Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[deltex1]

Has Howey announced he's pregnant yet?

 

[beagle9]

Why would this nation begin engaging in the denying of Christians their rights to separate themselves as based upon their religious tenets in life, I mean will they be missed that badly by these people or is it that they (the Christians) are under attack now, and so they are being sought after in order to be wiped out in the public square, and then placed nice and neatly into a tiny little box now ?

 

[beagle9]

By politicians passing laws.

No church or mosque or synogue will be forced to marry ANYONE they don't want to marry- for whatever reason.

I already answered him. But my answer had to do with lobbyists.

How do you reconcile your previous statement,

"Neither is protected by the law- you can't deny service to an African American because you claim you have religious objections to serving him, nor can you deny service to a Jew by claiming religious objections.

Race- religion- national origin- gender- those are all protected by Federal law- and it is against the law to deny service to someone because they live a Jewish lifestyle or a Christian lifestyle."

With the above statement? Are weddings not services?

Marriage in a church is protected both by the Constitution, and every Public Accomodation law I have seen- i.e. anything religious done in a church is protected.

Civil marriage outside of a church is subject to PA laws.

Yeah, I know. So you can deny services to anyone you want - including gays - by claiming you have religious objections to serving them.

Whats wrong with having religious objections to not encouraging or engaging in anything that is sinful according to a Christian in this nation ? Remember that freedom of religion and religious expression is built into the nations dialog, so has that all changed somehow now ?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yes. In Nevada. The pastor won. Win isn't quite correct since it never rose to the lawsuit level. The gay couple realized they could not win and abandoned the claim.

You are referring to "The Hitching Post" I believe:

1. No "gay couple" sued, as a matter of fact it was the Pastor that filed a ore-emptive lawsuit against the city.

2. The pastor was not in charge of a Church, the pastor was running a for profit business which advertised for BOTH religious and civil ceremonies and it was only the civil ceremonies that would have fallen under public accommodation laws. However that is irrelevant because prior to Same-sex Civil Marriage going into effect the Hitiching Post changed it's business model and now only offers religious ceremonies.

>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

I thought someone already posted a link to someone attempting to sue a pastor and/or a church for not performing the ceremony or refusing to ?

Been here since the beginning, haven't' seen anyone post a reputable link to an example of a member of the Clergy or a bonafide Church being sued, let alone losing the case, for refusing to perform a religious ceremony.


>>>>

What was I seeing or reading then ? Oh it must have not been a credible link as you said.. I must admit that I didn't click on the link, but I did see someone post a link to that affect in which was saying this sort of thing.

People say a lot of things. Being able to back them up is another thing.

I've seen no links to any credible lawsuit in the United States where a pastor or Church has been sued for refusing to perform an interracial marriage, an interfaith marriage, a marriage where one or both of the couple were divorced for reasons other than adultery, or since SSCM has been legal in at least one State for over a decade for refusing to perform an same-sex religious ceremony.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Well it is my thoughts then, that a business that wants to have their religion known before their customers enter into the business, should place their religious title before the name of the business.

Otherwise it should read "Joe's Christian Bakery," where we make angel cakes that will send your taste buds into heaven. Then if a person tries to come in and request that the bakery do business in a way that would not follow the religious context in which the bakery operates upon, then that customer can be directed to another bakery that may accommodate their needs in a specific way in which they might request from the other bakery instead.

Why do you assume that because the business name is "Joe's Christian Bakery" that homosexuals would not be welcome there? There are plenty of Christians that have no problem with same-sex marriage and there are plenty of Christian Churches that will host a Same-sex Religious Ceremony (by choice).


>>>>

 

[beagle9]

Well it is my thoughts then, that a business that wants to have their religion known before their customers enter into the business, should place their religious title before the name of the business.

Otherwise it should read "Joe's Christian Bakery," where we make angel cakes that will send your taste buds into heaven. Then if a person tries to come in and request that the bakery do business in a way that would not follow the religious context in which the bakery operates upon, then that customer can be directed to another bakery that may accommodate their needs in a specific way in which they might request from the other bakery instead.

