Religion vs law

[BDBoop]

Okay, I know you guys already hashed out Sweet Cakes by Melissa, the bakery that refused to create a same-sex wedding cake and practically got driven out of business.

Here is a similar case, and I am including a poll.

Christian Businesses in Trouble Over Christian Policies

A Mennonite couple in Iowa may be forced to choose between financial penalties or disregarding their own principles after the Iowa Civil Rights Commission filed suit against them for refusing to host a same-sex wedding. Dick and Betty Odgaard, who operate The Gortz Haus Gallery in Grimes, Iowa, has filed a counter-lawsuit against the state’s Civil Rights Commission in the hopes that they may be able to maintain their own convictions without penalty.

The Odgaards’ Gallery served as the location of a Lutheran church for over 60 years, but is now a bistro, floral and arts shop, as well as a wedding facility. They declined a request from Lee Stafford and his partner Jared to host a same-sex wedding in August. According to their countersuit, they did so “because their religion forbids them from personally planning, facilitating or hosting wedding ceremonies not between one man and one woman.”

His wife Betty explained to local television station KCCI that the company policy reflects their Christian faith. “That decision is based on our religious beliefs,” she stated. “And we want to honor that. We want people to know that is our stand, [which] comes from our faith and convictions, and I think we should stand by those [convictions] no matter what.”

The Odgaards did offer to provide the flowers or cake for the ceremony, but indicated that they were not comfortable allowing an exchanging of vows between the two men on their premises. “I would serve them in every other way; we simply don’t want to take part.… It just comes down to that final line of taking their vows in our facility,” she told reporter Billy Hallowell. “I do not hate these people and they have the right to do what they want to do under the law and in humanity.”

Their offer was not well-received by Stafford, who filed a complaint with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission and accused the Odgaards of violating state law, as same-sex "marriage" was legalized in Iowa in 2009 after a state Supreme Court ruling. “They discriminated against us based on our sexual orientation. Iowa code says if you have a public accommodation, you can’t discriminate based on sexual orientation,” said Stafford.

On October 7, the Odgaards responded by filing a counter-lawsuit through the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty.

“The Iowa Civil Rights Commission is now seeking to force the Odgaards to plan, facilitate and host same-sex wedding ceremonies at the Gallery,” the suit reads. “Publicly associating with a wedding ceremony that violates their beliefs would send a message to others who share their beliefs, including some of their employees, that those beliefs are untrue or unworthy of devotion, and thereby cause others to sin.”

I don't honestly believe there are any easy answers. Part of why I say that is - any one business is not the only business in town, for the most part. If a business owner's belief system prohibits them serving same-sex couples, then are their rights not being violated in forcing them to do so?

Just be up front with it. Yes, it's going to cost you some business (or is it not legal to say "we don't serve same-sex couples"?) But it will likely net you more business. Same goes for the business that says "We serve everybody, just don't let Fido piddle on the rug." Some will boycott, some will support.

Now, the Melissa couple. I really don't support them, because while everything else that is against their Bible was Just Fine with them - same-sex marriage is where they drew the line.

Sweet Cakes By Melissa, Oregon Bakery That Refused Lesbian Couple, Pranked By Undercover Reporter

"I was wondering if you could do two little cakes. My friend is a researcher at OHSU and she just got a grant for cloning human stem cells, so I thought I’d get her two identical cakes—basically, two little clone cakes. How much would they cost?" the covert reporter asked an employee at Sweet Cakes By Melissa in Gresham, Ore.

“Ha. All right. When are you looking to do it? It’ll be $25.99 each, so about $50 to start," a bakery employee told the reporter, according to The Willamette Week.

In addition to agreeing to make a cake for a "pagan solstice party" (the reporter requested a pentagram of icing on the cake), Sweet Cakes also agreed to make custom cakes for a divorce party and a party for a woman who'd had multiple babies out of wedlock, the paper notes.

Cherry picking? SO not okay. And since it's already been done to death, to the tune of 1700+ posts, I figure we'll just discuss the Odgaards, and their current situation.

