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 HAVE been many states that have attempted to keep these cases in civil rights courts yet ALL of them are pushed into Federal courts on the grounds that the churches have a constitutional right to use their facilities consistent with their beliefs.
Where the churches have lost is when the courts have ruled, and I believe these administrative courts to be wrong, that the properties involved did not constitute a "church".
They are a building used primarily for events and not worship.
And all of those cases are pushed on appeal into the Federal courts.
Where the churches win.
All of them? Every single one? I know of at least one where that did not happen, does that make you a lying sack of shit, or are you going to claim you were using hyperbole?
Asshole.
There HAVE been many states that have attempted to keep these cases in civil rights courts yet ALL of them are pushed into Federal courts on the grounds that the churches have a constitutional right to use their facilities consistent with their beliefs.
Where the churches have lost is when the courts have ruled, and I believe these administrative courts to be wrong, that the properties involved did not constitute a "church".
They are a building used primarily for events and not worship.
And all of those cases are pushed on appeal into the Federal courts.
Where the churches win.
All of them? Every single one? I know of at least one where that did not happen, does that make you a lying sack of shit, or are you going to claim you were using hyperbole?
Asshole.
Never has a church lost a case where they would require a preacher to perform a ceremony that they did not want to.
Never.
Losing a screw there Windbag? Having a bad day?
Go get a refill of Vodka and a double bump of meth to lighten you up some.
What the fuck difference does it make who wrote the laws? As long as they exist people are going to be sued for not bowing down to the gay agenda.
Are people being sued for not bowing to the religious, gender, race or country of origin "agenda" too? That's what most Public Accommodation laws cover. Only a few added "the gheys" to the list for protection against discrimination in Public Accommodation. Don't like 'em, repeal them all...but don't be upset when they stop discrimination against gays too.
People can sue churches all they want to...they won't win if they sue to have a ceremony performed...because the 1st Amendment guarantees their right to discriminate.
Are you trying to tell me that the couple who sued a photographer for not photographing their commitment ceremony do not have an agenda? How else do you explain their insistence on making someone who did not want to attend their wedding to show up and take pictures?
Unless you are going to try and argue that no one has an agenda, I suggest you shut the fuck up. Even if I assume that you don't have an agenda, which would mean I have to assume you are dumber than dog shit, that does not prove that no one has one.
That argument would be a lot more convincing if I couldn't point to two different lawsuits filed under public accommodation laws that succeeded.
But, by all means, keep saying it.
Public Accommodation, not a religious ceremony performed by clergy. Repeal all Public Accommodation laws if you want to...it has nothing to do with marriage equality.
Why did you suddenly change your argument to clergy instead of churches? Is it so you wouldn't have to admit you are wrong? What makes you think that clergy will not be subject to the same laws?
All of them? Every single one? I know of at least one where that did not happen, does that make you a lying sack of shit, or are you going to claim you were using hyperbole?
Asshole.
Never has a church lost a case where they would require a preacher to perform a ceremony that they did not want to.
Never.
Losing a screw there Windbag? Having a bad day?
Go get a refill of Vodka and a double bump of meth to lighten you up some.
Another goal post mover, what a surprise.
Until this year you could have said that no state Supreme Court had ever required a photographer to take pictures of a wedding, now you can't. Telling me that something has not happened is not proof that it will not.
Feel free to defend the government interference in the rights of individuals, I know that is one of your favorite things.
If a family was kicked out of an organization for denouncing a gay child would you complain? Whatever reasoning the church used, they were correct that accepting and endorsing homosexuality is worse than being a homosexual.
Are people being sued for not bowing to the religious, gender, race or country of origin "agenda" too? That's what most Public Accommodation laws cover. Only a few added "the gheys" to the list for protection against discrimination in Public Accommodation. Don't like 'em, repeal them all...but don't be upset when they stop discrimination against gays too.
People can sue churches all they want to...they won't win if they sue to have a ceremony performed...because the 1st Amendment guarantees their right to discriminate.
Are you trying to tell me that the couple who sued a photographer for not photographing their commitment ceremony do not have an agenda? How else do you explain their insistence on making someone who did not want to attend their wedding to show up and take pictures?
Unless you are going to try and argue that no one has an agenda, I suggest you shut the fuck up. Even if I assume that you don't have an agenda, which would mean I have to assume you are dumber than dog shit, that does not prove that no one has one.
Yes, their "agenda" is to be treated equally. The law in their state requires that services be provided regardless of race, gender, religion and sexual orientation. 13 states have them. If you object to offering services to "the gheys", don't open a business in those states.
