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.
No one said it does. But you seem to be claiming that religious freedom should trump the rights of homosexuals or anyone else who doesn't share the religious beliefs of these innkeepers.
I've noticed that for some people, maybe not you, separation of church and state is a one-way street. It's great when religion stays out of government, but protecting individual religious freedom from gov't. encroachment isn't so good.
That has got to be one of the dumbest things I've seen posted in a long time. I'm not 'up' on foreign policy, but could you point to specifics?
look at Europe and think ahead (if you know how to do that) and you'll understand what I mean. This country is only a few years behind Europe in the relative scheme of things.
If I would have told you in 1903 that the Bolsheviks will take over Russia you would have said the same thing and I'm talking about around 50 years or so not the near future and only assuming we keep following the same stupid policies.
I've noticed that for some people, maybe not you, separation of church and state is a one-way street. It's great when religion stays out of government, but protecting individual religious freedom from gov't. encroachment isn't so good.
And where is there any "government encroachment on religious freedom" in this case? No one is saying they can't believe whatever they believe. But you cannot use your own rights to walk all over someone else's rights. You know that old saying, 'your rights end where they encroach on mine'? These innkeepers are hiding behind religious freedom to break state law.
And where is there any "government encroachment on religious freedom" in this case? No one is saying they can't believe whatever they believe. But you cannot use your own rights to walk all over someone else's rights. You know that old saying, 'your rights end where they encroach on mine'? These innkeepers are hiding behind religious freedom to break state law.
The government is attempting to force people to violate their religious beliefs.
As for freedom ending when it infringed on another...back at you with the homosexuals trying to infringe on freedom of religion.
And where is there any "government encroachment on religious freedom" in this case? No one is saying they can't believe whatever they believe. But you cannot use your own rights to walk all over someone else's rights. You know that old saying, 'your rights end where they encroach on mine'? These innkeepers are hiding behind religious freedom to break state law.
I guess in the overall scheme of our country's founding principles and history, the 'rights' of a gay couple to have their wedding reception at a privately-owned business trumps the innkeepers' right to Exercise their religious beliefs.
[Before anyone compares the suffering of this gay couple who might have to hold their reception at a different beautiful inn to slavery, I reject the analogy.]
The government is attempting to force people to violate their religious beliefs.
As for freedom ending when it infringed on another...back at you with the homosexuals trying to infringe on freedom of religion.
Yes, and if your religious beliefs (which are all a choice) violate law and discriminate against people because they were born with a different trait (sexual orientation which is NOT chosen) than you. it's illegal. Religion (which is a choice) is not an excuse to do WHATEVER YOU WANT to someone. if my religion believed in human sacrifices i don't think it'd be my 'right' to do one to someone.
Stop with the "rights" argument people. You don't have the right to use someone else's private property. That is not a right. Maybe under Vermont law it's protected somehow but it is not a right.
Stop with the "rights" argument people. You don't have the right to use someone else's private property. That is not a right. Maybe under Vermont law it's protected somehow but it is not a right.
All 50 states have laws preventing discrimination at businesses that accommodate the public (such as a rental banquet room). All these laws prevent discrimination based on race, religion, national origin, and sex. 21 states have added "sexual orientation" to those laws (including Vermont which did so in 1992).
All 50 states have laws preventing discrimination at businesses that accommodate the public (such as a rental banquet room). All these laws prevent discrimination based on race, religion, national origin, and sex. 21 states have added "sexual orientation" to those laws (including Vermont which did so in 1992).
Read my post. I said Vermont law may cover it, but that does not make it a "right." I've read quite a few posts on here implying that the inn owners were violating the couple's rights. They weren't.
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.