Why do you assume that because the business name is "Joe's Christian Bakery" that homosexuals would not be welcome there? There are plenty of Christians that have no problem with same-sex marriage and there are plenty of Christian Churches that will host a Same-sex Religious Ceremony (by choice).


>>>>

I don't assume that at all... Now those are your words cast upon me, so be careful that you don't try baiting someone before your audience in that way, because that is cheesy for someone like you to do or try to do, but you did it didn't you ?

Now what it does, is that it will make the ones who don't want to engage in that type of thing, not have to, and the customers will understand this because of the listing or title of the business they have walked into. Now who knows just like you say, there may be another Christian bakery down the road that the one Christian bakery might refer them to next, and that will be great also in the situation if they are welcome there, but the main thing is that the government forces no one to do something against their will in the situation, and that is what freedom is all about in this nation or that it should be about in this nation.

 

[Syriusly]

Why would this nation begin engaging in the denying of Christians their rights to separate themselves as based upon their religious tenets in life, I mean will they be missed that badly by these people or is it that they (the Christians) are under attack now, and so they are being sought after in order to be wiped out in the public square, and then placed nice and neatly into a tiny little box now ?

Well certainly it would be wrong if Christians were being targeted for their religion.

But since the same laws apply equally to all Americans- Christians are not being targeted, nor are they under attack.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You know, looking around at America and the world now, it really is getting harder for people to separate along any lines anymore, because if they do then they are figured as the enemy to those who will not except the separation even if the lines that are drawn are along religious lines or cultural lines now.

Nonsense.

The First Amendment right to freedom of association remains fully intact, and as reaffirmed by the Supreme Court (BSA v. Dale (2000)). Private organizations remain at liberty to exclude whomever they wish with impunity.

Public accommodations laws are authorized by the Commerce Clause, having nothing to do with freedom of association jurisprudence.

This is subjective perception on your part.

 

[Syriusly]

By politicians passing laws.

No church or mosque or synogue will be forced to marry ANYONE they don't want to marry- for whatever reason.

I already answered him. But my answer had to do with lobbyists.

How do you reconcile your previous statement,

"Neither is protected by the law- you can't deny service to an African American because you claim you have religious objections to serving him, nor can you deny service to a Jew by claiming religious objections.

Race- religion- national origin- gender- those are all protected by Federal law- and it is against the law to deny service to someone because they live a Jewish lifestyle or a Christian lifestyle."

With the above statement? Are weddings not services?

Marriage in a church is protected both by the Constitution, and every Public Accomodation law I have seen- i.e. anything religious done in a church is protected.

Civil marriage outside of a church is subject to PA laws.

Yeah, I know. So you can deny services to anyone you want - including gays - by claiming you have religious objections to serving them.

Whats wrong with having religious objections to not encouraging or engaging in anything that is sinful according to a Christian in this nation ? Remember that freedom of religion and religious expression is built into the nations dialog, so has that all changed somehow now ?

And when people refuse to do business with blacks or Jews or Chinese or women or the handicapped by claiming that selling them gas will violate their religious beliefs?

 

[Syriusly]

I'm not a lawyer, although I think there is no difference. Churches (or synagogues or mosques) will not be forced to marry anyone. Just as you cannot be forced to have gay sex with someone. It's not discrimination, it's just that you're not down with it.

If one is not down with it, and one is objectionable to the lifestyle that leads to it, and all because of ones faith, then should the government intervene and force an individual to cater to the people that do these things in which a person may figure will take them to hell all because of or if they support such a thing or give support to such a thing in life ? The Church is not a building of brick and mortar, but rather it is that the Church resides in the individual who carries the message of the Lord within him or her, so I ask where does their rights begin and end in this nation that is fast becoming something in which many don't recognize any longer ?

There is no difference between plain bigotry and claiming a religious objection to something. Neither is protected by the law- you can't deny service to an African American because you claim you have religious objections to serving him, nor can you deny service to a Jew by claiming religious objections.

Race- religion- national origin- gender- those are all protected by Federal law- and it is against the law to deny service to someone because they live a Jewish lifestyle or a Christian lifestyle.

Some states and communities have additional protections for sexual preference- and it works the same way in those communities.

Don't like the law- change it so you can discriminate to your hearts content.

