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 is a serious violation of the inn owners' religious beliefs.
I follow God's laws above man's laws, and Natural laws before them as well. I would never bend to this lesbian couple and the aclu and violate my religion.
You keep saying that, but you never explain HOW it violates the inn owners' right to practice their religion. And, btw, as several others have already said, the 1st amendment is about government and religion. This lesbian couple isn't a government agency.
They're not Christian, they're Catholic. Big difference. One believes in salvation by grace, the other believes in salvation by works, as do anti-gay muslims. But continue on as you were slamming Christians, as they are easy targets.
But, that's neither here nor there, right? As far as I'm concerned, it's not about right vs. wrong. It's simply a case of respecting an individuals belief system.
Personally, I have not a single problem with what people want to do in their personal life, but I do respect a persons set of values. I also like the way you insinuated I was a racist as well. Once again, the high road has been taken.
I'm not Catholic, but I find the bolded to be extremely offensive. Who are YOU to say Catholics aren't Christian? My Catholic cousins would argue with that.
Really, there are two issues here. The first one is between the lesbian couple and the inn. The second is between the inn and the state of Vermont.
In the first, state law says they can't discriminate for sexual orientation and the inn did so. The inn would be at fault.
In the second, the inn has owners that believe, due to religious reasons, that they should not participate in a homosexual marriage ceremony. Like it or not, hosting that ceremony (assuming a reception is part of that ceremony) is indeed forcing the inn owner to participate in something against his religious beliefs. This is the more interesting and complex issue.
The courts are often asked to weigh the rights of one against the other. So, do the rights of the inn owner outweigh the rights of the lesbian couple? The larger question would be if the state of Vermont violated the inn owner's rights by mandating they take part in a ceremony that would be against their religion. I would think the issue would need to be further narrowed for the Supreme Court to take this on. Such as, should the state of Vermont force business owners to be a substantive part of a homosexual marriage ceremony if it was against their own religious beliefs? I think the court, if they applied the Constitution correctly, would find for the inn owner and against the state of Vermont if the question were narrow enough to cover marriage ceremonies only.
True but sexual orientation is not a federally protected class. Also they weren't discriminated because of who they were in a strict sense but based on what they wanted to do.
This may not go the way the ACLU and GLAAD want. We'll see.
But sexual orientation IS a 'protected class' under Vermont law. And that is the law these innkeepers are accused of violating. And how do you come to the conclusion it has more to do with "what they wanted to do" more than who they are? It was because they are a lesbian couple that the inn declined to rent them a room for their wedding reception.
The first amendment protects individuals from the government. It doesn't protect the government from the people as you seem to think...
I've read every post in this thread so far and NO WHERE have I seen anyone make such a claim. But you still seem unable to explain how renting a hall within the inn violates the owner's freedom of religion. Does it stop them in some way from practicing their religion. (No, it doesn't.)
Really, there are two issues here. The first one is between the lesbian couple and the inn. The second is between the inn and the state of Vermont.
In the first, state law says they can't discriminate for sexual orientation and the inn did so. The inn would be at fault.
In the second, the inn has owners that believe, due to religious reasons, that they should not participate in a homosexual marriage ceremony. Like it or not, hosting that ceremony (assuming a reception is part of that ceremony) is indeed forcing the inn owner to participate in something against his religious beliefs. This is the more interesting and complex issue.
The courts are often asked to weigh the rights of one against the other. So, do the rights of the inn owner outweigh the rights of the lesbian couple? The larger question would be if the state of Vermont violated the inn owner's rights by mandating they take part in a ceremony that would be against their religion. I would think the issue would need to be further narrowed for the Supreme Court to take this on. Such as, should the state of Vermont force business owners to be a substantive part of a homosexual marriage ceremony if it was against their own religious beliefs? I think the court, if they applied the Constitution correctly, would find for the inn owner and against the state of Vermont if the question were narrow enough to cover marriage ceremonies only.
The inn owners weren't asked to participate in a same-sex wedding ceremony. They were asked to rent a room for a party being thrown by two lesbians. The party's purpose may have been to celebrate their marriage, but the bottom line is that whatever it's purpose, it was still just a party, like many other parties that have been at that inn. The idea that such a party offends the inn-owners religious sensibilities is nonsensical. In what way would this party be different from any other party? Because two women were hosting it? I daresay they've had a wedding shower or baby shower there before that was hosted by two women. Drinks, refreshments, dancing? All done before. What would happen at this party that is so offensive?
Since a marriage ceremony was not ever an issue, your assertion regarding SCOTUS and the Constitution never comes into play.
The inn owners weren't asked to participate in a same-sex wedding ceremony. They were asked to rent a room for a party being thrown by two lesbians. The party's purpose may have been to celebrate their marriage, but the bottom line is that whatever it's purpose, it was still just a party, like many other parties that have been at that inn. The idea that such a party offends the inn-owners religious sensibilities is nonsensical. In what way would this party be different from any other party? Because two women were hosting it? I daresay they've had a wedding shower or baby shower there before that was hosted by two women. Drinks, refreshments, dancing? All done before. What would happen at this party that is so offensive?
Since a marriage ceremony was not ever an issue, your assertion regarding SCOTUS and the Constitution never comes into play.
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.
The ACLU was founded by communists for the purpose of promoting the communist agenda, including attacking religion. Well documented fact.
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.
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.
