- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Govt tells Christian ministers: Perform same-sex weddings or face jail, fines
Posted on 10/20/14 at 3:46 pm to GumboPot
Posted on 10/20/14 at 3:46 pm to GumboPot
quote:
It hard to believe that the government at any level can force you to offer a public service that you don't offer.
Where did you get the dont offer the service.
They do offer the service but just not to gays, so where does the exclusion come into play in your opinion
gays are not part of the public
or
the owners, in the course of daily business, will only accept money from and offer their services to heterosexual couples only.
Hey fig, get your arse out of here, we dont serve your kind here. Hey ****, use the other fountain. Take that towel off sand jockey...all the above have something in common, they are abhorrent.
1
Posted on 10/20/14 at 3:50 pm to GumboPot
quote:Curious where the SCOTUS ruling on Hobby Lobby would apply, if at all.
No one has logically explained what the difference between profit and non-profit is in terms of discrimination. Why can you discriminant if you're a non-profit business whereas you cannot discriminate if you're a for profit business?
Posted on 10/20/14 at 3:51 pm to Cruiserhog
quote:
Where did you get the dont offer the service.
Same sex marriage and traditional marriage would be different services, no?
Posted on 10/20/14 at 3:56 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Curious where the SCOTUS ruling on Hobby Lobby would apply, if at all.
My initial take is the HL case was a "narrow" ruling regarding 5 specific (I think that number is right) contraceptive methods. In other words those contraceptive methods do not have to be paid for by companies if they so choose. But you are correct IMO that there is a logical extension in terms of free association.
Posted on 10/20/14 at 3:59 pm to GumboPot
"The queer version gonna cost you a lil more!" 
Posted on 10/20/14 at 4:01 pm to JuiceTerry
quote:
"The queer version gonna cost you a lil more!"
Well, there is an increase cost of confetti.
j/k
Posted on 10/20/14 at 4:02 pm to TK421
quote:
Please, name one bigoted statement I have made in this thread. You, on the other hand, have made plenty of bigoted statements targeted at Christians.
just an obvious juxtaposition of a stupid assumption on your part
quote:
Ah, so you are also opposed to freedom of speech? Is there any part of the first amendment you would like to keep intact?
Where in the hell did free speech argument come in.
They can ask all day long that is their right...but the owners dont have a right and cannot then use that information to discriminate.
quote:
And now your hypocrisy is on display. You fully support discrimination as long you hate the people being discriminated against.
personal view, im sure a Nazi could argue discrimination in that situation...they would lose but Im all for their ability to do so. but its a poor argument, what Nazi would ask a Jewish baker to bake him/her a cake?
Posted on 10/20/14 at 4:04 pm to GumboPot
quote:
Same sex marriage and traditional marriage would be different services, no?
yep in a discriminatory and bigoted world they would be. According to Idaho's Attorney General not so much.
Posted on 10/20/14 at 7:27 pm to Meauxjeaux
quote:It's been around for a while - called the Metropolitan Community Church or something close to that. Unitarians, UCC, Presbyterians (PCUSA), some Methodists and Lutherans are also on board.
Some enterprising individual should start a same sex denomination.
Posted on 10/20/14 at 8:02 pm to Cruiserhog
If the issue is whether the chapel must allow for gay weddings and there is no history of a particular religious service at the chapel (meaning Jews, Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, atheists are welcome), do they rent it out for parties, festivals etc.? then I can see how a court might require that the building itself must be available to gay weddings as well since their argument that a gay wedding conflicts with their beliefs loses it's credibility. Even if that's the case I believe the ministers themselves wouldn't be required to officiate.
But I don't know the history of the chapel.
It will come down to a balancing tests of the chapel owners 1st Amendment rights and governmental interest. Sort of like when when the Catholic Church runs an adoption agency. They're not treated the same when they're operating as an adoption agency as they are when they're strictly church.
But again, I can't see how a minister would ever be required to perform the ceremony. The building itself is a question (again I don't know what kind of hall it's is) and that may be what the city atty was referring to.
I still think in these cases both the bigots and the pushy gays are trying to get attention and have agendas. Life's too short. You want to make a statement, streak down Main Street, hang a banner from a building or just post on a message board.
But I don't know the history of the chapel.
