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.
There are no restrictions on religious freedom in the Constitution, you are correct. However, people are not required to have a certain business.....it is all choice. And their choice to have such a business, being fine and all, if they want a business license, they cannot discriminate against law-abiding, tax-paying citizens because of who those people are.However, that was a BUSINESS, not a religion. A very clear distinction.By forcing him to choose between his religion and his living, you bet it is.
Mark
Your religion does not give you the right to violate the laws of the locality, period.
These assholes couldn't do it and new assholes can't either.
How the Bible was used to justify slavery, abolitionism
This is a new situation. It is absolutely clear that religions have viewed homosexuality as a sin for a long time. Different situations require different solutions.
If the left really wants to piss off the American people, force religions to cater to homosexuals.
Mark
Again, nowhere in our Constitution does it state that the government has a right to restrict religious freedom as a requirement to do business in America.
I think you should be careful what you wish for.
Mark
They didn't want the Civil Rights Act to count for women either when it came out. :/You stated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 over and over again ... And it did not apply to sexual orientation. You also stated Public Accommodation Laws are "on the books" at the Federal level and they aren't.
Keep trying to crawfish ... And I will start the crab boil.
.
Yes, I did, I cited the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Title II to be exact. That's the part that talks about Public Accommodations. They have been in effect since 1964.
So, have PA laws always been "tyranny" (despite withstanding a SCOTUS ruling) or is it just recently since "the gheys" have been added to them in some places?
Title II doesn't say a damn thing about sexual orientation or LBGT's ...
Title II
"Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private".[40]"
.
Sexual orientation was added to the Equal Employment Opportunity Act in 1978. It still refers to employment opportunities and not public accommodations ... Which is just an example of how the argument is distorted to include protections not identified by the law.
.
No it wasn't. There are no Federal employment protections for gays and lesbians. You can fire people for being gay in more states than ban them from marrying.
Edit:
However, protections for sexual orientation are simply assumed to be included in the law under Title VII and not directly identified in the text. As far as legislation identifying sexual orientation or gender identity ... That would be the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2013 passed by the Senate and still waiting for approval in the House.
.
That business puts on weddings of all kinds or does that business restrict itself to religious ceremonies? If they do, what particular denomination of religion do they provide religious wedding ceremonies in?You are incorrect. They WERE NOT refused service because of their orientation. They were refused service because a religious business did not want to be part of their "marriage" ceremony.
The distinction is crucial when regarding which right trumps the other.
Mark
If that business as opened itself in the past to weddings of all kind, secular and various religious ceremonies.....well then, they have not made any distinctions in the past.............why now?
The distinction is crucial because they believe it to be a sin. I cannot make it more plain than that.
Mark
Interracial marriage is still thought of as a sin for some people and back in 1967 it REALLY, REALLY was...and still we have protections in FEDERAL Public Accommodation laws that says you can't discriminate against THAT couple. Should racist bigots get your "religious exemption" from anti discrimination laws as well or just gays? It's a sin for women to speak in public...does that mean a business can discriminate against women unless they are silent?
That sin was based on poor interpretation of the Bible. The Bible is quite clear on homosexuality being sinful.
Your opinion on how they interpret the bible is irrelevant. They believed it just as you believe that being gay is sinful...and yet there are plenty of people that disagree with YOUR interpretation.
That business puts on weddings of all kinds or does that business restrict itself to religious ceremonies? If they do, what particular denomination of religion do they provide religious wedding ceremonies in?You are incorrect. They WERE NOT refused service because of their orientation. They were refused service because a religious business did not want to be part of their "marriage" ceremony.
The distinction is crucial when regarding which right trumps the other.
Mark
If that business as opened itself in the past to weddings of all kind, secular and various religious ceremonies.....well then, they have not made any distinctions in the past.............why now?
The distinction is crucial because they believe it to be a sin. I cannot make it more plain than that.
Mark
Interracial marriage is still thought of as a sin for some people and back in 1967 it REALLY, REALLY was...and still we have protections in FEDERAL Public Accommodation laws that says you can't discriminate against THAT couple. Should racist bigots get your "religious exemption" from anti discrimination laws as well or just gays? It's a sin for women to speak in public...does that mean a business can discriminate against women unless they are silent?