 

[KokomoJojo]

A Mennonite couple in Iowa may be forced to choose between financial penalties or disregarding their own principles after the Iowa Civil Rights Commission filed suit against them for refusing to host a same-sex wedding. Dick and Betty Odgaard, who operate The Gortz Haus Gallery in Grimes, Iowa, has filed a counter-lawsuit against the state’s Civil Rights Commission in the hopes that they may be able to maintain their own convictions without penalty.

Ok I am going to toss something out here for shits and giggles that is very unpopular among statists and it is finally after all these years starting to surface in a way people can see through the smoke screens with acute clarity.

You are talking about individual matters of conscience vs the conscience of some group being paid to be your conscience and having the authority to extort money from you by force if you do not agree with their conscience.

After ludicrous amount of research on the topic I have found the "substantial" meaning of religion as follows.

It has mixed roots in philosophy, metaphysics and theology and though ancient is highly advanced psychologically.

Religion is fundamentally a persons set of beliefs that they act upon in conducting their affairs in life. Hence you hear terms like so and such worships money, the devil, God, whatever.

Observers take note of what God someone worships based upon the their actions and judges them accordingly rightfully or wrongfully according to their own religion.

That said, people "believe" in something, and for this, what the something is, is irrelevant, it is the act of believing something that forms the basis for ones religion.

However simply having a belief in and of itself does not fulfill the elements of a religion, it is when the person puts their beliefs into action and governs themselves according to their beliefs that is becomes a religion.

To my shock and dismay the supreme court took note of the same, however if put to the test they would find a narrow exception to insure their continued power over the people would not be challenged as the states do not recognize anyones religion if it falls into personal beliefs and they only recognize state approved religions, such as 501.3(c) organizations as being legally legitimate religions, hence you have little to no religious rights and are required to submit to the state religion as they dictate how you will conduct your affairs according to their beliefs on how you should act, hence their religion.

So if this is not an issue over entitlements what possible purpose "interest" would the government have the private affairs of people who are in fact exercising their religion as they have come to believe, in the first place?

If a business owner's belief system prohibits them serving same-sex couples, then are their rights not being violated in forcing them to do so?

otherwise under a for profit state organized business such that the actions harm or injure someone or a group of someones in a tangible manner yes the government would and should have reasonable authority to deal with the matters.

yes those operating as a church realm are well within their rights to decline being a party to any actions that run contrary to their religion.

However at the same time the government should not favor one religion (gay religion) over another and force the right of gays to marry into the religion of another, and gays should form their churches and the government should recognize them.

If the government would have from its institution honored its requirement to respect the religion of individuals we would not have this problem in the first place. of course that is not very convenient.

.

 

[TNHarley]

businesses should be run the way the owner sees fit
its THEIR business

 

[KokomoJojo]

businesses should be run the way the owner sees fit
its THEIR business

I would love nothing more than to totally agree with you, bu oil would be 100 bucks a gallon right now if that were the case.

My argument is that they commingle corporate with private affairs under the guise of public interest when there is no injury being done to the public.

Businesses created under the government should be regulated by government until it remove the choices of individuals to govern their private affairs.

For instance stepping over the line is the requirement for business to get a social security number from you and to withhold money from your checks effectively forcing businesses to being a tax collecting arm of the government and removing your choices.

By placing these requirements in the hands of uninterested parties, the company that will fire you the second its more profitable to do so infringes upon you and harms you personally.

However it serves the purpose of government achieving its ends by getting around the laws.

privileges and immunities are essentially rules that the government will uphold that gets around the laws, hence the name privileges and immunities.

 

[TNHarley]

go suck a totalitarian dick

 

[emilynghiem]

The easiest answer I can think of is for them all to agree to have some other group
rent that location from this couple and plan and provide their own services as they wish.
They can use that space but get their own service providers, and not force anyone into it.

Gee whiz, for the cost of the litigation they could have settled this amicably
and paid for the wedding services, I'm sure! Other ppl would gladly have that business.

