Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[PaintMyHouse]

Now just how do you separate ones faith from a person or the owners of a business?

The same way we did when folks tried to argue that it was against their religion to serve Jews or Black people.

If you're going to do business with the public, its both reasonable and proper that they be subject to minimum standard of fair and equitable conduct with your customers by the State.

Why are you Leftists so terrified of freedom of association?

They aren't, they just don't want people to have to drive all over town to get gas because all the stations say No *******. That interferes with the freedom of others to get on with their lives. If you don't like the rules, don't go into business, and if the rules change not to your liking, close up and watch the birds all day.

So what you Leftists fear is something that couldn't happen to begin with. If your local Chevron station had a sign saying "No *******" would you go there? I wouldn't either. It would go out of business. That's what happens with free association, it's the shortest route to true social justice.

Actually it isn't, but passing a law is. Thems the rules eh?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

A "rule" that forces Christian bookstores to hire a transvestite or a wiccan isn't social justice, it's a violation of the Bill of Rights.

 

[Skylar]

It's not merely "morally offensive" to christians. If you read Jude 1, it is a ******* MANDATE, that if they are foolish enough to ignore in favor of social expediency or some other such secular pressures, they are thrown into the pit of fire for eternity as if they were worse than the homosexual culture they failed to prevent advancing.

If your religion doesn't allow you to conduct business fairly and equitably, you shouldn't be in business. Same if your religion forbids you from serving Christians, or women, or Muslims in your public business.

 

[Skylar]

Now just how do you separate ones faith from a person or the owners of a business?

The same way we did when folks tried to argue that it was against their religion to serve Jews or Black people.

If you're going to do business with the public, its both reasonable and proper that they be subject to minimum standard of fair and equitable conduct with your customers by the State.

Why are you Leftists so terrified of freedom of association?

They aren't, they just don't want people to have to drive all over town to get gas because all the stations say No *******. That interferes with the freedom of others to get on with their lives. If you don't like the rules, don't go into business, and if the rules change not to your liking, close up and watch the birds all day.

So what you Leftists fear is something that couldn't happen to begin with. If your local Chevron station had a sign saying "No *******" would you go there? I wouldn't either. It would go out of business. That's what happens with free association, it's the shortest route to true social justice.

I'd take actions to enforce local laws so the sign was taken down and all black customers were treated fairly and equitably.

'No blacks served at this lunch counter' may be consistent with conservative values. But its not consistent with American values.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Now just how do you separate ones faith from a person or the owners of a business?

The same way we did when folks tried to argue that it was against their religion to serve Jews or Black people.

If you're going to do business with the public, its both reasonable and proper that they be subject to minimum standard of fair and equitable conduct with your customers by the State.

Why are you Leftists so terrified of freedom of association?

They aren't, they just don't want people to have to drive all over town to get gas because all the stations say No *******. That interferes with the freedom of others to get on with their lives. If you don't like the rules, don't go into business, and if the rules change not to your liking, close up and watch the birds all day.

So what you Leftists fear is something that couldn't happen to begin with. If your local Chevron station had a sign saying "No *******" would you go there? I wouldn't either. It would go out of business. That's what happens with free association, it's the shortest route to true social justice.

I'd take actions to enforce local laws so the sign was taken down and all black customers were treated fairly and equitably.

'No blacks served at this lunch counter' may be consistent with conservative values. But its not consistent with American values.

Such a law would be perfectly fine if passed by the state and not the federal government. The former does not violate the Constitution and the 10th Amendment.

 

[Skylar]

The same way we did when folks tried to argue that it was against their religion to serve Jews or Black people.

If you're going to do business with the public, its both reasonable and proper that they be subject to minimum standard of fair and equitable conduct with your customers by the State.

Why are you Leftists so terrified of freedom of association?

They aren't, they just don't want people to have to drive all over town to get gas because all the stations say No *******. That interferes with the freedom of others to get on with their lives. If you don't like the rules, don't go into business, and if the rules change not to your liking, close up and watch the birds all day.

So what you Leftists fear is something that couldn't happen to begin with. If your local Chevron station had a sign saying "No *******" would you go there? I wouldn't either. It would go out of business. That's what happens with free association, it's the shortest route to true social justice.

I'd take actions to enforce local laws so the sign was taken down and all black customers were treated fairly and equitably.

'No blacks served at this lunch counter' may be consistent with conservative values. But its not consistent with American values.

Such a law would be perfectly fine if passed by the state and not the federal government. The former does not violate the Constitution and the 10th Amendment.

I agree. The feds have jurisdiction over interstate commerce. The states, intrastate commerce. And the laws punishing business owners for not treating gays fairly and equitably have been exclusively state laws so far.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Why are you Leftists so terrified of freedom of association?

They aren't, they just don't want people to have to drive all over town to get gas because all the stations say No *******. That interferes with the freedom of others to get on with their lives. If you don't like the rules, don't go into business, and if the rules change not to your liking, close up and watch the birds all day.

