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.
It's probably in the same verse where it says gays can't be served.So...Woolworth's had the right to refuse service to black customers at their lunch counters?Yes...if someone of a certain religion seeks to be served in a business and that business refuses them, that business can be fined. You need to brush up on the DIFFERENCE between the rights of a business vs. the rights of a customer.If the Civil Rights Act protects religion, then forcing someone to act in defiance of their religion is breaking the law, is it not?
Mark
The right to freedom or religion recognizes that all people have the same right to it. The rights of a customer does not trump the rights of the business owner, nor should they.
Mark
When it comes to the constitution, no.
But show me in the Bible where it says blacks can't be served.
Even gays discriminate. Transgender folks were treated like poor stepchildren in some circles in the gay community. Pedophilia is not acceptable. Bestiality. Necrophilia. The list goes on and on. They're just as full of bigotry as anyone.
Just like minorities eventually went after churches for refusing to marry interracial couples or interfaith couples or previously divorced couples.Any gay couple got the balls to ask to get married in a Mosque? I haven't heard of one lesbian or homosexual couple demanding to be married in a Mosque.
Any one?
A mosque is a religious place of worship which is exempt from public accommodation laws.
No church has ever been forced to perform a wedding that goes against the tenants of their faith. Churches were never forced to perform marriages for interracial couples but they certainly do have public accommodation protections. Do you resent those?
Nope. I just wouldn't be a member in a church I'm not welcome in.
Simple as that.
That has what to do with what? Churches are not subject to PA laws. Non sequitur much?
Yet. you are going after the low hanging fruit first.
The only time you see conservatives go this mental over an issue such as this is when you see some protest against a conservative speaking at a university,
then all of the sudden the RWnuts throw a fit over the idea that the university might have the right to choose not to bring that person on campus.
lol
1st, its often student groups that try to bring a speaker onsite, only to be threatened by other student groups. The schools knuckle under to the progressives under the threat of violence.
It seems only conservative speakers have this issue. Can you find a progressive speaker on a campus that has cancelled because a conservative group threatened to disrupt their speech?
Bullshit.
The fact that the rioting students could be heard yelling, "He has no right to speak!" was telling. Apparently, in their minds, neither Gilchrist nor anyone else with whom they disagree has a right to express their viewpoints. In any other setting this would be called exactly what it is -- totalitarianism. But in the untouchable Ivy League world of Columbia, it was chalked up to student activism gone awry. While condemning the incident, Columbia University President Lee Bollingerhas yet to apologize to Gilchrist or to conclude the supposed investigation into the affair. In other words, mob rule won the day.
In May 2014, the Young Americans for Liberty (YAL) chapter at Boise State University co-sponsored an event focusing on gun rights with two off-campus groups, featuring a speech by activist and former Supreme Court litigant Dick Heller. Less than 24 hours before the event, Boise State demanded that YAL pay $465 in security fees, or have their event cancelled, due to the perception that some non-campus community members had encouraged people to carry firearms at the event—despite YAL’s public statements that Boise State rules prohibiting firearms would be in effect. On July 3, 2014, FIRE wrote to Boise State, explaining that the school’s application of its “Event Security” policy affixed an unconstitutional price tag to YAL’s expression. FIRE demanded that Boise State return the $465 fee to YAL, and revise its Event Security policy to include objective and viewpoint-neutral criteria so that student groups at Boise State are not threatened with similar unconstitutional fees in the future.
You said "the rights of a customer does not trump the rights of the business owner"...did you not? What if the business owner (Woolworths) does not wish to serve blacks at their lunch counters? Doesn't Woolworth's rights to NOT serve blacks trump the rights of black customers to be served there? If not, why not?So...Woolworth's had the right to refuse service to black customers at their lunch counters?Yes...if someone of a certain religion seeks to be served in a business and that business refuses them, that business can be fined. You need to brush up on the DIFFERENCE between the rights of a business vs. the rights of a customer.Ask the Civil Rights Act that protects race, religion, country of origin, etc. You're asking why we have PA laws. I'm sure you can find the answer if you try really, really hard.
If the Civil Rights Act protects religion, then forcing someone to act in defiance of their religion is breaking the law, is it not?
Mark
The right to freedom or religion recognizes that all people have the same right to it. The rights of a customer does not trump the rights of the business owner, nor should they.
Mark
Nope. Not even close to what I said.
Mark
Any gay couple got the balls to ask to get married in a Mosque? I haven't heard of one lesbian or homosexual couple demanding to be married in a Mosque.
Any one?
A mosque is a religious place of worship which is exempt from public accommodation laws.
No church has ever been forced to perform a wedding that goes against the tenants of their faith. Churches were never forced to perform marriages for interracial couples but they certainly do have public accommodation protections. Do you resent those?
Nope. I just wouldn't be a member in a church I'm not welcome in.
Simple as that.