A Unique Religious Exemption From Antidiscrimination Laws in the Case of Gays? Putting the Call for Exemptions for Those Who Discriminate Against Married or Marrying Gays in Context
If a family was kicked out of an organization for denouncing a gay child would you complain? Whatever reasoning the church used, they were correct that accepting and endorsing homosexuality is worse than being a homosexual.
So church and the teachings of Jesus Christ are only for those without sin then yeah?
Are you trying to tell me that the couple who sued a photographer for not photographing their commitment ceremony do not have an agenda? How else do you explain their insistence on making someone who did not want to attend their wedding to show up and take pictures?
Unless you are going to try and argue that no one has an agenda, I suggest you shut the fuck up. Even if I assume that you don't have an agenda, which would mean I have to assume you are dumber than dog shit, that does not prove that no one has one.
Yes, their "agenda" is to be treated equally. The law in their state requires that services be provided regardless of race, gender, religion and sexual orientation. 13 states have them. If you object to offering services to "the gheys", don't open a business in those states.
A Unique Religious Exemption From Antidiscrimination Laws in the Case of Gays? Putting the Call for Exemptions for Those Who Discriminate Against Married or Marrying Gays in Context
If that was remotely true they would agree to civil unions
If a family was kicked out of an organization for denouncing a gay child would you complain? Whatever reasoning the church used, they were correct that accepting and endorsing homosexuality is worse than being a homosexual.
So church and the teachings of Jesus Christ are only for those without sin then yeah?
Except the family left they were not ejected
If a family was kicked out of an organization for denouncing a gay child would you complain? Whatever reasoning the church used, they were correct that accepting and endorsing homosexuality is worse than being a homosexual.
So church and the teachings of Jesus Christ are only for those without sin then yeah?
If a family was kicked out of an organization for denouncing a gay child would you complain? Whatever reasoning the church used, they were correct that accepting and endorsing homosexuality is worse than being a homosexual.
So church and the teachings of Jesus Christ are only for those without sin then yeah?
Except the family left they were not ejected
So church and the teachings of Jesus Christ are only for those without sin then yeah?
Except the family left they were not ejected
Because the family had ten times the class of those in charge of that "church". As I said, while they might not know it yet, they got the better deal.
Are people being sued for not bowing to the religious, gender, race or country of origin "agenda" too? That's what most Public Accommodation laws cover. Only a few added "the gheys" to the list for protection against discrimination in Public Accommodation. Don't like 'em, repeal them all...but don't be upset when they stop discrimination against gays too.
People can sue churches all they want to...they won't win if they sue to have a ceremony performed...because the 1st Amendment guarantees their right to discriminate.
Are you trying to tell me that the couple who sued a photographer for not photographing their commitment ceremony do not have an agenda? How else do you explain their insistence on making someone who did not want to attend their wedding to show up and take pictures?
Unless you are going to try and argue that no one has an agenda, I suggest you shut the fuck up. Even if I assume that you don't have an agenda, which would mean I have to assume you are dumber than dog shit, that does not prove that no one has one.
Yes, their "agenda" is to be treated equally. The law in their state requires that services be provided regardless of race, gender, religion and sexual orientation. 13 states have them. If you object to offering services to "the gheys", don't open a business in those states.
A Unique Religious Exemption From Antidiscrimination Laws in the Case of Gays? Putting the Call for Exemptions for Those Who Discriminate Against Married or Marrying Gays in Context
Assume a state law bans discrimination based on sexual orientation, as well as based on race and gender, in housing, employment, and public accommodations. If gays were discriminated against based on sexual orientation in one of these areas, in violation of the state law, should those with religious objections be exempt from civil damages or injunctions for their violation of the law? If so, when? Should the exemption be constitutionally required? Under the rule in Employment Division v. Smith, the answer to the constitutional question is no.
Since a federal constitutional exemption from state laws is not available (and the RFRA could not constitutionally be applied to the states), should the legislature engraft a religious or moral exemption onto its antidiscrimination statutes solely in the case of discrimination based on sexual orientation? Should it pass state constitutional amendments doing the same thing?
In connection with gay marriage, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty answers this question, Yes. The Funds examples of conflict with sincere religious beliefs include religious objectors who decide not to hire people in same-sex marriages, who refuse to extend spousal benefits to same-sex couples, and who refuse to provide otherwise available housing to same-sex couples.[52] After listing these examples, the Fund advocates legislation to provide robust accommodation to religious objectors to same-sex marriage.[53] It also would expand the exemption to other conscientious objectors.[54] Since the Fund also lists gay couples,[55] it seems its plan may end up going beyond gay marriage. As a matter of logic it is hard to see why it should stop at married gays and not include gays living with their partners and single gays.
