Hmmm...I thought churches didn't have to worry about performing gay marriages...what about this...

[1776]

guno's classroom.....now you see why it hates White Americans.

 

[guno]

Shitstain....my degrees are economics, business and education related.

You have no clue about the Bible yet have a hard-on for the Bible....eh cocksucking fucktard.

My college degrees are a foreign concept to you...a migrant wetback queer living on the street.

I got my BA from a university that rejected your ass. Nevermind my 2 other Masters.

your Low IQ ilk has been marginalized in America, deal with it .

I got my BA from a university that rejected your ass. Nevermind my 2 other Masters.

your Low IQ ilk has been marginalized in America, deal with it .

Yes I am sure you are very proud of the degrees you bought from mail order bible "skool" for a "love gift" of only 29.95

My college degrees are a foreign concept to you...a migrant wetback queer living on the street.

Get your ass back in the field....

I got my BA from a university that rejected your ass. Nevermind my 2 other Masters.

your Low IQ ilk has been marginalized in America, deal with it .

I got my BA from a university that rejected your ass. Nevermind my 2 other Masters.

your Low IQ ilk has been marginalized in America, deal with it .

Yes I am sure you are very proud of the degrees you bought from mail order bible "skool" for a "love gift" of only 29.95

yes and I'm the king of England goober


Now run long an order your "doctorate"

 

[MaryL]

We all die , we all suffer. All of us, left handed ,elderly, blind or whatever, we all adhere to the bill of rights. Gays aren't like that, some how. They are better and deserve special consideration. Homosexuality is a mental issue, a rather minor one at that in the scheme of things. Why all this puffery and all this propaganda about a petty sexual dysfunction that is just a sidetrack to the human condition like it's some monumental event? We ALL have the same rights, in the end.

 

[1776]

Homosexuality was listed as a mental disease for centuries until drugs took control in the US.

 

[guno]

Homosexuality was listed as a mental disease for centuries until drugs took control in the US.

 

[Silhouette]

bodecea are you really so pathetic that you can't just come back into the thread and say "oops, I forgot about the 19th Amendment when I stated that gender wasn't mentioned in the COTUS?"

Not much integrity from a retired Commander.

LGBTs think the word "sex" in the 14th means a verb. Unfortunately it's a noun.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

shocking, just shocking that bodecea has been online all this time and not had the integrity to admit to her error.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Threads merged.

 

[bodecea]

Homosexuality was listed as a mental disease for centuries until drugs took control in the US.

"a mental disease for centuries"

 

[bodecea]

shocking, just shocking that bodecea has been online all this time and not had the integrity to admit to her error.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

shocking, just shocking that bodecea has been online all this time and not had the integrity to admit to her error.

You're so lacking in integrity that you can't admit to an error? Jesus Pete, just say "I made a mistake " and move on

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

LGBTs think the word "sex" in the 14th means a verb. Unfortunately it's a noun.

Demonstrate your legal acumen and show us where the noun "sex" appears in the 14th.

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.​

>>>>

I'm glad you brought up the 14th. Can you tell me good sir where in there it says that citizens have the privilege of doing business with businesses which don't want to do business with them?

 

[bodecea]

shocking, just shocking that bodecea has been online all this time and not had the integrity to admit to her error.

You're so lacking in integrity that you can't admit to an error? Jesus Pete, just say "I made a mistake " and move on

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I should have known this story was pretty much complete bullshit.

Legal hitch at Hitching Post - Coeur d Alene Press Local News

Let's go down the list of lies in the Todd Starnes piece in the OP:

1. The city hasn't taken any legal action whatsoever against the Knapps.
2. No complaints against them have been filed.
3. The "Alliance for Defending Freedom" is suing the city, not defending the Knapps.
4. The Knapps don't even know who the ADF lawyers are.
5. The Hitching Post chapel is registered as a for-profit LLC, not a "religious organization".