I had posted a spoof idea about starting a Bigotry Bakery hotline to give away Free Gay Cakes to settle such disputes. I should start a network of volunteer mediators to come up with creative solutions to save these situations and relationships from worst disaster, damages or costs and not impose conflicts one way or another.

It would certainly cost less, and could create jobs in something constructive and healing.

Okay, I know you guys already hashed out Sweet Cakes by Melissa, the bakery that refused to create a same-sex wedding cake and practically got driven out of business.

Here is a similar case, and I am including a poll.

Christian Businesses in Trouble Over Christian Policies

A Mennonite couple in Iowa may be forced to choose between financial penalties or disregarding their own principles after the Iowa Civil Rights Commission filed suit against them for refusing to host a same-sex wedding. Dick and Betty Odgaard, who operate The Gortz Haus Gallery in Grimes, Iowa, has filed a counter-lawsuit against the state’s Civil Rights Commission in the hopes that they may be able to maintain their own convictions without penalty.

The Odgaards’ Gallery served as the location of a Lutheran church for over 60 years, but is now a bistro, floral and arts shop, as well as a wedding facility. They declined a request from Lee Stafford and his partner Jared to host a same-sex wedding in August. According to their countersuit, they did so “because their religion forbids them from personally planning, facilitating or hosting wedding ceremonies not between one man and one woman.”

His wife Betty explained to local television station KCCI that the company policy reflects their Christian faith. “That decision is based on our religious beliefs,” she stated. “And we want to honor that. We want people to know that is our stand, [which] comes from our faith and convictions, and I think we should stand by those [convictions] no matter what.”

The Odgaards did offer to provide the flowers or cake for the ceremony, but indicated that they were not comfortable allowing an exchanging of vows between the two men on their premises. “I would serve them in every other way; we simply don’t want to take part.… It just comes down to that final line of taking their vows in our facility,” she told reporter Billy Hallowell. “I do not hate these people and they have the right to do what they want to do under the law and in humanity.”

Their offer was not well-received by Stafford, who filed a complaint with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission and accused the Odgaards of violating state law, as same-sex "marriage" was legalized in Iowa in 2009 after a state Supreme Court ruling. “They discriminated against us based on our sexual orientation. Iowa code says if you have a public accommodation, you can’t discriminate based on sexual orientation,” said Stafford.

On October 7, the Odgaards responded by filing a counter-lawsuit through the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty.

“The Iowa Civil Rights Commission is now seeking to force the Odgaards to plan, facilitate and host same-sex wedding ceremonies at the Gallery,” the suit reads. “Publicly associating with a wedding ceremony that violates their beliefs would send a message to others who share their beliefs, including some of their employees, that those beliefs are untrue or unworthy of devotion, and thereby cause others to sin.”

I don't honestly believe there are any easy answers. Part of why I say that is - any one business is not the only business in town, for the most part. If a business owner's belief system prohibits them serving same-sex couples, then are their rights not being violated in forcing them to do so?

Just be up front with it. Yes, it's going to cost you some business (or is it not legal to say "we don't serve same-sex couples"?) But it will likely net you more business. Same goes for the business that says "We serve everybody, just don't let Fido piddle on the rug." Some will boycott, some will support.

Now, the Melissa couple. I really don't support them, because while everything else that is against their Bible was Just Fine with them - same-sex marriage is where they drew the line.

Sweet Cakes By Melissa, Oregon Bakery That Refused Lesbian Couple, Pranked By Undercover Reporter

"I was wondering if you could do two little cakes. My friend is a researcher at OHSU and she just got a grant for cloning human stem cells, so I thought I’d get her two identical cakes—basically, two little clone cakes. How much would they cost?" the covert reporter asked an employee at Sweet Cakes By Melissa in Gresham, Ore.

“Ha. All right. When are you looking to do it? It’ll be $25.99 each, so about $50 to start," a bakery employee told the reporter, according to The Willamette Week.

In addition to agreeing to make a cake for a "pagan solstice party" (the reporter requested a pentagram of icing on the cake), Sweet Cakes also agreed to make custom cakes for a divorce party and a party for a woman who'd had multiple babies out of wedlock, the paper notes.