Assuming the state has a general antidiscrimination law and the legislature passes a religious or moral exemption only in cases of sexual orientation, what should be the dimensions of the claimed religiously or morally justified right to discriminate against gays? Should the right to discriminate be limited only to immediately facilitating the gay marriage itselfbaking the wedding cake, providing the flowers, supplying the hotel for the receptions, and so on? Should it, as the Fund apparently advocates, include the right to discriminate against married gays after the marriage? Should it, as the Fund advocates, cover housing, employment, and spousal benefits such as health insurance? What about gays living with partners and unmarried gays?
If the Fund is correct about exemptions for discrimination against married and marrying gays, and if the right to discriminate expands to cover unmarried as well as married gays (why not, by this logic?), should the state or Congress also, as a matter of sound policy, provide religious or moral exemptions in cases of racial, religious, and gender discrimination? Here we look at legislative policy decisions in commercial transactions, not at what the Constitution requires or provides.
If discrimination based on sexual orientation is closely analogous to discrimination based on race and gender, the policy answer to the questions should be the same: exemptions should be allowed to religious discriminators in race, gender, and sexual orientation cases or exemptions should be denied to religious discriminators in each case. Should religiously motivated objectors to laws banning race (and gender) discrimination in employment and discrimination in public accommodations, for example, have been exempt from the strictures of the laws? As a matter of public policy, should the 1964 Civil Rights Actwhich banned discrimination based on race, religion, national origin, or sex in employmenthave allowed religiously motivated objectors to discriminate against blacks or women or Buddhists? Should those with religious or moral motivations have been exempt from the ban on discrimination in public accommodations under the 1964 Civil Rights Act?
At the moment, those who advocate exemptions focus on gay marriage. Should religious objectors to interracial marriage now be allowed to (and, after Loving v. Virginia, should they in the past have been allowed to) discriminate against interracial couples in employment, housing, spousal benefits, and the rest? If not, why is gay marriage unique? More broadly, why is discrimination against gays unique?
Since I think discrimination based on sexual orientation is closely analogous to racial and gender discrimination, I turn next to that question.
Public Accommodation, not a religious ceremony performed by clergy. Repeal all Public Accommodation laws if you want to...it has nothing to do with marriage equality.
Why did you suddenly change your argument to clergy instead of churches? Is it so you wouldn't have to admit you are wrong? What makes you think that clergy will not be subject to the same laws?
Same whore different dress. No church or clergy will ever be required to perform a wedding ceremony to any couple they have a religious objection to.
Never has a church lost a case where they would require a preacher to perform a ceremony that they did not want to.
Never.
Losing a screw there Windbag? Having a bad day?
Go get a refill of Vodka and a double bump of meth to lighten you up some.
Another goal post mover, what a surprise.
Until this year you could have said that no state Supreme Court had ever required a photographer to take pictures of a wedding, now you can't. Telling me that something has not happened is not proof that it will not.
Feel free to defend the government interference in the rights of individuals, I know that is one of your favorite things.
Because of that state's public accommodation laws. Have you started work on repealing ALL of them yet?
Yes, their "agenda" is to be treated equally. The law in their state requires that services be provided regardless of race, gender, religion and sexual orientation. 13 states have them. If you object to offering services to "the gheys", don't open a business in those states.
A Unique Religious Exemption From Antidiscrimination Laws in the Case of Gays? Putting the Call for Exemptions for Those Who Discriminate Against Married or Marrying Gays in Context
If that was remotely true they would agree to civil unions
Show me one state where gays didn't agree to civil unions. We wouldn't push for legal marriage if all you got was a civil union too. One thing for one group of people and another thing for another group of people is not equality.
So church and the teachings of Jesus Christ are only for those without sin then yeah?
Except the family left they were not ejected
An interesting interpretation of their ultimatum. Since when does one have to first repent publicly of all of their sins and perceived sins (as judged upon by another human and not god) before they are allowed to worship God?
Are you trying to tell me that the couple who sued a photographer for not photographing their commitment ceremony do not have an agenda? How else do you explain their insistence on making someone who did not want to attend their wedding to show up and take pictures?
Unless you are going to try and argue that no one has an agenda, I suggest you shut the fuck up. Even if I assume that you don't have an agenda, which would mean I have to assume you are dumber than dog shit, that does not prove that no one has one.
Yes, their "agenda" is to be treated equally. The law in their state requires that services be provided regardless of race, gender, religion and sexual orientation. 13 states have them. If you object to offering services to "the gheys", don't open a business in those states.
A Unique Religious Exemption From Antidiscrimination Laws in the Case of Gays? Putting the Call for Exemptions for Those Who Discriminate Against Married or Marrying Gays in Context
If that was remotely true they would agree to civil unions
