business that performs a religious ceremony. You don't own the business, pay their taxes or lease/mortgage/overhead. The fags can go to a fag friendly chapel. Tyrants that want to deny one's religious freedoms need to go to jail.

That doesn't make it a church. So the business has to follow the laws of the state.

The Constitution trumps state law. Assuming homosexuality is considered on the same level as religions and race.

I find it disgusting that you and people like you are advocating for a business to break the law and use religion to excuse it.

I find it disgusting that you are more interested in ramming homosexuality down people's throats than you are in respecting their religious views. Like I said, normal people find businesses that accommodate them, not forcing a business to accommodate them.

You christians really don't show much respect for your faith. jesus wasn't about profit. In fact, he said a camel can get through the eye of a needle much easier than a rich person can get into heaven. Your jesus also preached for the rich to sell everything they have and give it to the poor. You christians don't do that and in fact use your faith to make money. You also use that same faith to say you have the right to discriminate against you fellow human beings.

Which would disgust jesus.

I'm not a Christian. Apparently that's too much for your toggle switch brain.

 

[2aguy]

hey have a business license. When they applied for and accepted that business license they agreed to follow all the laws for business in that state. If they discriminate against homosexuals they're violating the law.

Your right..that is why the law has to be changed...we don't need any more jim crow laws, whichever type of discrimination it they support...

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

City threatens to arrest ministers who refuse to perform same-sex weddings Fox News

I'm no true believer but this is complete bullshit & goes against our founding principles.

 

[rightwinger]

Sounds like another rightwing load of bullshit

Someone let me know what the REAL story is

 

[Syriusly]

I think it's because there are laws that require equality when it comes to business.

That said, I'm no expert on the law.

If I'm an RN, I can't choose to not care for someone because they're gay. Personally, as with the issue of the cake-maker, I feel he should have been allowed to not make gay wedding cakes if it didn't jive with his beliefs.

I need a better understanding of each side on this particular issue.

There is nothing in providing nursing care that changes based on the sexual orientation of the person. A heart attack is a heart attack, AIDS is AIDS, and broken arm is a broken arm. Here the state is compelling a minister to perform an act outside of their religious base, in a religous act.

Actually, no. The Hitching Post explicitly states that they can and will perform non-religious ceremonies in purely secular services.
They're not a church, they're officially open for everyone regardless of religion.

They are still ordained ministers and cannot be compelled to act against their morals.

So if they claim as 'ordained ministers' that their moral beliefs state that they cannot pay income taxes- they can't be compelled to pay income taxes?

Taxes and forcing some to perform a wedding by government fiat are two different things.

The claim was made:

They are still ordained ministers and cannot be compelled to act against their morals.

My question stands- can they be compelled to pay income taxes if they claim it would be against their morals?

The issue is exactly the same. Can anyone who claims to be a religious professional be forced by government to do anything that he or she claims is against his or her religious teachings?

For instance- can the government force a Seventh Day Adventist minister to allow blood transfusions to their children?

 

[martybegan]

Sounds like another rightwing load of bullshit

Someone let me know what the REAL story is

Too late for denial. Our usual same sex fascists already have responded to a thread on this, and go with the usual "submit or be punished" line of logic.

 

[Siete]

City threatens to arrest ministers who refuse to perform same-sex weddings Fox News

I'm no true believer but this is complete bullshit & goes against our founding principles.

you're no true believer ?

sure you are, you believe everything Fox feeds you.

 

[DriftingSand]

City threatens to arrest ministers who refuse to perform same-sex weddings Fox News

I'm no true believer but this is complete bullshit & goes against our founding principles.

Nero reborn! I wonder when the Libs will start crucifying Christians upside down and/or tossing them to the lions. Thought we had "evolved" past such barbaric persecution.

 

[Syriusly]

By the way for all of you people aghast about these ministers being told that business's have to serve homosexuals- that is I believe a state law being enforced.

I look forward to hearing why State laws banning marriage should be respected- but not State laws banning discrimination in service.

And recourse is available on a local level- change State law so that people can discriminate against whoever they want to.

 

[martybegan]

There is nothing in providing nursing care that changes based on the sexual orientation of the person. A heart attack is a heart attack, AIDS is AIDS, and broken arm is a broken arm. Here the state is compelling a minister to perform an act outside of their religious base, in a religous act.

Actually, no. The Hitching Post explicitly states that they can and will perform non-religious ceremonies in purely secular services.
They're not a church, they're officially open for everyone regardless of religion.

They are still ordained ministers and cannot be compelled to act against their morals.

So if they claim as 'ordained ministers' that their moral beliefs state that they cannot pay income taxes- they can't be compelled to pay income taxes?

Taxes and forcing some to perform a wedding by government fiat are two different things.

The claim was made:

They are still ordained ministers and cannot be compelled to act against their morals.

My question stands- can they be compelled to pay income taxes if they claim it would be against their morals?

The issue is exactly the same. Can anyone who claims to be a religious professional be forced by government to do anything that he or she claims is against his or her religious teachings?

For instance- can the government force a Seventh Day Adventist minister to allow blood transfusions to their children?

Tax paying is a required part of society, the burden placed on not being able to religiously pay taxes has to be extremely high, and considering most religions are 100% OK with it, this is a strawman and a non-issue.

The children/blood transfusion issue is more about the power of the government to be a guardian over parents of a minor, again, not relevant.

What we have here is government force on ordained ministers, in a non essential, easy to get elsewhere service.

As an edit, its Jehovah's Witnesses that refuse blood transfusions, not Seventh Day Adventists.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Sounds like another rightwing load of bullshit

Someone let me know what the REAL story is

The real story was covered, at length, in previous threads on this stupidity.

They are NOT "ministers", they're business men, running a for-profit business.

They broke the law. It has nothing at all to do with being "liberal" except that RWs are in favor of breaking equality laws.

 

[rightwinger]

Sounds like another rightwing load of bullshit

Someone let me know what the REAL story is

Too late for denial. Our usual same sex fascists already have responded to a thread on this, and go with the usual "submit or be punished" line of logic.

Is that the one where it turned out to not be a church but a for profit business?

 

[rightwinger]

City threatens to arrest ministers who refuse to perform same-sex weddings Fox News

I'm no true believer but this is complete bullshit & goes against our founding principles.

Nero reborn! I wonder when the Libs will start crucifying Christians upside down and/or tossing them to the lions. Thought we had "evolved" past such barbaric persecution.

Is that you Captain Hyperbole?