Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win[W:48]

Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

WorldWatcher said:

You have my apologies, the screen had rolled up. Sorry about that.




I'm sorry, don't state have the power to regulate in-state commerce under the 10th Amendment when such laws have general applicability?

Have not Public Accommodation laws existed for centuries (even going back to common law and the "inn keepers rule" (cited in Heartland of Atlanta Hotel v. United States) and have they not been upheld at the federal level buy the SCOTUS and at the State level by State Supreme Courts?

What part of what I said, specifically speaking, was inaccurate?


>>>>

Click to expand...

States have that power under the 10th, not the feds. The Public Accommodation laws are federal. The PA law is not constitutional federally and must be adopted state by state to become constitutional. I don't believe they've met that bar, ever. So any use of the commerce clause in their regard is a non-starter.

Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

clownboy said:

No one cares for your sicko fantasies, keep them to yourself. And btw, we DID participate - we voted to not allow homosexual marriage.

Click to expand...

And back during Jim Crow, the majority would have voted to keep Jim Crow, too...but that wouldn't have made it right. Prejudice is prejudice is prejudice.

Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

ksu_aviator said:

Washington Florist Who Refused Gay Wedding Job Says She 'Had To Take A Stand'

Supreme Court won't hear case on gay wedding snub

When these marriages become legal, they are used to force people to violate their religious beliefs and face damnation or persecution

Click to expand...

Would you please show me where in the Bible that homosexuals are any worse than, say, atheists or those who believe in different gods? Would those people who refused to sell wedding flowers to a gay couple have refused to sell flowers to an atheist couple? Or to a Buddhist or Islamic couple? Or, what about to a couple that belonged to a different "Christian" denomination that the couple's religion said would not be saved, say, if they were Baptist and the couple was Mormon? If the business would not refuse to sell flowers to the atheists or Islamists or different "Christian" denomination, then they are hypocrites, and deserving of zero sympathy.

Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

ksu_aviator said:

I am still trying to figure out the part of the Constitution that says you have to suspend your religious beliefs and be forced to participate in these unholy matrimonies if you have a business.

Click to expand...

At the same time you'll claim defining marriage is a state right, but defining characteristics for anti discrimination laws isn't?

Health codes violate my religion because I believe all illnesses are the will of god. Can I run a restaurant that holds out to the public?

Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

Paxaeon said:

"A federal judge on Monday struck down Oregon's voter-approved ban on gay marriage, saying it is unconstitutional.

​

U.S. District Judge Michael McShane said the ban unconstitutionally discriminates against same-sex couples and ordered the state not to enforce it. State officials earlier refused to defend the constitutional ban in court.

​

McShane joined judges in seven other states who have struck down gay marriage bans, though appeals are underway.

​

Oregon state officials have said they'd be prepared to carry out same-sex marriages almost immediately, and couples lined up outside the county clerk's office in Portland in anticipation of the McShane's decision." - Source

It's the domino effect.

Click to expand...

I really just wish we'd make SSM legal across the Republic and move on with our lives. We've got bigger fish to fry...like why the **** are we still at war after more than a decade? Why has the government grown so big? Why is there so much spying and data collection?

Same sex couples share the same rights to contract as heterosexual couples and we just need to realize this and move on. Things are getting f'd up out there though, and all the gay marriage in the world ain't gonna fix it.

Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

Ikari said:

I really just wish we'd make SSM legal across the Republic and move on with our lives. We've got bigger fish to fry...like why the **** are we still at war after more than a decade? Why has the government grown so big? Why is there so much spying and data collection?

Same sex couples share the same rights to contract as heterosexual couples and we just need to realize this and move on. Things are getting f'd up out there though, and all the gay marriage in the world ain't gonna fix it.

Click to expand...

I don't know, if everyone got gay married I think it would solve a lot of problems.

Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

Paxaeon said:

"A federal judge on Monday struck down Oregon's voter-approved ban on gay marriage, saying it is unconstitutional.

​

U.S. District Judge Michael McShane said the ban unconstitutionally discriminates against same-sex couples and ordered the state not to enforce it. State officials earlier refused to defend the constitutional ban in court.

