So a private citizen can’t pick and choose who they want to live with?

[Yurt]

Typical right wing hypocrisy.

so you're ok with moms marry their sons, assuming son is of the age of consent....

 

[Charles_Main]

"Christians shouldn’t live in fear of being punished by the government for being Christians,"

Why must these people lie about what's actually happening? She is being punished for discriminating, not for practicing her faith. Big difference.

That aside, I think she should be able to pick and choose her roommates based on whatever criteria she wants.

While I agree that "she should be able to pick and choose her roommates based on whatever criteria she wants" when she put it in writing she's discriminating. I think it's a bullshit case, but apparently someone at that church is nothing put a pussy for filing the suit against a fellow church member. The ad could have easily just said "Roommate Wanted" then if she didn't like someone, tell them that she found someone else. Businesses do it all the time.

Why do they ignore all the adds that specify one sex or another in writing?

 

[Ozmar]

Only people with no character maintain that they can run their gums unchecked without it revealing anything about their character.

Told you you were out of your depth here, needledick.

While I agree he acted like an idiot, you have no room to talk...your character is lower than the bottom of a toilet.

Where was I when I started caring what ignorant trash like you thinks, and why didn't someone tell me your opinion had begun mattering?

If you didn't care, you wouldn't have replied to him you nitwit.

 

[Immanuel]

While I agree he acted like an idiot, you have no room to talk...your character is lower than the bottom of a toilet.

Where was I when I started caring what ignorant trash like you thinks, and why didn't someone tell me your opinion had begun mattering?

If you didn't care, you wouldn't have replied to him you nitwit.

Psst! Ravi is a lady... well, a female anyway. I suspect that many on here would argue with me for calling her a lady, but she's not all that bad.

Immie

 

[Charles_Main]

The fact is as a conservative and a constitutionalists. My only problem with Gay Marriage comes from a constitutional Direction.

I would support any State who wants to make gay marriage legal, I do not support the Federal Government forcing all States to do it as I see that as yet another over stepping of the Federal Governments intended powers, and No matter how Nobel the Intentions every time we allow the Fed to grab Power not given to them by the Constitution. The constitution become less and less binding and powerful. IMO.

so you're against loving v. virginia?

In principle yes, as far as the results of the case, Of course I support that.

I Would support a Constitutional Amendment The specifically gives the Federal Government the power to define Marriage. What I oppose is the Fed attempting to take a power they are not meant to have, with out going through the proper channel of an Amendment. I do not oppose it because I am opposed to gay marriage. On the contrary I am not. I oppose it because if they do it any other way other than an Amendment. I feel they are stretching and twisting the constitution to give the Fed a power they were not meant to have, with out doing it by Amendment. By doing that, it simply opens us up to more Power Grabs with out making Amendments.

That is what is means to be a constitutionalist. IMO. Do it the right way is all I ask.

 

[RW&B]

"Christians shouldn’t live in fear of being punished by the government for being Christians,"

Why must these people lie about what's actually happening? She is being punished for discriminating, not for practicing her faith. Big difference.

That aside, I think she should be able to pick and choose her roommates based on whatever criteria she wants.

While I agree that "she should be able to pick and choose her roommates based on whatever criteria she wants" when she put it in writing she's discriminating. I think it's a bullshit case, but apparently someone at that church is nothing put a pussy for filing the suit against a fellow church member. The ad could have easily just said "Roommate Wanted" then if she didn't like someone, tell them that she found someone else. Businesses do it all the time.

Why do they ignore all the adds that specify one sex or another in writing?

Because the gubment, ACLU, and other progressive liberals want to outlaw relgion in the public arena. No praying in school, at sporting events, on public property, outside, or inside. Relgion scares the progressives, because relgion offers answers about things to people that didn't come from the gubment.

Outlaw relgion and control the media and schools then the gubment would be able to control all the areas that provide answers to the general public.

 

[Care4all]

"Christians shouldn’t live in fear of being punished by the government for being Christians,"

Why must these people lie about what's actually happening? She is being punished for discriminating, not for practicing her faith. Big difference.

That aside, I think she should be able to pick and choose her roommates based on whatever criteria she wants.

While I agree that "she should be able to pick and choose her roommates based on whatever criteria she wants" when she put it in writing she's discriminating. I think it's a bullshit case, but apparently someone at that church is nothing put a pussy for filing the suit against a fellow church member. The ad could have easily just said "Roommate Wanted" then if she didn't like someone, tell them that she found someone else. Businesses do it all the time.

WHY are you saying the part i put in bold?

maybe you have not seen the LAWS on this, but what she did, including what she put in writing, was perfectly LEGAL.

Civil Rights Division Home Page

See section 803 - 2.