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

shocking, just shocking that bodecea has been online all this time and not had the integrity to admit to her error.

You're so lacking in integrity that you can't admit to an error? Jesus Pete, just say "I made a mistake " and move on

Your refusal to admit you made a mistake in regards to the 19th is noted Pete

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I should have known this story was pretty much complete bullshit.

Legal hitch at Hitching Post - Coeur d Alene Press Local News

Let's go down the list of lies in the Todd Starnes piece in the OP:

1. The city hasn't taken any legal action whatsoever against the Knapps.
2. No complaints against them have been filed.
3. The "Alliance for Defending Freedom" is suing the city, not the other way around.
4. The Knapps don't even know who the ADF lawyers are.
5. The Hitching Post chapel is registered as a for-profit LLC, not a "religious organization".

Your facts get in the way of our moral outrage sir, and have no place here.

 

[Dana7360]

It's a business that performs a religious ceremony. You don't own the business, pay their taxes or lease/mortgage/overhead. The fags can go to a fag friendly chapel. Tyrants that want to deny one's religious freedoms need to go to jail.

That doesn't make it a church. So the business has to follow the laws of the state.

The Constitution trumps state law. Assuming homosexuality is considered on the same level as religions and race.

I find it disgusting that you and people like you are advocating for a business to break the law and use religion to excuse it.

I find it disgusting that you are more interested in ramming homosexuality down people's throats than you are in respecting their religious views. Like I said, normal people find businesses that accommodate them, not forcing a business to accommodate them.

You christians really don't show much respect for your faith. jesus wasn't about profit. In fact, he said a camel can get through the eye of a needle much easier than a rich person can get into heaven. Your jesus also preached for the rich to sell everything they have and give it to the poor. You christians don't do that and in fact use your faith to make money. You also use that same faith to say you have the right to discriminate against you fellow human beings.

Which would disgust jesus.

I'm not a Christian. Apparently that's too much for your toggle switch brain.

You can worship the lint in your belly button for all I care.

The facts are that this isn't a church. It's a business. They perform weddings.

If this was a church I would be in full agreement with you. But it's not a church. It's a business. When they get that license they agree to serve the public and obey all laws of the area. The city has a law that says no one can discriminate against gay people,

If that business owner wants to have all the benefits of a church then he should turn in his business license and start a church.

If you want to bring the constitution into it, those business people are violating the 14th amendment. If they refuse to give the same business to gay people as they do to heterosexuals, they're violating the 14th amendment. Which has a lot to do with the law of that area that makes it illegal to discriminate against gay people.

No one is telling those people they can't be any religion they want. No one is violating their religious freedom. They can still worship the god of their choice while complying with the laws. I'm sure they perform a wide variety of religious ceremonies of which I'm sure the business people aren't members of all the varieties of religions they do services for. So if they can do a service of a religion that they aren't a member of, that means that not doing a ceremony of their own faith isn't keeping them from following their faith. Which means that performing any ceremony for a gay couple wouldn't keep them from following their faith.

So no one's religious freedom is being violated.

You advocate for a business owner to violate the law using religion to excuse it. Which is typical for people like you.

Seems to me that you conservatives think that you can pick and choose what laws you want to follow.

Here in the real world everyone follows all the laws. Not just those they like.

You can reply to this but I won't read it. I'm going to scroll right past your posts. I don't waste my time with people who advocate breaking the laws and violating the constitution.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

It's a business that performs a religious ceremony. You don't own the business, pay their taxes or lease/mortgage/overhead. The fags can go to a fag friendly chapel. Tyrants that want to deny one's religious freedoms need to go to jail.

That doesn't make it a church. So the business has to follow the laws of the state.

The Constitution trumps state law. Assuming homosexuality is considered on the same level as religions and race.

I find it disgusting that you and people like you are advocating for a business to break the law and use religion to excuse it.

