Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because there are so many of them they will probably have to live off the government. Come to think of it that may have been part of what was being used in this whole thing. You know that Obamaites want as many people on welfare as possible, don't you?
You are being ridiculous on so many levels I'm not sure where to start. So I'll go no further.
After reading the article, it gave the impression the ceremony and reception were to be held at the inn. By acting as host to that wedding, are you not a substantive part of that wedding? If they wanted just the room and no personal service, then perhaps you could argue the inn owners are not taking a substantive role in the wedding but is that likely? The article did not have enough details to be able to delve into some of these questions, thus I did assume certain portions such as being a substantive portion of the ceremony by providing personal service.
Is this just a roundabout way of explaining that you cannot support your assertions that the inn's owners were asked to participate in a wedding? They were asked to rent a room, just as they've done many other times. They refused to rent that room because the renters were lesbians. A Christian who rents a room to a lesbian has not suffered an insult to their religion. They can practice their religion just fine. The owners of the inn chose to discriminate when renting out rooms that they make available to the general public. They discriminated specifically based on sexual orientation. They broke the law.
Is this just a roundabout way of explaining that you cannot support your assertions that the inn's owners were asked to participate in a wedding? They were asked to rent a room, just as they've done many other times. They refused to rent that room because the renters were lesbians. A Christian who rents a room to a lesbian has not suffered an insult to their religion. They can practice their religion just fine. The owners of the inn chose to discriminate when renting out rooms that they make available to the general public. They discriminated specifically based on sexual orientation. They broke the law.
No, the article specifically said the couple asked to have the wedding and reception there. My only assumption was that the owners would need to provide some service of some kind for this wedding, which would be a common sense assumption given that there would be necessary preparations for any function of this size, no matter what the type. The owners even made a point that they've rented rooms to gays in the past.
So, why would a difference exist in this case? Because it was a marriage and as such, the owner's religious beliefs would be in direct contradition to the Vermont law requiring them to host this wedding. Christians do believe that marriage is a religious ceremony. Do you believe the state of Vermont is violating the inn's owners on the basis of religion to make them participate in a homosexual marriage?
Yes, they broke Vermont law, but as I said, this is really two different issues. The one you and I are currently debating is about the issue between the owners of the inn and the state of Vermont.
The families are in Vermont. The mother was arranging for the reception, not the wedding itself.
Are you reading something in the article that I did not? I didn't see that at all in there. Not trying to be argumentative here, but honestly, that article didn't say that.
Really? How about some links to those "well documented facts"? Because, if their very first case succeeded in making the 1st amendment applicable to the states, then I just don't see a "communist agenda" at work there.
"I joined. I don’t regret being a part of the Communist tactic, which increased the effectiveness of a good cause. I knew what I was doing. I was not an innocent liberal. I wanted what the Communists wanted" -Roger Baldwin, first director ACLU
"I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal." -Roger Baldwin
"The establishment of an American Soviet government will involve the confiscation of large landed estates in town and country, and also, the whole body to forests, mineral deposits, lakes, rivers and so on." -William Foster, co-founder ACLU
Their goal in the first amendment case had nothing to do with freedom. Rather, their goal had been to persecute religion.
(1)Respect and treat others as you expect to be respected and treated.
(2)Stop judging other folks and stop condescending rhetoric/attitudes/mindsets...... etcetera.
I don't understand why so many people simply don't get that concept. Especially those who claim to be Christian as that is one of the central teachings of Christ. Treat others as you wish to be treated and leave the judgment up to God.
I don't understand why so many people simply don't get that concept. Especially those who claim to be Christian as that is one of the central teachings of Christ. Treat others as you wish to be treated and leave the judgment up to God.
But that's not precisely true, is it? You see it all the time here on C-D. Calling people dumb, racists, homophobes, and any manner of deragotory names when they disagree with your point of view is judging.
No, the article specifically said the couple asked to have the wedding and reception there. My only assumption was that the owners would need to provide some service of some kind for this wedding, which would be a common sense assumption given that there would be necessary preparations for any function of this size, no matter what the type. The owners even made a point that they've rented rooms to gays in the past.
So, why would a difference exist in this case? Because it was a marriage and as such, the owner's religious beliefs would be in direct contradition to the Vermont law requiring them to host this wedding. Christians do believe that marriage is a religious ceremony. Do you believe the state of Vermont is violating the inn's owners on the basis of religion to make them participate in a homosexual marriage?
Yes, they broke Vermont law, but as I said, this is really two different issues. The one you and I are currently debating is about the issue between the owners of the inn and the state of Vermont.
The article did NOT specifically say the couple asked to have the wedding and reception there. And the events organizer DID specifically refer to a "reception". So try again.
Yes, unfortunately. They are very litigious and aggressive with their agenda.
The Vermont inn suit is yet another contemptible example of the homosexual agenda’s hostility directed at the heterosexual world that they feel they are not a part of and don’t fit in. The homosexuals are happy now that because of the legal action the Wildflower Inn no longer hosts any weddings or special events. Since they can’t have their wedding reception there they have made sure that nobody can.
Because the homosexual is now a so-called “protected class” general dealings with them become an increasingly wary exercise in CYA as a lawsuit will be dropped at the slightest insinuation of a perceived grievance be it real, unrealistic or imaginary.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
