Court Infringes on Religious Beliefs Again!

[blarg]

In this case, its not discrimination against others its discrimination of the act. The owners were fine with having the reception on their property but not the ceremony. The courts decided that since it was a rental situation it fell under the state's anti-discrimination laws. So, for example it was treated the same way it would have been treated if someone had refused to rent an apartment to a black or gay couple.

The courts don't seem to differentiate between discrimination against an act and discriminating against people. Maybe there's been precedence that there is no difference but it seems to me a clear distinction.

its still dicmrnation against people if its dicmrnation over the act these people hold wedding ceremony's for others no problem their fine with the act they just don't want single sex couples doing it its just like refusing to serve black people and a lunch counter but having no problem with your white customers why should this crap be tolerated?

 

[blarg]

To what degree does this holds? What if SSM ruins future business of the privately renting couple?

how would it do that?

 

[prometeus]

Here we go again!

This time it’s a Christian couple that rent out their farm forweddings.

A lesbian couple wanted to get married on their farm and the Giffords(the Christian couple) said no because they believe that marriage is betweenmen and women (which it is!).

So the lesbian couple sue and a judge fines the Giffords $13,000 andthey have to “teach classes to their employees that impose the state’s view ofmarriage.”

Un-freaking-believable!

The state fines the Giffords for living by their beliefs and thenforces them to teach a belief they do not hold. How in the cornbread-hell this can be Constitutional I have no idea!

What gives the state the right to order what someone's person beliefs are?

And God bless the Giffords who have the courage of their convictions. They have decided not to have any moreweddings on their farm.

So yet again freedom and rights win and intolerant ignorance, bigotry are stopped. What will it take for morons to learn that having a business open to the public means serving the public?

 

[Paxaeon]

So you"re saying their orientation does not affect their behavior?Interesting.

`
Exactly.

 

[DDD]

how would it do that?

If most everyone in the area is anti-SSM they may no longer wish to go to these couples in spite since they allowed an SSM marriage for instance?

 

[TobyOne]

No, its much different than not serving blacks at a lunch counter. As I stated, the couple could have had their reception their, so they weren't refusing them based on the fact they were gay. They were refusing to have the ceremony based on religious principles.

After thinking about it, the courts may have ruled that even though you're discriminating against the act, the only people who practice that act are a protected class so its the same as discriminating against that class.

its still dicmrnation against people if its dicmrnation over the act these people hold wedding ceremony's for others no problem their fine with the act they just don't want single sex couples doing it its just like refusing to serve black people and a lunch counter but having no problem with your white customers why should this crap be tolerated?

 

[Paschendale]

If your religious beliefs require you to be so hurtful of others, then you should change your religious beliefs.

 

[The Baron]

if you marry black people and if you marry white people but you wont marry a black person to a white person that's still racial discrimination

Agreed. Everyone thinks that’s wrong and I really wish you would stop bringing it up. It’s gotten boring!

opposition to homosexuality is still gender based and these people are still no better then racists

I’ve already explained why it’s not gender based. I won’t do it again. This is getting boring.

how is marriage going to change if people from the same gender can marry one another?

Once again, marriage has always been between men and women regardless of time, geography, culture, religion, race, circumstances, etc.

Allow people of the same sex to marry and you change marriage which has always been used to bring the different sexes together.

why should we let people discriminate against others in business based on their religion?

Because in American we have the right to religious liberty which cannot be separated from how we live our lives or earn our living. By extension, the government has no right to force us to act differently.

being a bigot towards homosexuals because of religion is not nay different then being a racist or a bigot towards other religions because of your faith nothing you have posted changes that

There are a lot of civil rights leaders, black church leaders, etc. that do not agree with you. Homosexuality is not a right, it’s a sin.

still a very strong comparison

Proved wrong over and over again. Move along this has gotten boring.

you need more of a difference then same gender marriages will have same gender couples

A nonsensical statement.

there are single parents and same sex parents raising kids all ready so need is not actually correct

Yea, it’s happening but happening at the expense of the child.

how has marriage been harmed by no fault divorces?

Are you serious?!?!?!?!?!?

Since no-fault divorce was implemented in 1970 the divorce rate rose consistently and today half of all people who get married end up divorced. People today do no longer look at marriage as a life-long commitment which is what it was designed to be. In fact, many people don’t bother to get married for this reason.

and how's 1 Change being bad mean that all changes would be bad?