You love to throw in all these other things such as race - religion or national origin and such, but why do you do this ? Is it because if you separate all these from the other, then the other won't be able to stand upon it's own ?

Because the public accomodation laws include the groups I mention.

And because in the 50 years since the Civil Rights Act- the granddaddy PA law- no one has used PA laws to force a church to marry anyone the Church doesn't want to.

What I keep saying is that no one is going to force churches to marry anyone that the church doesn't want to- they haven't and they won't.

Well it is my thoughts then, that a business that wants to have their religion known before their customers enter into the business, should place their religious title before the name of the business.

Otherwise it should read "Joe's Christian Bakery," where we make angel cakes that will send your taste buds into heaven. Then if a person tries to come in and request that the bakery do business in a way that would not follow the religious context in which the bakery operates upon, then that customer can be directed to another bakery that may accommodate their needs in a specific way in which they might request from the other bakery instead.

To not place your values and beliefs upon your business logo, leaves the door wide open for someone to come in and request almost anything that your business may have as it's product for sale. Come on people and figure this out already, because the government can't enforce anything upon you if you title your business in a way that leaves no confusion to the public who might come in to do business with you along those lines. It's just like a Christian book store that is titles as a Christian book store, where as someone knows that they can't very well walk into that store and request a copy of playboy magazine now can they ? Also the feds can't make the store start carrying the magazine based upon a citizens request either... I think the reason this has not been the case thus far, is because people think that they will lose business if they do this or will be banned by potential customers if they do this, but what are your values and morals worth to you in your life right ?

If that is what you want- then you will need to change the law- starting with the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Go for it

The civil rights act has nothing to do with what is going on in all of this these days, and no civil rights laws need to be changed, but what needs to be changed, is for Christians to change the way in which they do business in this nation, and they should not fear this change at all.

If you want Christians to be able to discriminate against certain groups by claiming it would violate their religious beliefs, yes you will need to change all of the Public Accomadation laws.

 

[beagle9]

I thought someone already posted a link to someone attempting to sue a pastor and/or a church for not performing the ceremony or refusing to ?

Been here since the beginning, haven't' seen anyone post a reputable link to an example of a member of the Clergy or a bonafide Church being sued, let alone losing the case, for refusing to perform a religious ceremony.


>>>>

What was I seeing or reading then ? Oh it must have not been a credible link as you said.. I must admit that I didn't click on the link, but I did see someone post a link to that affect in which was saying this sort of thing.

People say a lot of things. Being able to back them up is another thing.

I've seen no links to any credible lawsuit in the United States where a pastor or Church has been sued for refusing to perform an interracial marriage, an interfaith marriage, a marriage where one or both of the couple were divorced for reasons other than adultery, or since SSCM has been legal in at least one State for over a decade for refusing to perform an same-sex religious ceremony.



>>>>

By politicians passing laws.

No church or mosque or synogue will be forced to marry ANYONE they don't want to marry- for whatever reason.

I already answered him. But my answer had to do with lobbyists.

How do you reconcile your previous statement,

"Neither is protected by the law- you can't deny service to an African American because you claim you have religious objections to serving him, nor can you deny service to a Jew by claiming religious objections.

Race- religion- national origin- gender- those are all protected by Federal law- and it is against the law to deny service to someone because they live a Jewish lifestyle or a Christian lifestyle."

With the above statement? Are weddings not services?

Marriage in a church is protected both by the Constitution, and every Public Accomodation law I have seen- i.e. anything religious done in a church is protected.

Civil marriage outside of a church is subject to PA laws.

Yeah, I know. So you can deny services to anyone you want - including gays - by claiming you have religious objections to serving them.

Whats wrong with having religious objections to not encouraging or engaging in anything that is sinful according to a Christian in this nation ? Remember that freedom of religion and religious expression is built into the nations dialog, so has that all changed somehow now ?

And when people refuse to do business with blacks or Jews or Chinese or women or the handicapped by claiming that selling them gas will violate their religious beliefs?

Not going to happen, and if you suggest this, then you are also one for silently agreeing upon the final attempt of suing a Church, but you won't go there just yet now will you ?