I find it disgusting that you are more interested in ramming homosexuality down people's throats than you are in respecting their religious views. Like I said, normal people find businesses that accommodate them, not forcing a business to accommodate them.

You christians really don't show much respect for your faith. jesus wasn't about profit. In fact, he said a camel can get through the eye of a needle much easier than a rich person can get into heaven. Your jesus also preached for the rich to sell everything they have and give it to the poor. You christians don't do that and in fact use your faith to make money. You also use that same faith to say you have the right to discriminate against you fellow human beings.

Which would disgust jesus.

I'm not a Christian. Apparently that's too much for your toggle switch brain.

You can worship the lint in your belly button for all I care.

The facts are that this isn't a church. It's a business. They perform weddings.

If this was a church I would be in full agreement with you. But it's not a church. It's a business. When they get that license they agree to serve the public and obey all laws of the area. The city has a law that says no one can discriminate against gay people,

If that business owner wants to have all the benefits of a church then he should turn in his business license and start a church.

If you want to bring the constitution into it, those business people are violating the 14th amendment. If they refuse to give the same business to gay people as they do to heterosexuals, they're violating the 14th amendment. Which has a lot to do with the law of that area that makes it illegal to discriminate against gay people.

No one is telling those people they can't be any religion they want. No one is violating their religious freedom. They can still worship the god of their choice while complying with the laws. I'm sure they perform a wide variety of religious ceremonies of which I'm sure the business people aren't members of all the varieties of religions they do services for. So if they can do a service of a religion that they aren't a member of, that means that not doing a ceremony of their own faith isn't keeping them from following their faith. Which means that performing any ceremony for a gay couple wouldn't keep them from following their faith.

So no one's religious freedom is being violated.

You advocate for a business owner to violate the law using religion to excuse it. Which is typical for people like you.

Seems to me that you conservatives think that you can pick and choose what laws you want to follow.

Here in the real world everyone follows all the laws. Not just those they like.

You can reply to this but I won't read it. I'm going to scroll right past your posts. I don't waste my time with people who advocate breaking the laws and violating the constitution.

They certainly are not. You will find NOWHERE in the 14th does it say you have a right to do business with people. NOWHERE

 

[Syriusly]

I should have known this story was pretty much complete bullshit.

Legal hitch at Hitching Post - Coeur d Alene Press Local Ne

I should have known this story was pretty much complete bullshit.

[URL='http://www.cdapress.com/news/local_news/article_129c54cc-3dda-5868-8278-838cde92e17e.html']Legal hitch at Hitching Post - Coeur d Alene Press Local News

Let's go down the list of lies in the Todd Starnes piece in the OP:

1. The city hasn't taken any legal action whatsoever against the Knapps.
2. No complaints against them have been filed.
3. The "Alliance for Defending Freedom" is suing the city, not defending the Knapps.
4. The Knapps don't even know who the ADF lawyers are.
5. The Hitching Post chapel is registered as a for-profit LLC, not a "religious organization".

ws[/URL]

Let's go down the list of lies in the Todd Starnes piece in the OP:

1. The city hasn't taken any legal action whatsoever against the Knapps.
2. No complaints against them have been filed.
3. The "Alliance for Defending Freedom" is suing the city, not defending the Knapps.
4. The Knapps don't even know who the ADF lawyers are.
5. The Hitching Post chapel is registered as a for-profit LLC, not a "religious organization".

Thanks- I didn't do my due diligence- and didn't recognize right how much a pile of crap the headline was- the article makes it pretty clear that this is entirely a created controversy.

Far from "Liberals forcing Ministers" to do anything- it is Conservatives using the courts to try to force the City to change its ordinance. No liberals are attempting to force these ministers to do anything.


In the letter, Gridley confirmed the details of a telephone conversation he says he had Monday with Cortman.

Gridley wrote that his office has responded in the past to questions from the Knapps about their business - registered as a for-profit limited liability company with the Idaho Secretary of State's office. He admitted that the Knapps were told by his office that if a complaint was filed against them for refusing to provide service to gay individuals seeking to marry, they would likely be in violation of the city's ordinance, based on their corporate status.