​

McShane joined judges in seven other states who have struck down gay marriage bans, though appeals are underway.

​

Oregon state officials have said they'd be prepared to carry out same-sex marriages almost immediately, and couples lined up outside the county clerk's office in Portland in anticipation of the McShane's decision." - Source

It's the domino effect.

Click to expand...

Amen! Amen!

Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

ksu_aviator said:

Washington Florist Who Refused Gay Wedding Job Says She 'Had To Take A Stand'

Supreme Court won't hear case on gay wedding snub

When these marriages become legal, they are used to force people to violate their religious beliefs and face damnation or persecution

Click to expand...

No they won't. No one has to marry one. No religion has to marry any one. And a florist isn't in the business of approving or not approving weddings. Their rights are not at all violated.

Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

Ikari said:

I really just wish we'd make SSM legal across the Republic and move on with our lives. We've got bigger fish to fry...like why the **** are we still at war after more than a decade? Why has the government grown so big? Why is there so much spying and data collection?

Same sex couples share the same rights to contract as heterosexual couples and we just need to realize this and move on. Things are getting f'd up out there though, and all the gay marriage in the world ain't gonna fix it.

Click to expand...

Actually I'm thinking the solution is simple: states should not issue marriage licenses at all, just civil union licenses. Just think what that would do..... it could no longer redefine what marriage is under the law. If a man and a woman want a marriage in the traditional sense, it is up to them to define that marriage through a religious ceremony etc. But everyone else wanting for legal purposes to recognize their union could be recognized through a civil union license. But until that compromise is discovered by both sides of the aisle, the real threat of gay marriage isn't against traditional marriage, it is against the First Amendment. Not only are activist federal judges involved in this overturning of what the majority of people in many states desire is marriage defined between a man and a woman, we have seen what these activists will do to trample the rights of a cake decorator, photographer, a florist, and there seems no limit to many leftist appointed federal judges who are more than willing to trample the 1st Amendment rights of others in the name of gayness.....how long will it be before a church who denies a ceremony to a gay couple ends up in court accused of violating another's civil rights and an activist judge willingly throw the book at them? The reading of the constitutional law has been bastardized with new revisionist meaning. Kill marriage licenses and it all goes away.

Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

clownboy said:

States have that power under the 10th, not the feds. The Public Accommodation laws are federal. The PA law is not constitutional federally and must be adopted state by state to become constitutional. I don't believe they've met that bar, ever. So any use of the commerce clause in their regard is a non-starter.

Click to expand...

Sweetcakes By Mellisa (Oregon) - found in violation of State Public Accommodation laws.

Elane Photography (New Mexico) - found in violation of State Public Accommodation laws.

Masterpiece Cakes (Colorado) - found in violation of State Public Accommodation laws.



I think if you check you will find every State has it's own Public Accommodation law and (IIRC) 29 of them plus the District of Columbia include sexual orientation as an area where businesses cannot discriminate.

There have been NO charges of discrimination under Federal Public Accommodation law based on sexual orientation because it is not included. All cases have been under State law.


>>>>

Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

WorldWatcher said:

Sweetcakes By Mellisa (Oregon) - found in violation of State Public Accommodation laws.

Elane Photography (New Mexico) - found in violation of State Public Accommodation laws.

Masterpiece Cakes (Colorado) - found in violation of State Public Accommodation laws.



I think if you check you will find every State has it's own Public Accommodation law and (IIRC) 29 of them plus the District of Columbia include sexual orientation as an area where businesses cannot discriminate.

There have been NO charges of discrimination under Federal Public Accommodation law based on sexual orientation because it is not included. All cases have been under State law.


>>>>

Click to expand...

Thank you, you are correct. I misunderstood your initial post.

Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

Ikari said:

I really just wish we'd make SSM legal across the Republic and move on with our lives. We've got bigger fish to fry...like why the **** are we still at war after more than a decade? Why has the government grown so big? Why is there so much spying and data collection?

Same sex couples share the same rights to contract as heterosexual couples and we just need to realize this and move on. Things are getting f'd up out there though, and all the gay marriage in the world ain't gonna fix it.