 

[beagle9]

If one is not down with it, and one is objectionable to the lifestyle that leads to it, and all because of ones faith, then should the government intervene and force an individual to cater to the people that do these things in which a person may figure will take them to hell all because of or if they support such a thing or give support to such a thing in life ? The Church is not a building of brick and mortar, but rather it is that the Church resides in the individual who carries the message of the Lord within him or her, so I ask where does their rights begin and end in this nation that is fast becoming something in which many don't recognize any longer ?
You love to throw in all these other things such as race - religion or national origin and such, but why do you do this ? Is it because if you separate all these from the other, then the other won't be able to stand upon it's own ?

Because the public accomodation laws include the groups I mention.

And because in the 50 years since the Civil Rights Act- the granddaddy PA law- no one has used PA laws to force a church to marry anyone the Church doesn't want to.

What I keep saying is that no one is going to force churches to marry anyone that the church doesn't want to- they haven't and they won't.

Well it is my thoughts then, that a business that wants to have their religion known before their customers enter into the business, should place their religious title before the name of the business.

Otherwise it should read "Joe's Christian Bakery," where we make angel cakes that will send your taste buds into heaven. Then if a person tries to come in and request that the bakery do business in a way that would not follow the religious context in which the bakery operates upon, then that customer can be directed to another bakery that may accommodate their needs in a specific way in which they might request from the other bakery instead.

To not place your values and beliefs upon your business logo, leaves the door wide open for someone to come in and request almost anything that your business may have as it's product for sale. Come on people and figure this out already, because the government can't enforce anything upon you if you title your business in a way that leaves no confusion to the public who might come in to do business with you along those lines. It's just like a Christian book store that is titles as a Christian book store, where as someone knows that they can't very well walk into that store and request a copy of playboy magazine now can they ? Also the feds can't make the store start carrying the magazine based upon a citizens request either... I think the reason this has not been the case thus far, is because people think that they will lose business if they do this or will be banned by potential customers if they do this, but what are your values and morals worth to you in your life right ?

If that is what you want- then you will need to change the law- starting with the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Go for it

The civil rights act has nothing to do with what is going on in all of this these days, and no civil rights laws need to be changed, but what needs to be changed, is for Christians to change the way in which they do business in this nation, and they should not fear this change at all.

If you want Christians to be able to discriminate against certain groups by claiming it would violate their religious beliefs, yes you will need to change all of the Public Accomadation laws.

No, just change their charter or title is all, but most won't do it because they fear they would go bankrupt in the deal, so they will remain silent. The Christian baker spoke out, but his problem was that he wanted to profess his Christianity in the case, but his business didn't reflect his beliefs or anything other than he sold cakes to the public. The public should not be confused as to who it is that they are dealing with in my opinion, so I think it time for businesses to change their titles if they want to profess their religious beliefs in their business model. I guarantee you that it wouldn't be a problem anymore if this was the case.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Well it is my thoughts then, that a business that wants to have their religion known before their customers enter into the business, should place their religious title before the name of the business.

Otherwise it should read "Joe's Christian Bakery," where we make angel cakes that will send your taste buds into heaven. Then if a person tries to come in and request that the bakery do business in a way that would not follow the religious context in which the bakery operates upon, then that customer can be directed to another bakery that may accommodate their needs in a specific way in which they might request from the other bakery instead.

Why do you assume that because the business name is "Joe's Christian Bakery" that homosexuals would not be welcome there? There are plenty of Christians that have no problem with same-sex marriage and there are plenty of Christian Churches that will host a Same-sex Religious Ceremony (by choice).


>>>>

I don't assume that at all... Now those are your words cast upon me, so be careful that you don't try baiting someone before your audience in that way, because that is cheesy for someone like you to do or try to do, but you did it didn't you ?

Now what it does, is that it will make the ones who don't want to engage in that type of thing, not have to, and the customers will understand this because of the listing or title of the business they have walked into. Now who knows just like you say, there may be another Christian bakery down the road that the one Christian bakery might refer them to next, and that will be great also in the situation if they are welcome there, but the main thing is that the government forces no one to do something against their will in the situation, and that is what freedom is all about in this nation or that it should be about in this nation.