That sin was based on poor interpretation of the Bible. The Bible is quite clear on homosexuality being sinful.
Your opinion on how they interpret the bible is irrelevant. They believed it just as you believe that being gay is sinful...and yet there are plenty of people that disagree with YOUR interpretation.
That's very convenient, isn't it?Exactly. How many non-christians has that place hosted wedding for? How many previously divorced people has that business hosted weddings for? How many obese (sin of gluttony) people has that business hosted weddings for? How many pagan weddings has that business hosted weddings for?By forcing him to choose between his religion and his living, you bet it is.
But he does that all the time.
There are a whole lot of crazy laws in the bible that most businesses don't follow.
How many businesses are open on Sunday? That's actually breaking a Commandment!!!! But they happily make an exception for that.
I don't know, nor does it matter. Each individual views his beliefs in the way he see's fit. If we have to have uniformity, it will still result in someones religious rights being trampled upon.
Does a religious person also have a right to interpret his religion as he see's fit? Absolutely. Many Christians would host a gay wedding, and still make it to church on Sunday as well.
What it comes down to is this:
If you ask the wrong questions, you'll get the wrong answers.
Mark
I agree. Let's face facts here. You accuse Christians of doing the exact same thing YOU are doing .... trying to ram your beliefs down everyone's throats. There's no difference and nothing makes you more right. Same coin, different side.
The more you do research into the actual text of the law ... Sexual orientation is an assumed protection not identified. There are existing laws that have been passed subsequently at the state level based on that simple assumption.
.
Really? Point it out in the First Amendment for us:NY Farm That Refused To Host Lesbian Wedding Fined $13,000
Liberty Ridge Farm's owners, citing constitutional rights to free speech and religious freedom, have appealed the August ruling by the Division of Human Rights that they violated state anti-discrimination law.
Their attorney said Robert and Cynthia Gifford paid the $10,000 state civil penalty and $1,500 each to Melisa and Jennie McCarthy, whose 2013 wedding they declined to host. The Giffords testified last year that in their Christian beliefs, marriage is between a man and a woman, and the ceremonies are held at their home, a private space where their own rights should be determinate.
Good!
We hurt them in the pocketbook and we shame them in the media.
There is a dark and twisted version of Christianity being practiced in the U.S. They throw love and tolerance over for fear and ignorance, clinging to one archaic hebrew tribal law.
We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. It's in the First Amendment. Fining people to "get in line" with your aberrant beliefs is Nazi sh*t.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]
That business puts on weddings of all kinds or does that business restrict itself to religious ceremonies? If they do, what particular denomination of religion do they provide religious wedding ceremonies in?
If that business as opened itself in the past to weddings of all kind, secular and various religious ceremonies.....well then, they have not made any distinctions in the past.............why now?
The distinction is crucial because they believe it to be a sin. I cannot make it more plain than that.
Mark
Interracial marriage is still thought of as a sin for some people and back in 1967 it REALLY, REALLY was...and still we have protections in FEDERAL Public Accommodation laws that says you can't discriminate against THAT couple. Should racist bigots get your "religious exemption" from anti discrimination laws as well or just gays? It's a sin for women to speak in public...does that mean a business can discriminate against women unless they are silent?
That sin was based on poor interpretation of the Bible. The Bible is quite clear on homosexuality being sinful.
Your opinion on how they interpret the bible is irrelevant. They believed it just as you believe that being gay is sinful...and yet there are plenty of people that disagree with YOUR interpretation.
They would be wrong.
There are no rational people out there saying the Bible advocates or approves of a homosexual lifestyle. The Bible's view on race has had a preponderance of people saying it is either neutral on it, or supportive of equality or at least tolerance among the races. The justification of slavery/racism via the bible was an aberration among white southern baptists in response to the abolitionist position of slave-owning as sinful.
Islam is even more clear that racism is wrong, but even more clear that homosexuality is wrong as well.
As I said....it appears that to some, some religious beliefs are more equal than others.That business puts on weddings of all kinds or does that business restrict itself to religious ceremonies? If they do, what particular denomination of religion do they provide religious wedding ceremonies in?You are incorrect. They WERE NOT refused service because of their orientation. They were refused service because a religious business did not want to be part of their "marriage" ceremony.
The distinction is crucial when regarding which right trumps the other.
