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.
The lesson here is that if you own a resort in Vermont and you don't want gays using it....you're just screwed. Resort owners are held hostage by women who like women, or men who like men.
So much for freedom.
If the people of Vermont aren't happy with the law, they're free to repeal it. And if you don't like the laws of Vermont, you're free to stay away. See how easy that is?
If the people of Vermont aren't happy with the law, they're free to repeal it. And if you don't like the laws of Vermont, you're free to stay away. See how easy that is?
You have no clue. The legislature went against the will of the people when they passed all these pro-homosexual laws in the first place, and activist courts force it on people too (the original civil union law, for example, or giving custody of that child to that lesbian instead of the mother). Some people have no idea how corrupt and whacky the Vermont government is.
The lesson here is that if you own a resort in Vermont and you don't want gays using it....you're just screwed. Resort owners are held hostage by women who like women, or men who like men.
So much for freedom.
The lesson here is that if you want to do business anywhere you must comply with the laws governing your operation of that business.
The lesson here is that if you want to do business anywhere you must comply with the laws governing your operation of that business.
This is true and that business violated Vermont state law. What I questioned was if Vermont state law violated the inn owner's religious rights, as protected by the Constitution. If the owners are claiming they did not allow the wedding for religious reasons, then the owners have a case with the state of Vermont and is the pertinent question in this case. Will be interesting to see how this case proceeds.
You have no clue. The legislature went against the will of the people when they passed all these pro-homosexual laws in the first place, and activist courts force it on people too (the original civil union law, for example, or giving custody of that child to that lesbian instead of the mother). Some people have no idea how corrupt and whacky the Vermont government is.
That would obviously include you.
After civil unions passed there was one election in which the Republicans took the majority in the House, then they lost it in the next election cycle.
Last year, one of Peter Shumlin's signal legislative goals was same-sex marriage, and one of the things he ran on.
He was elected governor.
The opposition to gay rights in Vermont has been reduced to a small slice of narrow-minded soreheads, and the trend is only going to continue.
If the people of Vermont aren't happy with the law, they're free to repeal it. And if you don't like the laws of Vermont, you're free to stay away. See how easy that is?
Go ahead and discuss Yooperkat's words as to how much control an entrepreneur has over his business. I guess you think that the gays and ACLU should be in control of things like that. Right?
After civil unions passed there was one election in which the Republicans took the majority in the House, then they lost it in the next election cycle.
Last year, one of Peter Shumlin's signal legislative goals was same-sex marriage, and one of the things he ran on.
He was elected governor.
The opposition to gay rights in Vermont has been reduced to a small slice of narrow-minded soreheads, and the trend is only going to continue.
I wonder when Vermont will change its nickname to the "Gay State". I will bet that they will lose some businesses soon but then you think the gays outvoted the straights this last time so maybe there are more of them already. I got a kick out of New York gays going there because they could.
After civil unions passed there was one election in which the Republicans took the majority in the House, then they lost it in the next election cycle.
Last year, one of Peter Shumlin's signal legislative goals was same-sex marriage, and one of the things he ran on.
He was elected governor.
The opposition to gay rights in Vermont has been reduced to a small slice of narrow-minded soreheads, and the trend is only going to continue.
The Republicans who won after civil unions then lost didn't do what they promised to do.
Shumlin didn't even get 50 percent of the vote.
A lot of brainless fools have invaded the state but I am certain this sort of thing will change a few minds about the homosexual movement.
I wonder when Vermont will change its nickname to the "Gay State". I will bet that they will lose some businesses soon but then you think the gays outvoted the straights this last time so maybe there are more of them already. I got a kick out of New York gays going there because they could.
They already tried renaming Camel's Hump Mountain once after that brokeback mountain movie, though luckily they failed...
I wonder when Vermont will change its nickname to the "Gay State". I will bet that they will lose some businesses soon but then you think the gays outvoted the straights this last time so maybe there are more of them already. I got a kick out of New York gays going there because they could.
Whenever Kansas changes its name to useless state.
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.