Cherry picking? SO not okay. And since it's already been done to death, to the tune of 1700+ posts, I figure we'll just discuss the Odgaards, and their current situation.

 

[emilynghiem]

unfair or unethical business practices are unsustainable
other people doing a better job for less should be rewarded

the problem with trying to regulate is that it can backfire and hurt the honest
small businesses while big companies get around the restrictions

If you held all people and institutions to respect the same constitutional rights as the govt, then we could check and balance each other when abuses, waste or excesses arise

businesses should be run the way the owner sees fit
its THEIR business

I would love nothing more than to totally agree with you, bu oil would be 100 bucks a gallon right now if that were the case.

My argument is that they commingle corporate with private affairs under the guise of public interest when there is no injury being done to the public.

Businesses created under the government should be regulated by government until it remove the choices of individuals to govern their private affairs.

For instance stepping over the line is the requirement for business to get a social security number from you and to withhold money from your checks effectively forcing businesses to being a tax collecting arm of the government and removing your choices.

By placing these requirements in the hands of uninterested parties, the company that will fire you the second its more profitable to do so infringes upon you and harms you personally.

However it serves the purpose of government achieving its ends by getting around the laws.

privileges and immunities are essentially rules that the government will uphold that gets around the laws, hence the name privileges and immunities.

I would like to add requirements that corporations or religious institutions and other collective entities which get licensed to operate through govt, agree to policies similar to the Bill of Rights respecting due process and other rights and freedoms of individuals.

Instead of trying to micromanage and regulate every detail of every business or industry,
we could require means of redressing grievances to prevent abuses that way, directly by managing workers, consumers and management input in a democratic way that rewards conflict resolution and reduces the cost of litigation, damages, etc. from unchecked abuses.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Would they be allowed to refuse to marry an inter-racial couple based upon their religious beliefs? If the answer is no then they have no right to refuse a same sex couple either if they are in the business of providing marriage services.

Were there businesses that refused inter-racial couples services? Yup, and they were taken to task by the law and served as examples to other businesses.

If there are supposed to be equal rights under the Constitution then no one gets to set up their own little corporate fiefdom where the Constitution doesn't apply.

 

[Katzndogz]

No one should have to provide anything if they object to the customer. Even if they don't want to serve interracial couples. Just stop government interference with business. Period.

That's a proper application of the Constitution. The Constitution is a limitation on government power, not an extension of government power micromanaging everyone and everything.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Okay, I know you guys already hashed out Sweet Cakes by Melissa, the bakery that refused to create a same-sex wedding cake and practically got driven out of business.

Here is a similar case, and I am including a poll.

Christian Businesses in Trouble Over Christian Policies

A Mennonite couple in Iowa may be forced to choose between financial penalties or disregarding their own principles after the Iowa Civil Rights Commission filed suit against them for refusing to host a same-sex wedding. Dick and Betty Odgaard, who operate The Gortz Haus Gallery in Grimes, Iowa, has filed a counter-lawsuit against the state’s Civil Rights Commission in the hopes that they may be able to maintain their own convictions without penalty.

The Odgaards’ Gallery served as the location of a Lutheran church for over 60 years, but is now a bistro, floral and arts shop, as well as a wedding facility. They declined a request from Lee Stafford and his partner Jared to host a same-sex wedding in August. According to their countersuit, they did so “because their religion forbids them from personally planning, facilitating or hosting wedding ceremonies not between one man and one woman.”

His wife Betty explained to local television station KCCI that the company policy reflects their Christian faith. “That decision is based on our religious beliefs,” she stated. “And we want to honor that. We want people to know that is our stand, [which] comes from our faith and convictions, and I think we should stand by those [convictions] no matter what.”

The Odgaards did offer to provide the flowers or cake for the ceremony, but indicated that they were not comfortable allowing an exchanging of vows between the two men on their premises. “I would serve them in every other way; we simply don’t want to take part.… It just comes down to that final line of taking their vows in our facility,” she told reporter Billy Hallowell. “I do not hate these people and they have the right to do what they want to do under the law and in humanity.”