Mark
If that business as opened itself in the past to weddings of all kind, secular and various religious ceremonies.....well then, they have not made any distinctions in the past.............why now?
The distinction is crucial because they believe it to be a sin. I cannot make it more plain than that.
Mark
Interracial marriage is still thought of as a sin for some people and back in 1967 it REALLY, REALLY was...and still we have protections in FEDERAL Public Accommodation laws that says you can't discriminate against THAT couple. Should racist bigots get your "religious exemption" from anti discrimination laws as well or just gays? It's a sin for women to speak in public...does that mean a business can discriminate against women unless they are silent?
That sin was based on poor interpretation of the Bible. The Bible is quite clear on homosexuality being sinful.
Your opinion on how they interpret the bible is irrelevant. They believed it just as you believe that being gay is sinful...and yet there are plenty of people that disagree with YOUR interpretation.
The more you do research into the actual text of the law ... Sexual orientation is an assumed protection not identified. There are existing laws that have been passed subsequently at the state level based on that simple assumption.
.
I don't like to assume what a law says. If I can assume something that is not stated, then any law becomes meaningless. At that point, "the law" becomes whatever you want it to be.
A dangerous concept, IMO.
Mark
The distinction is crucial because they believe it to be a sin. I cannot make it more plain than that.
Mark
Interracial marriage is still thought of as a sin for some people and back in 1967 it REALLY, REALLY was...and still we have protections in FEDERAL Public Accommodation laws that says you can't discriminate against THAT couple. Should racist bigots get your "religious exemption" from anti discrimination laws as well or just gays? It's a sin for women to speak in public...does that mean a business can discriminate against women unless they are silent?
That sin was based on poor interpretation of the Bible. The Bible is quite clear on homosexuality being sinful.
Your opinion on how they interpret the bible is irrelevant. They believed it just as you believe that being gay is sinful...and yet there are plenty of people that disagree with YOUR interpretation.
They would be wrong.
There are no rational people out there saying the Bible advocates or approves of a homosexual lifestyle. The Bible's view on race has had a preponderance of people saying it is either neutral on it, or supportive of equality or at least tolerance among the races. The justification of slavery/racism via the bible was an aberration among white southern baptists in response to the abolitionist position of slave-owning as sinful.
Islam is even more clear that racism is wrong, but even more clear that homosexuality is wrong as well.
Again, it doesn't matter what YOU think, they know they are just as right about it being a sin as you think you are. Do they get religious exemptions from PA laws too or just people that hate the gays?
The distinction is crucial because they believe it to be a sin. I cannot make it more plain than that.
Mark
Interracial marriage is still thought of as a sin for some people and back in 1967 it REALLY, REALLY was...and still we have protections in FEDERAL Public Accommodation laws that says you can't discriminate against THAT couple. Should racist bigots get your "religious exemption" from anti discrimination laws as well or just gays? It's a sin for women to speak in public...does that mean a business can discriminate against women unless they are silent?
That sin was based on poor interpretation of the Bible. The Bible is quite clear on homosexuality being sinful.
Your opinion on how they interpret the bible is irrelevant. They believed it just as you believe that being gay is sinful...and yet there are plenty of people that disagree with YOUR interpretation.
They would be wrong.
There are no rational people out there saying the Bible advocates or approves of a homosexual lifestyle. The Bible's view on race has had a preponderance of people saying it is either neutral on it, or supportive of equality or at least tolerance among the races. The justification of slavery/racism via the bible was an aberration among white southern baptists in response to the abolitionist position of slave-owning as sinful.
Islam is even more clear that racism is wrong, but even more clear that homosexuality is wrong as well.
Again, it doesn't matter what YOU think, they know they are just as right about it being a sin as you think you are. Do they get religious exemptions from PA laws too or just people that hate the gays?
As I said....it appears that to some, some religious beliefs are more equal than others.That business puts on weddings of all kinds or does that business restrict itself to religious ceremonies? If they do, what particular denomination of religion do they provide religious wedding ceremonies in?
If that business as opened itself in the past to weddings of all kind, secular and various religious ceremonies.....well then, they have not made any distinctions in the past.............why now?
The distinction is crucial because they believe it to be a sin. I cannot make it more plain than that.