Excuse me, I did assume anything.

You are the one that said a bakery should clearly have to indicate their religion as part of their business model, not I.

Personally I don't see the need for special rights being available to a business to discriminate by claiming something is against their religion. I think Public Accommodation laws should be repealed as applied to private businesses and they should be able to refuse service for any reason: black, white, Christian, Muslim, man, woman, Mexican, Irishman, Straight or Gay. If that is the case then there is no need to grant special privileges for someone to hide behind religion.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

No, just change their charter or title is all, but most won't do it because they fear they would go bankrupt in the deal, so they will remain silent. The Christian baker spoke out, but his problem was that he wanted to profess his Christianity in the case, but his business didn't reflect his beliefs or anything other than he sold cakes to the public. The public should not be confused as to who it is that they are dealing with in my opinion, so I think it time for businesses to change their titles if they want to profess their religious beliefs in their business model. I guarantee you that it wouldn't be a problem anymore if this was the case.

You know that changing the business name does not exempt them from Public Accommodation laws - right?

Below is the Colorado Public Accommodation law, the law applicable in one of the "bakery" cases. Notice the "name" of the business is irrelevant to the functioning of a for profit public accommodation.

Colorado Revised Statutes

24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation - definition.

(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.

(2) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, al status, national origin, or ancestry.


COCODE​

http://www.lpdirect.net/casb/crs/24-34-601.html​

http://www.lpdirect.net/casb/crs/24-34-601.html


>>>>

 

[Syriusly]

I thought someone already posted a link to someone attempting to sue a pastor and/or a church for not performing the ceremony or refusing to ?

Been here since the beginning, haven't' seen anyone post a reputable link to an example of a member of the Clergy or a bonafide Church being sued, let alone losing the case, for refusing to perform a religious ceremony.


>>>>

What was I seeing or reading then ? Oh it must have not been a credible link as you said.. I must admit that I didn't click on the link, but I did see someone post a link to that affect in which was saying this sort of thing.

People say a lot of things. Being able to back them up is another thing.

I've seen no links to any credible lawsuit in the United States where a pastor or Church has been sued for refusing to perform an interracial marriage, an interfaith marriage, a marriage where one or both of the couple were divorced for reasons other than adultery, or since SSCM has been legal in at least one State for over a decade for refusing to perform an same-sex religious ceremony.



>>>>

I already answered him. But my answer had to do with lobbyists.

How do you reconcile your previous statement,

"Neither is protected by the law- you can't deny service to an African American because you claim you have religious objections to serving him, nor can you deny service to a Jew by claiming religious objections.

Race- religion- national origin- gender- those are all protected by Federal law- and it is against the law to deny service to someone because they live a Jewish lifestyle or a Christian lifestyle."

With the above statement? Are weddings not services?

Marriage in a church is protected both by the Constitution, and every Public Accomodation law I have seen- i.e. anything religious done in a church is protected.

Civil marriage outside of a church is subject to PA laws.

Yeah, I know. So you can deny services to anyone you want - including gays - by claiming you have religious objections to serving them.

Whats wrong with having religious objections to not encouraging or engaging in anything that is sinful according to a Christian in this nation ? Remember that freedom of religion and religious expression is built into the nations dialog, so has that all changed somehow now ?

And when people refuse to do business with blacks or Jews or Chinese or women or the handicapped by claiming that selling them gas will violate their religious beliefs?

Not going to happen, and if you suggest this, then you are also one for silently agreeing upon the final attempt of suing a Church, but you won't go there just yet now will you ?

Oh I have said repeatedly- any idiot can sue for any reason.

Someone may sue a church someday for refusing to marry a Jew or a Black or Mormon or a homosexual- and they will be laughed out of court.

What you propose are laws that would allow anyone to discriminate against anyone by claiming that they have religious objections to them.

Which would effectively gut public accomodation laws.

If that is what you want.

 

[beagle9]

Well it is my thoughts then, that a business that wants to have their religion known before their customers enter into the business, should place their religious title before the name of the business.