Their offer was not well-received by Stafford, who filed a complaint with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission and accused the Odgaards of violating state law, as same-sex "marriage" was legalized in Iowa in 2009 after a state Supreme Court ruling. “They discriminated against us based on our sexual orientation. Iowa code says if you have a public accommodation, you can’t discriminate based on sexual orientation,” said Stafford.

On October 7, the Odgaards responded by filing a counter-lawsuit through the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty.

“The Iowa Civil Rights Commission is now seeking to force the Odgaards to plan, facilitate and host same-sex wedding ceremonies at the Gallery,” the suit reads. “Publicly associating with a wedding ceremony that violates their beliefs would send a message to others who share their beliefs, including some of their employees, that those beliefs are untrue or unworthy of devotion, and thereby cause others to sin.”

I don't honestly believe there are any easy answers. Part of why I say that is - any one business is not the only business in town, for the most part. If a business owner's belief system prohibits them serving same-sex couples, then are their rights not being violated in forcing them to do so?

Just be up front with it. Yes, it's going to cost you some business (or is it not legal to say "we don't serve same-sex couples"?) But it will likely net you more business. Same goes for the business that says "We serve everybody, just don't let Fido piddle on the rug." Some will boycott, some will support.

Now, the Melissa couple. I really don't support them, because while everything else that is against their Bible was Just Fine with them - same-sex marriage is where they drew the line.

Sweet Cakes By Melissa, Oregon Bakery That Refused Lesbian Couple, Pranked By Undercover Reporter

"I was wondering if you could do two little cakes. My friend is a researcher at OHSU and she just got a grant for cloning human stem cells, so I thought I’d get her two identical cakes—basically, two little clone cakes. How much would they cost?" the covert reporter asked an employee at Sweet Cakes By Melissa in Gresham, Ore.

“Ha. All right. When are you looking to do it? It’ll be $25.99 each, so about $50 to start," a bakery employee told the reporter, according to The Willamette Week.

In addition to agreeing to make a cake for a "pagan solstice party" (the reporter requested a pentagram of icing on the cake), Sweet Cakes also agreed to make custom cakes for a divorce party and a party for a woman who'd had multiple babies out of wedlock, the paper notes.

Cherry picking? SO not okay. And since it's already been done to death, to the tune of 1700+ posts, I figure we'll just discuss the Odgaards, and their current situation.

Damn it Betty, I thought we got past trying to lie in order to make points. We both know that there is absolutely no evidence that the reporter contacted the owners of the bakery with the fake orders for clone cakes, and all the other things. Even if they did, all that crap is not cherry picking, the bakery did not object to baking them a cake, they objected to delivering it and cutting it, which would have meant attending the reception. Unless you can demonstrate that the reporter asked them to attend a Pagan sacrifice as part of baking the cake, you got nothing there.

As for the Mennonites. they were also willing to provide everything but the actual facility, yet people are still calling them names. Anyone that thinks that Mennonites are racist, or hateful, is ignorant and shouldn't be allowed to leave their house without adult supervision, they might hurt themselves.

Or someone else.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

businesses should be run the way the owner sees fit
its THEIR business

I would love nothing more than to totally agree with you, bu oil would be 100 bucks a gallon right now if that were the case.

My argument is that they commingle corporate with private affairs under the guise of public interest when there is no injury being done to the public.

Businesses created under the government should be regulated by government until it remove the choices of individuals to govern their private affairs.

For instance stepping over the line is the requirement for business to get a social security number from you and to withhold money from your checks effectively forcing businesses to being a tax collecting arm of the government and removing your choices.

By placing these requirements in the hands of uninterested parties, the company that will fire you the second its more profitable to do so infringes upon you and harms you personally.

However it serves the purpose of government achieving its ends by getting around the laws.

privileges and immunities are essentially rules that the government will uphold that gets around the laws, hence the name privileges and immunities.