Click to expand...

Actually I'm thinking the solution is simple: states should not issue marriage licenses at all, just civil union licenses. Just think what that would do..... it could no longer redefine what marriage is under the law. If a man and a woman want a marriage in the traditional sense, it is up to them to define that marriage through a religious ceremony etc. But everyone else wanting for legal purposes to recognize their union could be recognized through a civil union license. But until that compromise is discovered by both sides of the aisle, the real threat of gay marriage isn't against traditional marriage, it is against the First Amendment. Not only are activist federal judges involved in this overturning of what the majority of people in each state desire, we have seen what these activists will do to trample the rights of a cake decorator, photographer, a florist, and there seems no limit to many leftist appointed federal judges who are more than willing to trample the 1st Amendment rights of others in the name of gayness.....how long will it be before a church who denies a ceremony to a gay couple ends up in court accused of violating another's civil rights and an activist judge willing to throw the book at them? The reading of the constitutional law has been bastardized with new revisionist meaning. Kill marriage licenses and it all goes away.

Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

vesper said:

Actually I'm thinking the solution is simple: states should not issue marriage licenses at all, just civil union licenses. Just think what that would do..... it could no longer redefine what marriage is under the law.

Click to expand...

Personally I'd have no problem with that at all as long as they were issued equally. Everyone would still call it marriage and in a generation or two the issue would be over and the term "marriage" for what it is would return to the legal lexicon. But in reality it is a fine temporary step.

vesper said:

If a man and a woman want a marriage in the traditional sense, it is up to them to define that marriage through a religious ceremony etc.

Click to expand...

The same would hold true for a man and a man getting a religious marriage and a woman and a woman getting a religious marriage.

If a same sex couple want a marriage, it is up to them to define that marriage through a religious ceremony etc.

You realize there are many Churches and relgious organizations that perform religious weddings for same-sex couples right?

vesper said:

But everyone else wanting for legal purposes to recognize their union could be recognized through a civil union license. But until that compromise is discovered by both sides of the aisle, the real threat of gay marriage isn't against traditional marriage, it is against the First Amendment. Not only are activist federal judges involved in this overturning of what the majority of people in many states desire is marriage defined between a man and a woman, we have seen what these activists will do to trample the rights of a cake decorator, photographer, a florist, and there seems no limit to many leftist appointed federal judges who are more than willing to trample the 1st Amendment rights of others in the name of gayness.....how long will it be before a church who denies a ceremony to a gay couple ends up in court accused of violating another's civil rights and an activist judge willingly throw the book at them? The reading of the constitutional law has been bastardized with new revisionist meaning. Kill marriage licenses and it all goes away.

Click to expand...

Just wondering. Do you support a business making a religious claim and being exempt from providing full and equal goods and services to blacks? Mexicans? The disabled? Jews? Muslims?

If not, aren't their 1st Amendment rights being trampled also?


(NOTE: I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws and allowing private businesses to refuse service to any customer for any reason they choose whether it be race, sex, national origin, religion, or sexual orientation.)



>>>>

Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

WorldWatcher said:

Personally I'd have no problem with that at all as long as they were issued equally. Everyone would still call it marriage and in a generation or two the issue would be over and the term "marriage" for what it is would return to the legal lexicon. But in reality it is a fine temporary step.



The same would hold true for a man and a man getting a religious marriage and a woman and a woman getting a religious marriage.

If a same sex couple want a marriage, it is up to them to define that marriage through a religious ceremony etc.

You realize there are many Churches and relgious organizations that perform religious weddings for same-sex couples right?





Just wondering. Do you support a business making a religious claim and being exempt from providing full and equal goods and services to blacks? Mexicans? The disabled? Jews? Muslims?

If not, aren't their 1st Amendment rights being trampled also?


(NOTE: I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws and allowing private businesses to refuse service to any customer for any reason they choose whether it be race, sex, national origin, religion, or sexual orientation.)



>>>>

Click to expand...

I believe the business owner has 1st Amendment rights that protect his moral conscience. If he believes providing a service for A. B. or C violates that conscience, he has a right to deny such service. And the person seeking such a service needs to move on to find one who will accommodate them. Period. There is legislation currently pending to protect the 1st Amendment rights of All not just a few.

Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

vesper said:

Actually I'm thinking the solution is simple: states should not issue marriage licenses at all, just civil union licenses. Just think what that would do..... it could no longer redefine what marriage is under the law. If a man and a woman want a marriage in the traditional sense, it is up to them to define that marriage through a religious ceremony etc. But everyone else wanting for legal purposes to recognize their union could be recognized through a civil union license. But until that compromise is discovered by both sides of the aisle, the real threat of gay marriage isn't against traditional marriage, it is against the First Amendment. Not only are activist federal judges involved in this overturning of what the majority of people in many states desire is marriage defined between a man and a woman, we have seen what these activists will do to trample the rights of a cake decorator, photographer, a florist, and there seems no limit to many leftist appointed federal judges who are more than willing to trample the 1st Amendment rights of others in the name of gayness.....how long will it be before a church who denies a ceremony to a gay couple ends up in court accused of violating another's civil rights and an activist judge willingly throw the book at them? The reading of the constitutional law has been bastardized with new revisionist meaning. Kill marriage licenses and it all goes away.

Click to expand...

I believe I grasp what you posted, but I have a question. Do you mean that an officiating minister would somehow validate the civil union license issued by the State, if a couple wanted a "marriage license?" Would he have a form that stated on such-and-such a date, a religious ceremony was held in a church that wedded a man and a woman in the traditional sense? I think that would be a good idea for everyone, as you pointed out. There are a lot of jobs that depend upon weddings for their livelihood which would be lost otherwise. Under your plan, everyone would be legally "married" in the eyes of the government, but only those that held a wedding ceremony would consider themselves married rather than just "civil unioned?" There shouldn't be any stigma attached, since only the government-issued paper would be valid? hmmm...

Greetings, Vesper. :2wave:

Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

vesper said:

I believe the business owner has 1st Amendment rights that protect his moral conscience. If he believes providing a service for A. B. or C violates that conscience, he has a right to deny such service. And the person seeking such a service needs to move on to find one who will accommodate them. Period. There is legislation currently pending to protect the 1st Amendment rights of All not just a few.

Click to expand...

Does this legislation provide a religious exemption for serving blacks, gays, Muslims, and the disabled - or does it provide only for discrimination against homosexuals?

Could we read this "pending legislation" for everyone in the country (you did say "All") with a link?



>>>>

Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

polgara said:

I believe I grasp what you posted, but I have a question. Do you mean that an officiating minister would somehow validate the civil union license issued by the State, if a couple wanted a "marriage license?" Would he have a form that stated on such-and-such a date, a religious ceremony was held in a church that wedded a man and a woman in the traditional sense? I think that would be a good idea for everyone, as you pointed out. There are a lot of jobs that depend upon weddings for their livelihood which would be lost otherwise. Under your plan, everyone would be legally "married" in the eyes of the government, but only those that held a wedding ceremony would consider themselves married rather than just "civil unioned?" There shouldn't be any stigma attached, since only the government-issued paper would be valid? hmmm...

Greetings, Vesper. :2wave:

Click to expand...

If such Church documents (in essence a religious "marriage license"), you realize of course that Churches that choose to allow same-sex marriage would be issuing the same documents to validate teh religious marriage of same-sex couples performed by that religious organization.

In reality nothing would change. Different-sex and same-sex couples would both get Civil Union Licenses from the government and have full and equal access to the rights, responsibilities, and benefits of Civil Marr.... - ah - Unions. Then they have a minister that will validate their Religious Marriage.



>>>>

Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

WorldWatcher said:

Does this legislation provide a religious exemption for serving blacks, gays, Muslims, and the disabled - or does it provide only for discrimination against homosexuals?

Could we read this "pending legislation" for everyone in the country (you did say "All") with a link?



>>>>

Click to expand...