Otherwise it should read "Joe's Christian Bakery," where we make angel cakes that will send your taste buds into heaven. Then if a person tries to come in and request that the bakery do business in a way that would not follow the religious context in which the bakery operates upon, then that customer can be directed to another bakery that may accommodate their needs in a specific way in which they might request from the other bakery instead.

Why do you assume that because the business name is "Joe's Christian Bakery" that homosexuals would not be welcome there? There are plenty of Christians that have no problem with same-sex marriage and there are plenty of Christian Churches that will host a Same-sex Religious Ceremony (by choice).


>>>>

I don't assume that at all... Now those are your words cast upon me, so be careful that you don't try baiting someone before your audience in that way, because that is cheesy for someone like you to do or try to do, but you did it didn't you ?

Now what it does, is that it will make the ones who don't want to engage in that type of thing, not have to, and the customers will understand this because of the listing or title of the business they have walked into. Now who knows just like you say, there may be another Christian bakery down the road that the one Christian bakery might refer them to next, and that will be great also in the situation if they are welcome there, but the main thing is that the government forces no one to do something against their will in the situation, and that is what freedom is all about in this nation or that it should be about in this nation.

Excuse me, I did assume anything.

You are the one that said a bakery should clearly have to indicate their religion as part of their business model, not I.

Personally I don't see the need for special rights being available to a business to discriminate by claiming something is against their religion. I think Public Accommodation laws should be repealed as applied to private businesses and they should be able to refuse service for any reason: black, white, Christian, Muslim, man, woman, Mexican, Irishman, Straight or Gay. If that is the case then there is no need to grant special privileges for someone to hide behind religion.



>>>>

I disagree, because I think the only thing that a Christian business would want to discriminate against, is the promotion of something that goes against their faith, otherwise that is sinful as is laid out in the Bible in which they do believe in and base their religion upon. Now because of a persons color, gender or religion, well these are things that don't have sin attached to them, so the Christian would have no problem servicing these individuals or groups when entering into their business, but to participate in something that clearly goes against their moral and ethical beliefs, is somewhat a different issue altogether for them to grapple with..

 

[beagle9]

I thought someone already posted a link to someone attempting to sue a pastor and/or a church for not performing the ceremony or refusing to ?

Been here since the beginning, haven't' seen anyone post a reputable link to an example of a member of the Clergy or a bonafide Church being sued, let alone losing the case, for refusing to perform a religious ceremony.


>>>>

What was I seeing or reading then ? Oh it must have not been a credible link as you said.. I must admit that I didn't click on the link, but I did see someone post a link to that affect in which was saying this sort of thing.

People say a lot of things. Being able to back them up is another thing.

I've seen no links to any credible lawsuit in the United States where a pastor or Church has been sued for refusing to perform an interracial marriage, an interfaith marriage, a marriage where one or both of the couple were divorced for reasons other than adultery, or since SSCM has been legal in at least one State for over a decade for refusing to perform an same-sex religious ceremony.



>>>>

Marriage in a church is protected both by the Constitution, and every Public Accomodation law I have seen- i.e. anything religious done in a church is protected.

Civil marriage outside of a church is subject to PA laws.

Yeah, I know. So you can deny services to anyone you want - including gays - by claiming you have religious objections to serving them.

Whats wrong with having religious objections to not encouraging or engaging in anything that is sinful according to a Christian in this nation ? Remember that freedom of religion and religious expression is built into the nations dialog, so has that all changed somehow now ?

And when people refuse to do business with blacks or Jews or Chinese or women or the handicapped by claiming that selling them gas will violate their religious beliefs?

Not going to happen, and if you suggest this, then you are also one for silently agreeing upon the final attempt of suing a Church, but you won't go there just yet now will you ?

Oh I have said repeatedly- any idiot can sue for any reason.

Someone may sue a church someday for refusing to marry a Jew or a Black or Mormon or a homosexual- and they will be laughed out of court.

What you propose are laws that would allow anyone to discriminate against anyone by claiming that they have religious objections to them.

Which would effectively gut public accomodation laws.

If that is what you want.

No, because what is religious in belief would have to be proven as such, otherwise it can't just be used like people are using the civil rights laws to include everything but the kitchen sink these days now can they, or wait a cotton picken second here, maybe they can use religion in the same ways that people are using the civil rights laws as well. Tit-for Tat right ? Hmmm..