So what you Leftists fear is something that couldn't happen to begin with. If your local Chevron station had a sign saying "No *******" would you go there? I wouldn't either. It would go out of business. That's what happens with free association, it's the shortest route to true social justice.

I'd take actions to enforce local laws so the sign was taken down and all black customers were treated fairly and equitably.

'No blacks served at this lunch counter' may be consistent with conservative values. But its not consistent with American values.

Such a law would be perfectly fine if passed by the state and not the federal government. The former does not violate the Constitution and the 10th Amendment.

I agree. The feds have jurisdiction over interstate commerce. The states, intrastate commerce. And the laws punishing business owners for not treating gays fairly and equitably have been exclusively state laws so far.

You mean we agree on something?

 

[beagle9]

In other words, should we use anti-discrimination laws to force Bible-believing churches to host ceremonies that we know they will find morally offensive when we know we could easily find other churches or facilities that would be willing to host the ceremonies?

Nope. You're clearly not following the thread.

And should we use anti-discrimination laws to force Christian photographers to attend and service ceremonies that we know they will find morally offensive when we know we could easily find other photographers who would not mind servicing the ceremonies?

If a photographer is doing business with the public, they should treat all of their customers fairly and equitably. If they can't, they shouldn't be doing business.

If the gay rights crowd would practice a little tolerance and respect, this would not even be an issue. It's not that they "need" to hold their ceremonies in conservative churches or "need" to have Christian photographers service their ceremonies--it's that they want to do so because they want to insult and humiliate conservative Christians.

Gays are looking for no more or less consideration than any black person would be at the Woolworth's lunch counter.

'We don't serve your kind here' isn't an acceptable practice in business for most States. Nor should it be.

If gay's didn't have black people to keep falling back on, then what would they do ? Oh yes and how exactly does one wear his sexuality upon his skin or upon his sleeve again ? I thought so..

 

[Skylar]

They aren't, they just don't want people to have to drive all over town to get gas because all the stations say No *******. That interferes with the freedom of others to get on with their lives. If you don't like the rules, don't go into business, and if the rules change not to your liking, close up and watch the birds all day.

So what you Leftists fear is something that couldn't happen to begin with. If your local Chevron station had a sign saying "No *******" would you go there? I wouldn't either. It would go out of business. That's what happens with free association, it's the shortest route to true social justice.

I'd take actions to enforce local laws so the sign was taken down and all black customers were treated fairly and equitably.

'No blacks served at this lunch counter' may be consistent with conservative values. But its not consistent with American values.

Such a law would be perfectly fine if passed by the state and not the federal government. The former does not violate the Constitution and the 10th Amendment.

I agree. The feds have jurisdiction over interstate commerce. The states, intrastate commerce. And the laws punishing business owners for not treating gays fairly and equitably have been exclusively state laws so far.

You mean we agree on something?

I don't see why we shouldn't. My positions are formed autonomous of political party. I believe in gay marriage because its right, just and reasonable. I oppose federal laws governing intrastate commerce because its clearly not a power they were granted or ever intended to have.

The two positions don't have much to do with each other.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

So what you Leftists fear is something that couldn't happen to begin with. If your local Chevron station had a sign saying "No *******" would you go there? I wouldn't either. It would go out of business. That's what happens with free association, it's the shortest route to true social justice.

I'd take actions to enforce local laws so the sign was taken down and all black customers were treated fairly and equitably.

'No blacks served at this lunch counter' may be consistent with conservative values. But its not consistent with American values.

Such a law would be perfectly fine if passed by the state and not the federal government. The former does not violate the Constitution and the 10th Amendment.

I agree. The feds have jurisdiction over interstate commerce. The states, intrastate commerce. And the laws punishing business owners for not treating gays fairly and equitably have been exclusively state laws so far.

You mean we agree on something?

I don't see why we shouldn't. My positions are formed autonomous of political party. I believe in gay marriage because its right, just and reasonable. I oppose federal laws governing intrastate commerce because its clearly not a power they were granted or ever intended to have.

The two positions don't have much to do with each other.

But they do. Marriage has always been governed by the states until 1862 when the federal government started regulating it to be defined, ironically, as one man and one woman. This illegal intrusion on states' rights paved the way for DOMA and all manner of other violations of the 10th Amendment. Now it's just assumed that the federal government is in charge of any issue it wants to be, including marriage.

 

[Skylar]

In other words, should we use anti-discrimination laws to force Bible-believing churches to host ceremonies that we know they will find morally offensive when we know we could easily find other churches or facilities that would be willing to host the ceremonies?

Nope. You're clearly not following the thread.

And should we use anti-discrimination laws to force Christian photographers to attend and service ceremonies that we know they will find morally offensive when we know we could easily find other photographers who would not mind servicing the ceremonies?

If a photographer is doing business with the public, they should treat all of their customers fairly and equitably. If they can't, they shouldn't be doing business.