God instituted marriage. Any time man tinkered with it he has only done harm to the institution. And why would you want to change the institution without any assurance that no harm would be done to the institution.

laws taking down down race based bans on couples was a change for marriage why was that bad?

Laws like the one Virginia had prevented people of different races from getting married. This was a racist law and was rightly overturned in the Supreme Court decision Loving vs. Virginia. Overturning this law did nothing to change marriage as marriage was and is between men and women regardless of race.

again with the change=harm how exactly would letting same sex couples marry change any ones family (other then perhaps letting some single parents get married and giving some kids 2 legal parents)

Straw-man argument: Letting two guys get married is not going to do anything to harm my marriage. But changing marriage will harm society as I’ve already explained.

how's marriage protect women…

Marriage is a public pronouncement that this man and woman are bound to one another and no other. This is usually enough to keep most men and women away.

…or make men only want to have sex with their spouse?

I didn’t say that but marriage does bind men to a monogamous relationship with one woman.

wouldn't gay marriage also promote monogamy?

No. The idea of a monogamous gay man is so rare as to be nearly non-existent.

yes racisms is wrong not saying you thick its ok but still not seeing how your any better then they are when it comes to how you treat homosexuals and I don't see why you religion should be used to justify such discrimination

Do you even understand what racism is?

Racism is a word with two requirements that have to be met before racism can exist:

1. One must believe that they are genetically superior to someone of another race.
2. Because of that belief in genetic superiority, one believes he has a right to rule over the inferior race (i.e. White slave owners of the Old South believed they were genetically superior to blacks are could / should rule over them).

That is racism.

Regardless of a homosexual man’s race, orientation, etc. I don’t believe that I am genetically superior and I’m not interesting in ruling over him or anyone else for that matter. Now if two or more homosexuals want to have a “marriage” ceremony and play house together…I don’t care. None of my business.

But to force me or anyone else to recognize their “marriage” is wrong. My religious beliefs tell me that what they are doing is sinful and I don’t want any part of it and forcing me perform a marriage ceremony or to somehow accommodate for a homosexual wedding is wrong.

To begin to recognize these relationships as somehow equal go heterosexual marriages is also wrong. The state does not have the right to redefine marriage. We know from past experience that change to marriage harms both the institution and society.

 

[The Baron]

So yet again freedom and rights win and intolerant ignorance, bigotry are stopped. What will it take for morons to learn that having a business open to the public means serving the public?

So you think Christians are intolerantly, ignorant and bigots?

 

[The Baron]

`
Exactly.

Wow. I think most people including myself would argue differently.

Oh, well. To each his own.

 

[ecofarm]

So you think Christians are intolerantly, ignorant and bigots?

Like any other group, most are.

 

[The Baron]

Like any other group, most are.

Seems rather fanatical?

 

[ecofarm]

Seems rather fanatical?

Not at all. Most people, from any group, are as you described.

 

[prometeus]

So you think Christians are intolerantly, ignorant and bigots?

Reading for comprehension could help you. I never said that, but so just you do not remain so confused, SOME so called and self professed Christians are ignorant intolerant bigots.

 

[Deuce]

No comparison, at all. Race is immutable. Behavior is not.

Religion is not immutable, but public accommodation laws still protect it. Do you want stores to start putting up "NO JEWS" signs? That should be legal?

 

[Paxaeon]

Wow. I think most people including myself would argue differently. Oh, well. To each his own.[/SIZE][/FONT]

`
Well, I could have said; heterosexuals behave in a certain way.

 

[blarg]

If most everyone in the area is anti-SSM they may no longer wish to go to these couples in spite since they allowed an SSM marriage for instance?

then if the government doesn't let people discriminate their would be no reason to boycott any one protecting peoples business and costumers

 

[DDD]

then if the government doesn't let people discriminate their would be no reason to boycott any one protecting peoples business and costumers

Unclear. How would this:

If most everyone in the area is anti-SSM they may no longer wish to go to these couples in spite since they allowed an SSM marriage for instance?

Be handled with what you just said?

 

[blarg]

Unclear. How would this:



Be handled with what you just said?

no point in taking revenge on a business that has to serve people

 

[vesper]

Here we go again!