Violation of the anti-discrimination law is a misdemeanor with a fine as steep as $1,000, and as long as six months in jail.

Gridley also noted that on Oct. 6, the Knapps filed an LLC operating agreement with the state indicating that the Hitching Post is a "religious organization." He told the Knapps' attorney in the letter that if the Knapps are "truly operating a not-for-profit religious corporation" they would be specifically exempted from the city ordinance.

"Their lawsuit was something of a surprise because we have had cordial conversations with them in the past and they have never disclosed that they have recently become a religious corporation," Gridley wrote.

Gridley wrote that the city will not prosecute legitimate nonprofit religious corporations, associations, educational institutions, or societies or other exempt organizations or anyone else as a result of their lawful exercise of their First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and religion.

In addition to exempting those groups, Gridley wrote that the anti-discrimination ordinance states that it "shall be construed and applied in a manner consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence regarding the freedom of speech and exercise of religion."

When contacted by The Press for comment, Don Knapp said the Hitching Post is not operating as a not-for-profit religious corporation. He also said he does not know ADF Attorney David Cortman.

 

[Syriusly]

It's a business that performs a religious ceremony. You don't own the business, pay their taxes or lease/mortgage/overhead. The fags can go to a fag friendly chapel. Tyrants that want to deny one's religious freedoms need to go to jail.

That doesn't make it a church. So the business has to follow the laws of the state.

The Constitution trumps state law. Assuming homosexuality is considered on the same level as religions and race.

I find it disgusting that you and people like you are advocating for a business to break the law and use religion to excuse it.

I find it disgusting that you are more interested in ramming homosexuality down people's throats than you are in respecting their religious views. Like I said, normal people find businesses that accommodate them, not forcing a business to accommodate them.

You christians really don't show much respect for your faith. jesus wasn't about profit. In fact, he said a camel can get through the eye of a needle much easier than a rich person can get into heaven. Your jesus also preached for the rich to sell everything they have and give it to the poor. You christians don't do that and in fact use your faith to make money. You also use that same faith to say you have the right to discriminate against you fellow human beings.

Which would disgust jesus.

I'm not a Christian. Apparently that's too much for your toggle switch brain.

You can worship the lint in your belly button for all I care.

The facts are that this isn't a church. It's a business. They perform weddings.

If this was a church I would be in full agreement with you. But it's not a church. It's a business. When they get that license they agree to serve the public and obey all laws of the area. The city has a law that says no one can discriminate against gay people,

If that business owner wants to have all the benefits of a church then he should turn in his business license and start a church.

If you want to bring the constitution into it, those business people are violating the 14th amendment. If they refuse to give the same business to gay people as they do to heterosexuals, they're violating the 14th amendment. Which has a lot to do with the law of that area that makes it illegal to discriminate against gay people.

No one is telling those people they can't be any religion they want. No one is violating their religious freedom. They can still worship the god of their choice while complying with the laws. I'm sure they perform a wide variety of religious ceremonies of which I'm sure the business people aren't members of all the varieties of religions they do services for. So if they can do a service of a religion that they aren't a member of, that means that not doing a ceremony of their own faith isn't keeping them from following their faith. Which means that performing any ceremony for a gay couple wouldn't keep them from following their faith.

So no one's religious freedom is being violated.

You advocate for a business owner to violate the law using religion to excuse it. Which is typical for people like you.

Seems to me that you conservatives think that you can pick and choose what laws you want to follow.

Here in the real world everyone follows all the laws. Not just those they like.

You can reply to this but I won't read it. I'm going to scroll right past your posts. I don't waste my time with people who advocate breaking the laws and violating the constitution.

They certainly are not. You will find NOWHERE in the 14th does it say you have a right to do business with people. NOWHERE

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say you have a right to do business at all.