It will come down to a balancing tests of the chapel owners 1st Amendment rights and governmental interest. Sort of like when when the Catholic Church runs an adoption agency. They're not treated the same when they're operating as an adoption agency as they are when they're strictly church.
But again, I can't see how a minister would ever be required to perform the ceremony. The building itself is a question (again I don't know what kind of hall it's is) and that may be what the city atty was referring to.
I still think in these cases both the bigots and the pushy gays are trying to get attention and have agendas. Life's too short. You want to make a statement, streak down Main Street, hang a banner from a building or just post on a message board.
This post was edited on 10/20/14 at 8:05 pm
Posted on 10/20/14 at 8:17 pm to Cruiserhog
quote:
sure it will, this is a for profit business, not a religious institution.
until such time as they go non profit, tax exempt and accept donations instead of legal tender I would be surprised if the Scotus would even entertain it.
By the way I love the reporting source for this story, not once did they mention it was a for profit business accepting public funds....
Don't care. It's private property and it doesnt belong to you. Do you relly think you have a right to their labor, property and time to get them to do something they don't want to do? Do you really think you're entitled to forcing your fellow private citizens to do something they don't want to do?
quote:
they just went straight to the Poor Christians being persecuted card. Checkmate Atheists
Are you one of those annoying as frick and whiny bitch militant atheists? Your posts make much more sense now.
Posted on 10/20/14 at 8:21 pm to Cruiserhog
quote:
the extinction of discrimination in all forms throughout the general public is more important that the wholly personal religious rights of individuals wishing to discriminate
What is it with you SJW's/liberals and the means justifying the end game? It's dishonest and evil as frick.
Posted on 10/20/14 at 8:25 pm to BayouBlitz
quote:
Would you be okay with a for-profit business refusing to marry a black couple? How about a disabled couple?
Yes.
If they're not taking tax dollars or operating on public land, I have no issue with this. It's not my business and people are not entitled to their labor and property.
Posted on 10/20/14 at 8:28 pm to Cruiserhog
quote:
I dont oppose freedom of association like I said if they want to discriminate against gays openly, form a church, not a business
It doesn't matter if you're a church or a business, if you're not getting tax dollars or using publicly owned land, discriminate all you want, it's your right as a private citizen to utilize their labor and property as they see fit as long it does not hurt people, steal anything, or slander/defraud anyone.
Posted on 10/20/14 at 8:36 pm to Sentrius
quote:
Sentrius
I agree with this guy.
Posted on 10/20/14 at 8:38 pm to Cruiserhog
quote:
the extinction of discrimination in all forms throughout the general public is more important that the wholly personal religious rights of individuals wishing to discriminate
WE MUST BE ACCEPTING OF OTHERS.
frick ALL OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS.
Doesn't this sound a little fricky to you?
Posted on 10/20/14 at 8:41 pm to TheFolker
quote:
I'm assuming Hitching Post Wedding Chapel is a for profit business.
The Catholic Bishop of Limburg in Germany recently spent $43 million dollars on his private residence. The line between for-profit and charity is murky....
Washington Post Article
Posted on 10/20/14 at 9:12 pm to Sentrius
quote:
t doesn't matter if you're a church or a business, if you're not getting tax dollars or using publicly owned land, discriminate all you want, it's your right as a private citizen to utilize their labor and property as they see fit as long it does not hurt people, steal anything, or slander/defraud anyone.
Let me know when you start up your diner that refuses service to black people...Ill be sure to then take this post seriously.
Private citizen's rights, tax dollars have absolutely dick to do with the illegality of refusing service based on discriminatory criteria in public business and, here, the Idaho states attorney and most of the circuit court of appeals across the land disagree with you.
Posted on 10/20/14 at 9:20 pm to Vols&Shaft83
quote:
So the business should have to move instead of Vegas Bengal having to find another minister to perform the ceremony? That seems about as reasonable as the average Ghazi thread.
Well isn't that how all laws work? I don't know anyone that likes paying state income taxes. But their only option to not pay them would be to move to a state that doesn't have them.
Why should they have to move?
Posted on 10/20/14 at 9:20 pm to Srbtiger06
quote:
frick ALL OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS.
no one said you couldnt have opposing viewpoints. when you own a business thats open to the public you should treat everyone fairly and without discrimination.
Page 7 of 8
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News