This time it’s a Christian couple that rent out their farm forweddings.

A lesbian couple wanted to get married on their farm and the Giffords(the Christian couple) said no because they believe that marriage is betweenmen and women (which it is!).

So the lesbian couple sue and a judge fines the Giffords $13,000 andthey have to “teach classes to their employees that impose the state’s view ofmarriage.”

Un-freaking-believable!

The state fines the Giffords for living by their beliefs and thenforces them to teach a belief they do not hold. How in the cornbread-hell this can be Constitutional I have no idea!

What gives the state the right to order what someone's person beliefs are?

And God bless the Giffords who have the courage of their convictions. They have decided not to have any moreweddings on their farm.

A couple things...first, it was the New York State legislature that voted in same sex marriage. They defined what marriage would be for the citizens of New York. The people never really had a say on the matter. Even if the residents of New York did vote to define marriage between a man and a woman, a political activist federal judge would have been sought out to overturn the vote of the people. It's really sickening to watch all this unfold where lawmakers and judges have given themselves so much power. Right now any business owner with religious convictions has a target on their back when it comes to gay activists. This lesbian couple like other gay activists, instead of respecting someone's religious convictions chose to sue. And most likely sought out the Giffords on purpose. There's legislation pending to stop this happy horse poop but it has no chance in Hades of becoming law until there is a regime change in Washington. The federal government including federal judges, have no right to define marriage. That should be determined by the people living in each state.

 

[Peter King]

Here we go again!

This time it’s a Christian couple that rent out their farm forweddings.

A lesbian couple wanted to get married on their farm and the Giffords(the Christian couple) said no because they believe that marriage is betweenmen and women (which it is!).

So the lesbian couple sue and a judge fines the Giffords $13,000 andthey have to “teach classes to their employees that impose the state’s view ofmarriage.”

Un-freaking-believable!

The state fines the Giffords for living by their beliefs and thenforces them to teach a belief they do not hold. How in the cornbread-hell this can be Constitutional I have no idea!

What gives the state the right to order what someone's person beliefs are?

And God bless the Giffords who have the courage of their convictions. They have decided not to have any moreweddings on their farm.

Marriage is between men and women only? And you call yourself libertarian?

Sure, it is not nice to close your business because you are intolerant of people trying to have a wedding in accordance with the law in New York.

The judge ruled it is a public venture as it rents its space and regularly collects fees from the public, and public accommodations are not allowed to discriminate so legally seen it is totally banned to discriminate against a lesbian couple.

And if they do not want to allow same sex couples to marry in a state in which that is equal to "straight" weddings, then they have to stop providing that service and close up. Sad for them but if they want to be intolerant they have no other option than close down.

 

[Arcana XV]

I don't understand these people. They object to the actual SSM ceremony taking place on their premises, but they're A-okay with the joyful celebration of such a marriage in the form of a reception on their property. How the hell does that compute?

People are just too weird.

 

[Ocean007]

:2razz:

Here we go again!

This time it’s a Christian couple that rent out their farm for weddings.

A lesbian couple wanted to get married on their farm and the Giffords(the Christian couple) said no because they believe that marriage is between men and women (which it is!).

So the lesbian couple sue and a judge fines the Giffords $13,000 and they have to “teach classes to their employees that impose the state’s view ofmarriage.”

Un-freaking-believable!

Boo-hoo. Guess what, I have no sympathy for the Giffords either. :2razz:

My view; you (generally speaking) shouldn't rent out your farm for weddings unless you're willing to accept gay couples as well as straight ones. They probably weren't expecting the lesbian couple to sue against this obvious DISCRIMINATION. Too bad for them; they were WRONG.

 

[Ocean007]

So wanting to live their lives according to their beliefs is "indecent"? That's rather intolerant.

I find the Giffords' DISCRIMINATION to be a lot more intolerant. So, obviously, did the judge who fined them for such.

IMO the Giffords should not have rented out their farm if they could not accept gay couples as well as straight ones. Their tough luck the lesbian couple sued against them and won.

 

[Ocean007]

How about they decide how to live their lives. Nothing "indecent" about that.

Unless they DISCRIMINATE against people, which the Giffords clearly did. Discrimination IS indecent, and in this case, grounds for a successful lawsuit.