 |
No they are a bit thin on the ground in some parts of the country and there are areas in our cities well known for their communities but then a lesser percentage of our population appears to have that preference. I don't agree that children should be raised by same sex couples
Why do you intentionally misrepresent my position. Nowhere do I say that homosexuals should be denied service because they are homosexuals. What I am saying is that a business owner should not be compelled by law to service or participate in ceremony that they have religious objections to. The florist who got in trouble for not providing flowers for a homosexual "wedding " had been selling the same homosexual customer flowers for other reasons for years .Quote:
Why aren't we all questioned at the door as to our sexual orientation? Who's going to undress me to see if I'm transgender or check my into my sex life to see if I kiss other women? (I've heard that those who scream the loudest are the most insecure.) Or maybe most businesses welcome customers who BUY stuff.
Evidently the 14th Amendment supersedes the 1st ,even though the interpretation of the 14th applied is an expanded invention of progressive courts.
Yes maybe MOST business owners have no objections ... Let them service the "wedding" then .The only monetary loser is the business that doesn't participate
What is happening in some cases (and I suspect will happen more frequently as acceptance of a lifestyle choice is forced upon us) is that businesses that have these objections will be sought out and punished. An Indiana pizzeria was thrust into the national spotlight when it's owners daughter said that IF a homosexual couple wanted pizza at their "wedding " ,they would refuse to make them.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
The backlash was so severe that they were forced to temporarily shut down. Of course the misleading headlines like "Indiana pizzeria won't serve gays " didn't help .Quote:
“We service anyone. I don’t care who it is. I don’t care if they’re covered with tattoos, I don’t care if they got rings in their ears. I don’t care if they’re gay. The only thing I said was I cannot condone gay marriage," O'Connor, 61, told The Times. He said he believes his decision not to cater same-sex weddings is simply an expression of his religious beliefs.
"If they want to come in the store, that’s their privilege, they can do that. But I can’t condone gay marriage, that’s against my belief," he added.
I expect to see similar attacks around the country . We've seen it in states that already allowed same sex "weddings" . Now we'll see such efforts nationwide.
Indiana is also the place that passed and was signed by Pence the right to discriminate against gays. The business community quickly moved to back that down. A free market solution?
Lets add those states that have gone so far as to not issuing a marriage licence to gay couples where it was ruled unconstitutional to ban gay marriage. You may see this as an attack on religious rights, but I see this as gays and others exercising their own rights to protest, speak out, and seek legal redress.
and where does it end ? Discrimination suits against churches that won't provide same sex marriage counselling ? You've already proven that in your view , those who believe in traditional religious beliefs are to be labelled bigots ;to be treated as such in the eyes of the law.Quote:
You may see this as an attack on religious rights, but I see this as gays and others exercising their own rights to protest, speak out, and seek legal redress.
We know at very least ,the tax exempt status of those institutions will come under attack.
You nailed it. I can only add that I feel that way about mosques and synagogues, as well as churches. Is it unrealistic to hold them to a higher standard of good behavior?
For sure their should be boundaries to their power, and authority, over the citizens they serve(?). Or do you think protecting pedophiles and terrorists is a good thing?
good ,your argument has reached absurd. No one was condoning physical harm .
But I get it . Unless you demonize your opposition, the general public will have little appetite for forcing Christians to pay for abortion pills, or forcing Christian bakers or photographers to help celebrate events they find morally offensive.(they wouldn't even dare attempt to compel a Muslim to work their "weddings" ).
Religious freedom laws protects all people (even you) from persecution by those who would force them into doing something they find morally objectionable .
Putting religion above the law is absurd.
Why don't Christian bakers and florists refuse to sell to marrying couples who were previously married and got divorced, and to couples who lived together and fornicated before their scheduled wedding? Even Jesus spoke against them in Mark 10 and in other parts of the Gospels.
So you are saying Tal that your constitution which has a clear separation between church and state is absurd, You may as well throw the whole thing away and start again because what you are saying is that the legislature which exists under the constitution can pass laws that supercede the consititution and this is not so. Religion is an involiate freedom and no homosexual should be able to challenge that freedom.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Wondergirl, they might if they could identify these people, the only reason they are objecting to homosexuals and identifying them is the message or some other part of the process is clearly identifying the occasion as homosexual
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:07 AM. |