Actually, it would probably be somewhere around $2 a gallon if big oil had its druthers. The higher price is because the government mandates that refineries blend in a minimum amount of ethanol into their gasoline, even though there isn't that much ethanol in the entire world.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Would they be allowed to refuse to marry an inter-racial couple based upon their religious beliefs? If the answer is no then they have no right to refuse a same sex couple either if they are in the business of providing marriage services.

Were there businesses that refused inter-racial couples services? Yup, and they were taken to task by the law and served as examples to other businesses.

If there are supposed to be equal rights under the Constitution then no one gets to set up their own little corporate fiefdom where the Constitution doesn't apply.

One day you will learn that hate is not the only emotion humans can feel, until then, I feel sorry for everyone in your life.

Would you be able to provide a single example of a racist Mennonite? Keep in mind that Mennonites were openly part of the underground railroad at a time when getting caught harboring escaped slaves was a criminal offense.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Okay, I know you guys already hashed out Sweet Cakes by Melissa, the bakery that refused to create a same-sex wedding cake and practically got driven out of business.

Here is a similar case, and I am including a poll.

Christian Businesses in Trouble Over Christian Policies

A Mennonite couple in Iowa may be forced to choose between financial penalties or disregarding their own principles after the Iowa Civil Rights Commission filed suit against them for refusing to host a same-sex wedding. Dick and Betty Odgaard, who operate The Gortz Haus Gallery in Grimes, Iowa, has filed a counter-lawsuit against the state’s Civil Rights Commission in the hopes that they may be able to maintain their own convictions without penalty.

The Odgaards’ Gallery served as the location of a Lutheran church for over 60 years, but is now a bistro, floral and arts shop, as well as a wedding facility. They declined a request from Lee Stafford and his partner Jared to host a same-sex wedding in August. According to their countersuit, they did so “because their religion forbids them from personally planning, facilitating or hosting wedding ceremonies not between one man and one woman.”

His wife Betty explained to local television station KCCI that the company policy reflects their Christian faith. “That decision is based on our religious beliefs,” she stated. “And we want to honor that. We want people to know that is our stand, [which] comes from our faith and convictions, and I think we should stand by those [convictions] no matter what.”

The Odgaards did offer to provide the flowers or cake for the ceremony, but indicated that they were not comfortable allowing an exchanging of vows between the two men on their premises. “I would serve them in every other way; we simply don’t want to take part.… It just comes down to that final line of taking their vows in our facility,” she told reporter Billy Hallowell. “I do not hate these people and they have the right to do what they want to do under the law and in humanity.”

Their offer was not well-received by Stafford, who filed a complaint with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission and accused the Odgaards of violating state law, as same-sex "marriage" was legalized in Iowa in 2009 after a state Supreme Court ruling. “They discriminated against us based on our sexual orientation. Iowa code says if you have a public accommodation, you can’t discriminate based on sexual orientation,” said Stafford.

On October 7, the Odgaards responded by filing a counter-lawsuit through the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty.

“The Iowa Civil Rights Commission is now seeking to force the Odgaards to plan, facilitate and host same-sex wedding ceremonies at the Gallery,” the suit reads. “Publicly associating with a wedding ceremony that violates their beliefs would send a message to others who share their beliefs, including some of their employees, that those beliefs are untrue or unworthy of devotion, and thereby cause others to sin.”

I don't honestly believe there are any easy answers. Part of why I say that is - any one business is not the only business in town, for the most part. If a business owner's belief system prohibits them serving same-sex couples, then are their rights not being violated in forcing them to do so?

Just be up front with it. Yes, it's going to cost you some business (or is it not legal to say "we don't serve same-sex couples"?) But it will likely net you more business. Same goes for the business that says "We serve everybody, just don't let Fido piddle on the rug." Some will boycott, some will support.

Now, the Melissa couple. I really don't support them, because while everything else that is against their Bible was Just Fine with them - same-sex marriage is where they drew the line.