I'm sure it is easily found by doing a seach on House bills passed. It doesn't matter what color you are, what faith you hold or if you walk on one leg or have none. If what a person requests of a business owner violates his moral conscience he should have a right to deny that service. A printer who finds printing flyers for the next upcoming meeting of NAMBLA members to be offensive has a right to deny them that service. If a man of faith is faced with printing material that depicts his God as some monster or heinous joke, he has a right to deny his services to that person. If a Jewish business owner of a catering service was hired to prepare kosher dishes for an event and found out he would have to share the kitchen with those preparing shrimp and pulled pork, he has a right to deny his services. If a Muslim business owner was asked to provide services to a group that didn't want his female workers showing up in traditional headdress, has a right to deny that person his services. If a person of faith believes the union of homosexuals to be a sin, has a right to deny any service that is part of that union.

Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

polgara said:

I believe I grasp what you posted, but I have a question. Do you mean that an officiating minister would somehow validate the civil union license issued by the State, if a couple wanted a "marriage license?" Would he have a form that stated on such-and-such a date, a religious ceremony was held in a church that wedded a man and a woman in the traditional sense? I think that would be a good idea for everyone, as you pointed out. There are a lot of jobs that depend upon weddings for their livelihood which would be lost otherwise. Under your plan, everyone would be legally "married" in the eyes of the government, but only those that held a wedding ceremony would consider themselves married rather than just "civil unioned?" There shouldn't be any stigma attached, since only the government-issued paper would be valid? hmmm...

Greetings, Vesper. :2wave:

Click to expand...

Basically....before marriage licences, the priest, minister, preacher, filled out the document often in a Bible stating that the couple were wed in Holy Matrimony which was recognized by all states.

Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

WorldWatcher said:

If such Church documents (in essence a religious "marriage license"), you realize of course that Churches that choose to allow same-sex marriage would be issuing the same documents to validate teh religious marriage of same-sex couples performed by that religious organization.

In reality nothing would change. Different-sex and same-sex couples would both get Civil Union Licenses from the government and have full and equal access to the rights, responsibilities, and benefits of Civil Marr.... - ah - Unions. Then they have a minister that will validate their Religious Marriage.

That seems to be fair to me. The civil union license would be the "official" paper, and no couple could be joined without it - no matter what their sex orientation is - and the marriage license could go in a scrapbook with their wedding pictures, or framed and hung on a wall if they liked. Those that don't care about anything but their legal rights might not care about a marriage license, per se, since the civil union paper would certify that they are together by law. It shouldn't upset the separation of church and state thing, since the church part would be optional. It could work, since it seems that only young people today care mostly about the "wedding" part, and not the "getting along afterwards" part, where a few arguments lead to a divorce. :mrgreen:

Greetings, WorldWatcher. :2wave

Click to expand...

Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

vesper said:

I'm sure it is easily found by doing a seach on House bills passed.

Click to expand...

So you have nothing.

vesper said:

It doesn't matter what color you are, what faith you hold or if you walk on one leg or have none. If what a person requests of a business owner violates his moral conscience he should have a right to deny that service.

Click to expand...

I agree. The difference is that I can separate laws as they are and what I think they should be.

vesper said:

A printer who finds printing flyers for the next upcoming meeting of NAMBLA members to be offensive has a right to deny them that service.

Click to expand...

Under the law he can refuse the commission as NAMBLA is not covered under Public Accommodation laws.

vesper said:

If a man of faith is faced with printing material that depicts his God as some monster or heinous joke, he has a right to deny his services to that person.

Click to expand...

He already can if he denies all such commissions.

vesper said:

If a Jewish business owner of a catering service was hired to prepare kosher dishes for an event and found out he would have to share the kitchen with those preparing shrimp and pulled pork, he has a right to deny his services.

Click to expand...

He already can if he denies all such commissions to operate in non-kosher kitchens.

vesper said:

If a Muslim business owner was asked to provide services to a group that didn't want his female workers showing up in traditional headdress, has a right to deny that person his services.

Click to expand...

He already can if he denies all such commissions to operate based on a requirement this his female servers must wear traditional headdress.

vesper said:

If a person of faith believes the union of homosexuals to be a sin, has a right to deny any service that is part of that union.

Click to expand...

Not in 29 states, he cannot discriminate in providing full and equal goods and services to customers based on the sexual orientation of the customer.