Mark
Interracial marriage is still thought of as a sin for some people and back in 1967 it REALLY, REALLY was...and still we have protections in FEDERAL Public Accommodation laws that says you can't discriminate against THAT couple. Should racist bigots get your "religious exemption" from anti discrimination laws as well or just gays? It's a sin for women to speak in public...does that mean a business can discriminate against women unless they are silent?
That sin was based on poor interpretation of the Bible. The Bible is quite clear on homosexuality being sinful.
Your opinion on how they interpret the bible is irrelevant. They believed it just as you believe that being gay is sinful...and yet there are plenty of people that disagree with YOUR interpretation.
I agree. Let's face facts here. You accuse Christians of doing the exact same thing YOU are doing .... trying to ram your beliefs down everyone's throats. There's no difference and nothing makes you more right. Same coin, different side.
Exactly. Like I stated before, why do someones rights trump anothers? We can have a solution that lets both sides live in peace.
Why the resistance?
Mark
It seems that you have only rudeness to offer in this discussion.As I said....it appears that to some, some religious beliefs are more equal than others.The distinction is crucial because they believe it to be a sin. I cannot make it more plain than that.
Mark
Interracial marriage is still thought of as a sin for some people and back in 1967 it REALLY, REALLY was...and still we have protections in FEDERAL Public Accommodation laws that says you can't discriminate against THAT couple. Should racist bigots get your "religious exemption" from anti discrimination laws as well or just gays? It's a sin for women to speak in public...does that mean a business can discriminate against women unless they are silent?
That sin was based on poor interpretation of the Bible. The Bible is quite clear on homosexuality being sinful.
Your opinion on how they interpret the bible is irrelevant. They believed it just as you believe that being gay is sinful...and yet there are plenty of people that disagree with YOUR interpretation.
Just as for some reason your butthurt is more equal than others.
Your just a coward and use government to punish people who disagree with you, you don't have the balls to do it yourself.
So, the creation of "protected classes" are designed to punish people? How so?I agree. Let's face facts here. You accuse Christians of doing the exact same thing YOU are doing .... trying to ram your beliefs down everyone's throats. There's no difference and nothing makes you more right. Same coin, different side.
Exactly. Like I stated before, why do someones rights trump anothers? We can have a solution that lets both sides live in peace.
Why the resistance?
Mark
Because they are a "protected class" and get to punish people using government.
As I said....it appears that to some, some religious beliefs are more equal than others.That business puts on weddings of all kinds or does that business restrict itself to religious ceremonies? If they do, what particular denomination of religion do they provide religious wedding ceremonies in?
If that business as opened itself in the past to weddings of all kind, secular and various religious ceremonies.....well then, they have not made any distinctions in the past.............why now?
The distinction is crucial because they believe it to be a sin. I cannot make it more plain than that.
Mark
Interracial marriage is still thought of as a sin for some people and back in 1967 it REALLY, REALLY was...and still we have protections in FEDERAL Public Accommodation laws that says you can't discriminate against THAT couple. Should racist bigots get your "religious exemption" from anti discrimination laws as well or just gays? It's a sin for women to speak in public...does that mean a business can discriminate against women unless they are silent?
That sin was based on poor interpretation of the Bible. The Bible is quite clear on homosexuality being sinful.
Your opinion on how they interpret the bible is irrelevant. They believed it just as you believe that being gay is sinful...and yet there are plenty of people that disagree with YOUR interpretation.
It seems that you have only rudeness to offer in this discussion.As I said....it appears that to some, some religious beliefs are more equal than others.Interracial marriage is still thought of as a sin for some people and back in 1967 it REALLY, REALLY was...and still we have protections in FEDERAL Public Accommodation laws that says you can't discriminate against THAT couple. Should racist bigots get your "religious exemption" from anti discrimination laws as well or just gays? It's a sin for women to speak in public...does that mean a business can discriminate against women unless they are silent?
That sin was based on poor interpretation of the Bible. The Bible is quite clear on homosexuality being sinful.
Your opinion on how they interpret the bible is irrelevant. They believed it just as you believe that being gay is sinful...and yet there are plenty of people that disagree with YOUR interpretation.
Just as for some reason your butthurt is more equal than others.
Your just a coward and use government to punish people who disagree with you, you don't have the balls to do it yourself.