If the gay rights crowd would practice a little tolerance and respect, this would not even be an issue. It's not that they "need" to hold their ceremonies in conservative churches or "need" to have Christian photographers service their ceremonies--it's that they want to do so because they want to insult and humiliate conservative Christians.

Gays are looking for no more or less consideration than any black person would be at the Woolworth's lunch counter.

'We don't serve your kind here' isn't an acceptable practice in business for most States. Nor should it be.

If gay's didn't have black people to keep falling back on, then what would they do ? Oh yes and how exactly does one wear his sexuality upon his skin or upon his sleeve again ? I thought so..

If the arguments against gay rights didn't mirror the failed rhetoric against minority rights as closely as they do, the comparisons likely wouldn't be made as often as they are. Even the appeals to religion are the same.

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

Judge Leon Bazile, 1965

It was bullshit then. And its bullshit now.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

A "rule" that forces Christian bookstores to hire a transvestite or a wiccan isn't social justice, it's a violation of the Bill of Rights.

How lucky for me that the law is on my side, not yours.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

A "rule" that forces Christian bookstores to hire a transvestite or a wiccan isn't social justice, it's a violation of the Bill of Rights.

How lucky for me that the law is on my side, not yours.

That's how all Leftists think. They don't give a damn about the Constitution, civil rights, or who gets trampled by their agenda. Getting your way is all you care about.

Demonic.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

A "rule" that forces Christian bookstores to hire a transvestite or a wiccan isn't social justice, it's a violation of the Bill of Rights.

How lucky for me that the law is on my side, not yours.

That's how all Leftists think. They don't give a damn about the Constitution, civil rights, or who gets trampled by their agenda. Getting your way is all you care about.

Demonic.

In this case it's just good business and good policy, and we all like to get our way. Your side passes every bill possible to try and ban abortion, when it's legal. And so it goes.

 

[beagle9]

A "rule" that forces Christian bookstores to hire a transvestite or a wiccan isn't social justice, it's a violation of the Bill of Rights.

How lucky for me that the law is on my side, not yours.

That's how all Leftists think. They don't give a damn about the Constitution, civil rights, or who gets trampled by their agenda. Getting your way is all you care about.

Demonic.

In this case it's just good business and good policy, and we all like to get our way. Your side passes every bill possible to try and ban abortion, when it's legal. And so it goes.

Do you agree with abortion ? Also how does one wear his or her sexuality upon their sleeve or upon their skin ? The government had dealt in the skin color thing because of the discrimination that was going on against ones skin color in the nation, and that is as far as it should have ever went, but here it is dealing with ones sexuality that should only be displayed or acted upon in the privacy of ones bedroom or in private where ever that bush or car or room may be now.... It (sexuality) should have absolutely nothing to do with anything that the government is to be involved in period.

Can anyone believe that we are actually being dictated to over ones sexuality in life by our government ?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Do you agree with abortion ?

Yes...

 

[beagle9]

Do you agree with abortion ?

Yes...

It figures..

 

[Silhouette]

That's how all Leftists think. They don't give a damn about the Constitution, civil rights, or who gets trampled by their agenda. Getting your way is all you care about.

Demonic.

In this case it's just good business and good policy, and we all like to get our way. Your side passes every bill possible to try and ban abortion, when it's legal. And so it goes.

Yes, we all like to get our way. It just so happens that religion is never getting its way and the cult trying to usurp it ALWAYS get their way by carefully-placed people in places of power. Like the activist decisions in the federal circuits so far (all but the 6th) that force states opposed to allow the repugnant notion of "gay marriage", done illegally by the lower courts circumventing process and overruling Baker 1971 and Windsor 2013 from underneath.

Do you know what we call a "law" enacted by illegal process? It's called "not a law". Any state falling for this ruse should fire their AG.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

That's how all Leftists think. They don't give a damn about the Constitution, civil rights, or who gets trampled by their agenda. Getting your way is all you care about.

Demonic.

In this case it's just good business and good policy, and we all like to get our way. Your side passes every bill possible to try and ban abortion, when it's legal. And so it goes.

Yes, we all like to get our way. It just so happens that religion is never getting its way and the cult trying to usurp it ALWAYS get their way by carefully-placed people in places of power. Like the activist decisions in the federal circuits so far (all but the 6th) that force states opposed to allow the repugnant notion of "gay marriage", done illegally by the lower courts circumventing process and overruling Baker 1971 and Windsor 2013 from underneath.

Do you know what we call a "law" enacted by illegal process? It's called "not a law". Any state falling for this ruse should fire their AG.

You lost little homophobe, even in the court of public opinion. Just grow up and deal with it.

 

[Silhouette]

You lost little homophobe, even in the court of public opinion. Just grow up and deal with it.

You sound like a playground child with those remarks. Speak to the points I made and don't rely so heavily on "neeener neeener neeener"...OK?