The business owner can choose to not provide services to weddings, not a problem.

(Again, that is what the law is [in those states], not what I think the law should be. Whether the business owner is a "person of faith" should be irrelevant. IMHO, a business owner should be able to refuse service for any reasons to any customer it wouldn't have to be based on "faith".)


******************************

You appear to not understand how Public Accommodations laws work. No business is required to provide goods or services they do not normally supply or change how their business normally functions. Public Accommodation laws only require that a business provide the same goods and services and cannot deny the customer based on race, ethnicity, national origin and in some state sex, sexual orientation, marital status, veterans status, etc.



>>>>

Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

You know this is an afterthought, but recently in the polls there is a real possibility that true blue Oregon may be turning purple. After the fiasco over Obamacare in that state Republicans have been really gaining ground. I know some may find this hard to believe but its places like Portland and vicinity and a couple of heavily populated college towns that tend to make Oregon so blue. The rest of the state especially to the South around Medford aren't going to be happy at all with this new ruling by this federal judge and the possibility of ole Oregon electing a Republican Senator this mid-term has probably become more of a reality than ever.

Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

WorldWatcher said:

So you have nothing.




I agree. The difference is that I can separate laws as they are and what I think they should be.



Under the law he can refuse the commission as NAMBLA is not covered under Public Accommodation laws.



He already can if he denies all such commissions.



He already can if he denies all such commissions to operate in non-kosher kitchens.



He already can if he denies all such commissions to operate based on a requirement this his female servers must wear traditional headdress.



Not in 29 states, he cannot discriminate in providing full and equal goods and services to customers based on the sexual orientation of the customer.

The business owner can choose to not provide services to weddings, not a problem.

(Again, that is what the law is [in those states], not what I think the law should be. Whether the business owner is a "person of faith" should be irrelevant. IMHO, a business owner should be able to refuse service for any reasons to any customer it wouldn't have to be based on "faith".)


******************************

You appear to not understand how Public Accommodations laws work. No business is required to provide goods or services they do not normally supply or change how their business normally functions. Public Accommodation laws only require that a business provide the same goods and services and cannot deny the customer based on race, ethnicity, national origin and in some state sex, sexual orientation, marital status, veterans status, etc.



>>>>

Click to expand...

It's not that I have nothing I refuse to do your leg work for you. If you want to know what the bill states go look it up yourself;

Bull****, on your take on Accommodation laws. People are drug into court constantly over people not being tolerant of their beliefs/moral conscience. When accommodation laws trump the 1st Amendment rights of others, then the Accommodation laws need to be revisited or another law put into place that protects everyone.

Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

Moderator's Warning:

The personal comments and baiting need to stop.

Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

vesper said:

It's not that I have nothing I refuse to do your leg work for you. If you want to know what the bill states go look it up yourself;

Click to expand...

You were the one the brought up "pending" legislation.

It's not my job to support your claims.

vesper said:

Bull****, on your take on Accommodation laws. People are drug into court constantly over people not being tolerant of their beliefs/moral conscience. When accommodation laws trump the 1st Amendment rights of others, then the Accommodation laws need to be revisited or another law put into place that protects everyone.

Click to expand...

False.

People have been found in violation of State Public Accommodation laws for violating the law by denying the full and equal goods and services they normally provide based on the customers race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. They aren't "drug into court" for their beliefs, they are found in violation of the law for their actions.

As stated before I encourage the repeal of Public Accommodation laws so that business owners can refuse service to customers based on any reason they choose which includes race, religion, sex, age, sexual orientation, ethnicity, and national origin. Such a repeal means that such decision need not be based on "religion", the return rights of property and association back to the owner.

Do you agree with that or does your continued reference to the 1st Amendment mean that you think business should only be able to discriminate if they hide behind a religious claim? (One must assume that since you reference "beliefs/moral conscience" you are refering to the Free Exercise of Religion Clause.) If so does that claim only apply to the ghey's or can a religious claim be made to justify discrimination against anyone?


(Time for bed, gotta work tomorrow so I'll look for an answer in the morning.)


>>>>>