(2) After December 31, 1968, to all dwellings covered by paragraph (1) and to all other dwellings except as exempted by subsection (b) of this section.

(b)Nothing in section 804 of this title (other than subsection (c)) shall apply to--

(1) any single-family house sold or rented by an owner: Provided, That such private individual owner does not own more than three such single-family houses at any one time:

...2)rooms or units in dwellings containing living quarters occupied or intended to be occupied by no more than four families living independently of each other, if the owner actually maintains and occupies one of such living quarters as his residence.

 

[Yurt]

The fact is as a conservative and a constitutionalists. My only problem with Gay Marriage comes from a constitutional Direction.

I would support any State who wants to make gay marriage legal, I do not support the Federal Government forcing all States to do it as I see that as yet another over stepping of the Federal Governments intended powers, and No matter how Nobel the Intentions every time we allow the Fed to grab Power not given to them by the Constitution. The constitution become less and less binding and powerful. IMO.

so you're against loving v. virginia?

In principle yes, as far as the results of the case, Of course I support that.

I Would support a Constitutional Amendment The specifically gives the Federal Government the power to define Marriage. What I oppose is the Fed attempting to take a power they are not meant to have, with out going through the proper channel of an Amendment. I do not oppose it because I am opposed to gay marriage. On the contrary I am not. I oppose it because if they do it any other way other than an Amendment. I feel they are stretching and twisting the constitution to give the Fed a power they were not meant to have, with out doing it by Amendment. By doing that, it simply opens us up to more Power Grabs with out making Amendments.

That is what is means to be a constitutionalist. IMO. Do it the right way is all I ask.

loving v. virginia was entirely constitutional and is exactly why we have 3 branches of government....the executive and the legislative branch were doing nothing....it is likely that without the judicial branch's decision, we could still be living under pre loving v. virginia....

 

[RW&B]

Because the law suit is based on discriminating against anyone that's not a Christian (which I'm not sure how you are suppose to prove if you are or not a Christian) the way that it was conveyed was in writing. If she is protected by section 803-2 then there shouldn't be a law suit at all.

 

[Charles_Main]

so you're against loving v. virginia?

In principle yes, as far as the results of the case, Of course I support that.

I Would support a Constitutional Amendment The specifically gives the Federal Government the power to define Marriage. What I oppose is the Fed attempting to take a power they are not meant to have, with out going through the proper channel of an Amendment. I do not oppose it because I am opposed to gay marriage. On the contrary I am not. I oppose it because if they do it any other way other than an Amendment. I feel they are stretching and twisting the constitution to give the Fed a power they were not meant to have, with out doing it by Amendment. By doing that, it simply opens us up to more Power Grabs with out making Amendments.

That is what is means to be a constitutionalist. IMO. Do it the right way is all I ask.

loving v. virginia was entirely constitutional and is exactly why we have 3 branches of government....the executive and the legislative branch were doing nothing....it is likely that without the judicial branch's decision, we could still be living under pre loving v. virginia....

I would still rather see the Fed expand it's powers only by Amendment as it was meant to be. Sorry, Sue me. I believe that the spirit of the Constitution was Violated at least. As written the Constitution does not give the Fed the power to define marriage, And therefore it falls to the states, Unless we pass an Amendment. Like I said my feelings on this have Nothing at all to do with my feelings on Gay marriage. I think they should be able to marry. I support any state that wants to let them, and would support a constitutional Amendment at the federal level to Define marriage to include Gay marriage. I just have a problem with what I see as a procedural Error in the way some want to go about making sure Gay Can Marry. It is a matter of opinion and interpretation of the constitution. That is how the Fed takes power for it self. By Having courts interpret the Constitution in a way as to give the Fed more power. Instead of by passing a constitutional Amendment. Which by that way is part of the system of our government that I see as being bypassed.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Typical right wing hypocrisy.

You do know that the entire concept of marriage licenses was put forth to limit who people could marry, don't you? If you support state sanctioned marriage you support discrimination. That might be why most conservatives I know would rather see the state have no say in marriage.

Just saying.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Typical right wing hypocrisy.

Right wing is more bible beleiving which God says marriage is between man and woman, anything else is an abomination. So it is not hypocrisy, it is the truth. Do not like it, too bad, get right in the head.

Gee.....Harry Reid....is a Mormon
His church is against same-sex marriage.

Nancy Pelisi....is a Catholic
Her church is against same-sex marriage.

Barrack Obama is....Who the heck knows
He's against same-sex marriage.

WTF????

Why do they get a pass???

Didn't Obama say that marriage is the union between a man and a woman?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73oZ_pe1MZ8[/ame]

this thread looks more like typical left wing hypocrisy than right wing hypocrisy.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Where was I when I started caring what ignorant trash like you thinks, and why didn't someone tell me your opinion had begun mattering?