Sweet Cakes By Melissa, Oregon Bakery That Refused Lesbian Couple, Pranked By Undercover Reporter

"I was wondering if you could do two little cakes. My friend is a researcher at OHSU and she just got a grant for cloning human stem cells, so I thought I’d get her two identical cakes—basically, two little clone cakes. How much would they cost?" the covert reporter asked an employee at Sweet Cakes By Melissa in Gresham, Ore.

“Ha. All right. When are you looking to do it? It’ll be $25.99 each, so about $50 to start," a bakery employee told the reporter, according to The Willamette Week.

In addition to agreeing to make a cake for a "pagan solstice party" (the reporter requested a pentagram of icing on the cake), Sweet Cakes also agreed to make custom cakes for a divorce party and a party for a woman who'd had multiple babies out of wedlock, the paper notes.

Cherry picking? SO not okay. And since it's already been done to death, to the tune of 1700+ posts, I figure we'll just discuss the Odgaards, and their current situation.

This is why gays want to marry

so they can sue the fuck out of anyone that doesn't bow to their tyranny.

next up, churches

This never had shit to do with rights, it was always about hurting peope.

fyi; called it years ago.

 

[ogibillm]

This is why gays want to marry

so they can sue the fuck out of anyone that doesn't bow to their tyranny.

next up, churches

This never had shit to do with rights, it was always about hurting people.

fyi; called it years ago.

the dumbest thing i've ever read.

as for the owners, if they are a public accommodation i don't believe they have the right to discriminate - so i believe they should rent out their facility. i don't think they should be made to plan the ceremony, but their facility must be made available to all per iowa law.

 

[Katzndogz]

The solution, as so artfully set forth in New Mexico is stop being a place of public accommodation. Do business with who you know, personal referrals, word of mouth. Not open to the public.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This is why gays want to marry

so they can sue the fuck out of anyone that doesn't bow to their tyranny.

next up, churches

This never had shit to do with rights, it was always about hurting people.

fyi; called it years ago.

the dumbest thing i've ever read.

as for the owners, if they are a public accommodation i don't believe they have the right to discriminate - so i believe they should rent out their facility. i don't think they should be made to plan the ceremony, but their facility must be made available to all per iowa law.

You don't believe people have rights unless you like what they do with them?

 

[ogibillm]

This is why gays want to marry

so they can sue the fuck out of anyone that doesn't bow to their tyranny.

next up, churches

This never had shit to do with rights, it was always about hurting people.

fyi; called it years ago.

the dumbest thing i've ever read.

as for the owners, if they are a public accommodation i don't believe they have the right to discriminate - so i believe they should rent out their facility. i don't think they should be made to plan the ceremony, but their facility must be made available to all per iowa law.

You don't believe people have rights unless you like what they do with them?

i believe that iowa law is clear. if you disagree, work to change that law.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

the dumbest thing i've ever read.

as for the owners, if they are a public accommodation i don't believe they have the right to discriminate - so i believe they should rent out their facility. i don't think they should be made to plan the ceremony, but their facility must be made available to all per iowa law.

You don't believe people have rights unless you like what they do with them?

i believe that iowa law is clear. if you disagree, work to change that law.

That wasn't my question, was it? Either own the opinion with pride, or blame it on the law. Your choice.

 

[ogibillm]

You don't believe people have rights unless you like what they do with them?

i believe that iowa law is clear. if you disagree, work to change that law.

That wasn't my question, was it? Either own the opinion with pride, or blame it on the law. Your choice.

i believe that public businesses should have to abide by the law. i believe that laws should exist that do not allow for discrimination based on race, religion, national origin, sex, or sexual orientation.

i own that opinion with pride.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

i believe that iowa law is clear. if you disagree, work to change that law.

That wasn't my question, was it? Either own the opinion with pride, or blame it on the law. Your choice.

i believe that public businesses should have to abide by the law. i believe that laws should exist that do not allow for discrimination based on race, religion, national origin, sex, or sexual orientation.

i own that opinion with pride.

What if the law says that they can't serve people because of their skin color, should businesses obey their law, or should people be able to follow their conscious? Is it only laws you personally support they should follow, or should they always follow the law even when it is wrong?