 

[beagle9]

No, just change their charter or title is all, but most won't do it because they fear they would go bankrupt in the deal, so they will remain silent. The Christian baker spoke out, but his problem was that he wanted to profess his Christianity in the case, but his business didn't reflect his beliefs or anything other than he sold cakes to the public. The public should not be confused as to who it is that they are dealing with in my opinion, so I think it time for businesses to change their titles if they want to profess their religious beliefs in their business model. I guarantee you that it wouldn't be a problem anymore if this was the case.

You know that changing the business name does not exempt them from Public Accommodation laws - right?

Below is the Colorado Public Accommodation law, the law applicable in one of the "bakery" cases. Notice the "name" of the business is irrelevant to the functioning of a for profit public accommodation.

Colorado Revised Statutes

24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation - definition.

(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.

(2) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, al status, national origin, or ancestry.


COCODE​

>>>>

Oh joy, so I can go into a Christian book store and demand they sell me a playboy magazine right ? And if they don't have one (them being a book store and all), then I should be able to force them by the government doing it for me, to now have to carry that magazine for me right ? I mean hey I will say that I don't have a car, and the book store is in walking distance, and it does have book store in it's title, and it is open to the public, so why can't it carry my magazine for me ? Why can't it ACCOMMODATE ME ? sic.

I have far more respect than to get into these games, but some don't have any respect at all.

 

[WorldWatcher]

No, just change their charter or title is all, but most won't do it because they fear they would go bankrupt in the deal, so they will remain silent. The Christian baker spoke out, but his problem was that he wanted to profess his Christianity in the case, but his business didn't reflect his beliefs or anything other than he sold cakes to the public. The public should not be confused as to who it is that they are dealing with in my opinion, so I think it time for businesses to change their titles if they want to profess their religious beliefs in their business model. I guarantee you that it wouldn't be a problem anymore if this was the case.

You know that changing the business name does not exempt them from Public Accommodation laws - right?

Below is the Colorado Public Accommodation law, the law applicable in one of the "bakery" cases. Notice the "name" of the business is irrelevant to the functioning of a for profit public accommodation.

Colorado Revised Statutes

24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation - definition.

(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.

(2) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, al status, national origin, or ancestry.


COCODE​

>>>>

Oh joy, so I can go into a Christian book store and demand they sell me a playboy magazine right ? And if they don't have one (them being a book store and all), then I should be able to force them by the government doing it for me, to now have to carry that magazine for me right ? I mean hey I will say that I don't have a car, and the book store is in walking distance, and it does have book store in it's title, and it is open to the public, so why can't it carry my magazine for me ? Why can't it ACCOMMODATE ME ? sic.

I have far more respect than to get into these games, but some don't have any respect at all.

It becomes painfully obvious when someone makes a statement like "Oh joy, so I can go into a Christian book store and demand they sell me a playboy magazine right ?" that the individual has no clue about how Public Accommodation laws work.

But sigh, I'll answer anyway.

Public Accommodation laws DO NOT mandate what goods and services a business chooses to offer, the ONLY mandate that if a business VOLUNTARILY chooses to offer goods and services that the business cannot refuse sell those goods and services to a customer based on various criteria defined in the law. Different States have defined different criteria but some examples include: race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, marital status, parental status, veterans status, and yes sexual orientation.

A Christian Book store that does not stock playboy magazines isn't required to sell them to anyone because they are not a good that a business offers. If they do stock the magazine for sale, then they cannot refuse sales based on (depending on the State) the race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, marital status, parental status, veterans status, or sexual orientation of the customer.

A kosher deli is not required to sell a ham sandwich to a customer if they are kosher and don't stock ham. However if ham sandwiches are a normal menu item they cannot cannot refuse sales based on (depending on the State) the race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, marital status, parental status, veterans status, or sexual orientation of the customer.

A baker is not required to offer wedding cakes are part of their business model, however if they VOLUNTARILY choose to offer them they cannot cannot refuse sales based on (depending on the State) the race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, marital status, parental status, veterans status, or sexual orientation of the customer.


>>>>