If you didn't care, you wouldn't have replied to him you nitwit.

Psst! Ravi is a lady... well, a female anyway. I suspect that many on here would argue with me for calling her a lady, but she's not all that bad.

Immie

"Not that bad" compared to what? Athlete's foot? Genital warts? I'm just looking for a comparison scale here.

 

[Dis]

If you didn't care, you wouldn't have replied to him you nitwit.

Psst! Ravi is a lady... well, a female anyway. I suspect that many on here would argue with me for calling her a lady, but she's not all that bad.

Immie

"Not that bad" compared to what? Athlete's foot? Genital warts? I'm just looking for a comparison scale here.

You could start by using yourself...

Just sayin... You asked.

 

[Charles_Main]

Psst! Ravi is a lady... well, a female anyway. I suspect that many on here would argue with me for calling her a lady, but she's not all that bad.

Immie

"Not that bad" compared to what? Athlete's foot? Genital warts? I'm just looking for a comparison scale here.

She comes off a willfully ignorant and rude, but I am sure she is a nice person underneath that

 

[Care4all]

Because the law suit is based on discriminating against anyone that's not a Christian (which I'm not sure how you are suppose to prove if you are or not a Christian) the way that it was conveyed was in writing. If she is protected by section 803-2 then there shouldn't be a law suit at all.

I'm reading that IT DOES NOT APPLY to this woman, because she was looking for a room mate to share her home....so she can say looking for female, or looking for male, or looking for Caucasian female, or looking for Christian....

the discrimination rule DOES NOT APPLY to a person who owns 3 homes or less that they are renting out or to an owner who is looking for a roomate to share their own home with...

it does apply to a landlord that owns 4 or more homes that they are renting.

It does not apply to an owner who does not seek professional help to rent their home either.....so this means if the owner is self advertising, they caqn request what they want, and certainly they can do such for a residence that they will be SHARING with the renter.

the lawsuit is bogus.

 

[manifold]

the lawsuit is bogus.

There is no lawsuit, at least not yet.

The ad was reported anonymously to the fair housing center of West Michigan and they filed a civil rights complaint against her to the Michigan Dept of Civil Rights.

Makes you wonder who would've been at a church and offended by the ad.

I have to consider the possibility that the whole thing was orchestrated.

 

[Charles_Main]

Right wing is more bible beleiving which God says marriage is between man and woman, anything else is an abomination. So it is not hypocrisy, it is the truth. Do not like it, too bad, get right in the head.

Gee.....Harry Reid....is a Mormon
His church is against same-sex marriage.

Nancy Pelisi....is a Catholic
Her church is against same-sex marriage.

Barrack Obama is....Who the heck knows
He's against same-sex marriage.

WTF????

Why do they get a pass???

Didn't Obama say that marriage is the union between a man and a woman?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73oZ_pe1MZ8[/ame]

this thread looks more like typical left wing hypocrisy than right wing hypocrisy.

Yep he did.

See the reason we need to use an amendment if we want to allow Gay Marriage and force the states to recognize that. Is not just because not using one violates the constitution. It is because it opens us up to the next thing. Legal Palimony? Incest? Etc. With an amendment we can define it as a Union between any 2 people of either the same or different sexes, that are not to closely related Genetically. And we can specify that you may only be married to one person at a time.

When you use the courts to do things that should be done by Amendment you simply open up a can of worms with no firm definition of how many worms to let out. and you are allowing a handful of Unelected Life time appointed Judges to make decisions that should be made by amendment by our elected accountable representatives.

 

[RW&B]

the lawsuit is bogus.

There is no lawsuit, at least not yet.

The ad was reported anonymously to the fair housing center of West Michigan and they filed a civil rights complaint against her to the Michigan Dept of Civil Rights.

Makes you wonder who would've been at a church and offended by the ad.

I have to consider the possibility that the whole thing was orchestrated.

I agree the lawsuit (if it happens) is BS, and I would be looking for another church too. It's a bad time when someone at church gets offended by the word Christian.

 

[Cecilie1200]

the lawsuit is bogus.

There is no lawsuit, at least not yet.

The ad was reported anonymously to the fair housing center of West Michigan and they filed a civil rights complaint against her to the Michigan Dept of Civil Rights.

Makes you wonder who would've been at a church and offended by the ad.

I have to consider the possibility that the whole thing was orchestrated.

I agree the lawsuit (if it happens) is BS, and I would be looking for another church too. It's a bad time when someone at church gets offended by the word Christian.

It's entirely possible it wasn't a member of the church. Many churches rent out their facilities for weddings, for example, or host community events like Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, voting polls in elections . . .