That has what to do with what? Churches are not subject to PA laws. Non sequitur much?
So...? What exactly is your point with that? Do you have a problem with gay people having the right to use our court system?Just like minorities eventually went after churches for refusing to marry interracial couples or interfaith couples or previously divorced couples.A mosque is a religious place of worship which is exempt from public accommodation laws.
No church has ever been forced to perform a wedding that goes against the tenants of their faith. Churches were never forced to perform marriages for interracial couples but they certainly do have public accommodation protections. Do you resent those?
Nope. I just wouldn't be a member in a church I'm not welcome in.
Simple as that.
That has what to do with what? Churches are not subject to PA laws. Non sequitur much?
Yet. you are going after the low hanging fruit first.
They were not as litigious as gays seem to be.
Even after government discrimination ended blacks had their own community, whites theirs. they shared some things, but kept others separate. What gays want is to get in on the straight society of their social level/ethnicity, which blacks and whites never did to each other.
You said "the rights of a customer does not trump the rights of the business owner"...did you not? What if the business owner (Woolworths) does not wish to serve blacks at their lunch counters? Doesn't Woolworth's rights to NOT serve blacks trump the rights of black customers to be served there? If not, why not?
So...? What exactly is your point with that? Do you have a problem with gay people having the right to use our court system?Just like minorities eventually went after churches for refusing to marry interracial couples or interfaith couples or previously divorced couples.Nope. I just wouldn't be a member in a church I'm not welcome in.
Simple as that.
That has what to do with what? Churches are not subject to PA laws. Non sequitur much?
Yet. you are going after the low hanging fruit first.
They were not as litigious as gays seem to be.
Even after government discrimination ended blacks had their own community, whites theirs. they shared some things, but kept others separate. What gays want is to get in on the straight society of their social level/ethnicity, which blacks and whites never did to each other.
That's what a ni99er hating ...
The only time you see conservatives go this mental over an issue such as this is when you see some protest against a conservative speaking at a university,
then all of the sudden the RWnuts throw a fit over the idea that the university might have the right to choose not to bring that person on campus.
lol
So...? What exactly is your point with that? Do you have a problem with gay people having the right to use our court system?Just like minorities eventually went after churches for refusing to marry interracial couples or interfaith couples or previously divorced couples.Nope. I just wouldn't be a member in a church I'm not welcome in.
Simple as that.
That has what to do with what? Churches are not subject to PA laws. Non sequitur much?
Yet. you are going after the low hanging fruit first.
They were not as litigious as gays seem to be.
Even after government discrimination ended blacks had their own community, whites theirs. they shared some things, but kept others separate. What gays want is to get in on the straight society of their social level/ethnicity, which blacks and whites never did to each other.
Seems to me we're always under attack, playing catcher to your pitching.
Seems to me we're always under attack, playing catcher to your pitching.
Properly identifying who is catching and who is pitching can make a world of difference in the experience ...
.
That's what a ni99er hating ...
You sure seem to enjoy posting that word over and over again. Think you're still fooling anyone?
You sure seem to enjoy hating gay people. Think you're still fooling anyone?
Actually, I'd like to interrupt this right wing whine-fest by pointing out that the gay couples don't sue......the state fines the business. Now we return you back to your right wing religious martyrdom.It's probably in the same verse where it says gays can't be served.So...Woolworth's had the right to refuse service to black customers at their lunch counters?Yes...if someone of a certain religion seeks to be served in a business and that business refuses them, that business can be fined. You need to brush up on the DIFFERENCE between the rights of a business vs. the rights of a customer.
The right to freedom or religion recognizes that all people have the same right to it. The rights of a customer does not trump the rights of the business owner, nor should they.
Mark
When it comes to the constitution, no.
But show me in the Bible where it says blacks can't be served.
Who said gays shouldn't be served? The reason for not serving is what falls under freedom of religion.
A gay walks into a bar, and the bar refuses service because it doesn't like gays, sue their asses off. A bar doesn't want to host a gay wedding on religious grounds is an entirely different can of worms.
Mark
Te frothing foaming fairies aren't content to have "equal rights" but demand everyone approve their choices.
The butthurt is strong in republicunts in this thread!
Hell hath no fury like a fairy scorned
Let them get married-just don't force others to approve of it or sponsor it
Like a ni99er and a white girl right? May they be SCORNED TO THE FIRES OF HEEEELLL!
You sure seem to enjoy hating gay people. Think you're still fooling anyone?
Are you suggesting that parents who don't let their children have their way in all circumstances hate their children?
.
Te frothing foaming fairies aren't content to have "equal rights" but demand everyone approve their choices.
The butthurt is strong in republicunts in this thread!
Hell hath no fury like a fairy scorned
Let them get married-just don't force others to approve of it or sponsor it
Like a ni99er and a white girl right? May they be SCORNED TO THE FIRES OF HEEEELLL!
so you are a racist and hate the constitution?
