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.
This has nothing to do with a "agenda" but pure discrimination! Remove the word "Homosexual" and insert a "black" or "hispanic" agenda instead and then it becomes a totally different issue?
Imagine if these owners refused to offer their premesis if it was a black straight couple instead?
The homosexual agenda would like to turn sexual preference into a race. Isn’t going to happen. Do you have any recent examples where service somewhere was refused because of race? The Wildflower Inn is not a racial issue.
For now, at least. I'm guessing that will likely change at some point when the 9th Circuit Court decides it's somehow unconstitutional.
No, it won't change until Christians (who make up the majority in this country), push to wipe away that separation between state and religion. Because as I said earlier, Christians aren't persecuted by liberals (many of whom are Christians), it's only when Christians press to have Christian beliefs and practices imposed on non-Christians that they experience resistance. And they perceive that resistance to be rejection (which it is), and that rejection to be an attack (which it isn't).
No, it won't change until Christians (who make up the majority in this country), push to wipe away that separation between state and religion. Because as I said earlier, Christians aren't persecuted by liberals (many of whom are Christians), it's only when Christians press to have Christian beliefs and practices imposed on non-Christians that they experience resistance. And they perceive that resistance to be rejection (which it is), and that rejection to be an attack (which it isn't).
Baloney. There is a demonstrated history of liberalism that has been implemented via the courts. Constitutionality is irrelevant.
I guarantee you some gay couple will decide they want to be married in a non-gay church and will sue over it. It's likely going to be one of those churches that will marry anyone and everyone, membership not required. They'll sue because their state allows same-gender marriage, either by actual legislation, or because of a liberal court, like Iowa.
Just FYI, The Buddhist wedding ceremony. Not the homosexual wedding ceremony. Do you really think the inn's owners were being asked to partake in the Buddhist wedding ceremony? How so? What personal services were they being asked to perform that were antithetical to their religion? Washing feet?
The inn's owners refused to rent public rooms they routinely rent out to the general public, their refusal being contingent on the couple's sexual orientation. It's against the law. Period.
Again, where in the article did it say it was a Buddhist wedding? Seriously, I feel like I read a completely different article. The inn's owners did say in the article that they do indeed routinely rent out rooms regularly to gay couples but it was the wedding component that seemed to be of issue. By hosting (which is providing a substantive service), they would indeed be partaking in the wedding, but feel free to disagree - I'm sure you will.
You keep saying "It's against the law. Period." Did you miss the part where I said that yes, it is against Vermont law? I was pondering if the inn owner's have a case against the state of Vermont for violating their own civil rights by making them partake in a religious ceremony that is in direct violation of their religious beliefs. I felt I was pretty clear about that, in several posts, might I add.
The homosexual agenda would like to turn sexual preference into a race. Isn’t going to happen. Do you have any recent examples where service somewhere was refused because of race? The Wildflower Inn is not a racial issue.
But it is a discrimination issue. It doesn't matter if the discrimination is based on race or on any other criteria. It's still discrimination.
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. .
Don't you people understand that the desire for gays and lesbians to partake in marriage, rather than being a sign of hatred and hostility at the heterosexual world, is actually the best evidence that they embrace the values of our society and want to participate in it as fully as anyone else?
For purposes of having a rational discussion, which you purport to be able to do, I suggest that you leave off guessing and present some evidence.
We've got a history of courts implementing liberalism. Gay marriage is a prime example. Even though there was very little public support for it, and no constitutional support, states like Iowa now have it because some liberal hack court decided it had to be so.
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.
