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.
My reading on this statute suggests that a church, if it engages in a "secular business activity", such as offering a facility for rent to the general public would indeed need to abide by the public accommodation law in Minnesota.
If this is all correct, it sounds like it is a really sad time in history to be a business owner that adheres to their own personal religious convictions.
Like I said before, there are many places that cater to the LBGT community, and any efforts by militant homosexuals to disrupt those businesses who don't subscribe to those values are doing so simply to be disruptive and mean spirited in nature.
The LBGT community knows this, and it will create a lot of strife for all parties involved in the future. The LBGT's will win in the end because America is a secular nation whose morals are eroding daily at a rapid pace due to militant liberalism.
You are funny! Are you generalizing that all LBGTs love lawsuits?
The word "militant" obviously escaped your reading of my post. While they are a minority of the LBGT population, they are the most vocal and the most disruptive, and they are the driving force of the topic in this thread.
If this is all correct, it sounds like it is a really sad time in history to be a business owner that adheres to their own personal religious convictions.
Like I said before, there are many places that cater to the LBGT community, and any efforts by militant homosexuals to disrupt those businesses who don't subscribe to those values are doing so simply to be disruptive and mean spirited in nature.
The LBGT community knows this, and it will create a lot of strife for all parties involved in the future. The LBGT's will win in the end because America is a secular nation whose morals are eroding daily at a rapid pace due to militant liberalism.
If an individual defines their personal religious convictions to include acts of illegal discrimination, I suspect that choosing between adherence to the law and not operating a public business would represent a sad time for that individual.
Recently, I have read several accounts regarding business owners who refused LGBT requests for their services. Should religious business owners have to serve LGBT or risk losing their livelihoods, be threatened, boycotted, etc.. for their religious convictions?
3. Iowa. A bistro and art gallery owned by Mennonites refused a gay wedding request for the use of their building. they have since been targeted with countless hate filled emails.
4. Kentucky. A custom T-shirt shop refused to print shirts with pro homosexuals messages.
5. Washington. An elderly florist refused to make the flower arrangements for a gay wedding.
6. Colorado. A bakery refused to bake a cake for a homosexual couple and was boycotted.
Only a couple of the examples above were religious (from the minimal descriptions). Could be some atheists don't like LGBT (but that's a lot less likely).
The only thing that counts is whether something is legal or not. (Actually, the only thing that counts is whether positions such as these affect business.)
If a business owner wants to alienate customers, that isn't a very wise move. That would lower demand and lower prices which would lower profits.
Same is true for the (mostly) myth of employment discrimination. It doesn't do a business any good to discriminate due to age, gender, race, etc. Lowering the supply of employees raises wages - something no business owner wants.
Only a couple of the examples above were religious (from the minimal descriptions). Could be some atheists don't like LGBT (but that's a lot less likely).
The only thing that counts is whether something is legal or not. (Actually, the only thing that counts is whether positions such as these affect business.)
If a business owner wants to alienate customers, that isn't a very wise move. That would lower demand and lower prices which would lower profits.
Same is true for the (mostly) myth of employment discrimination. It doesn't do a business any good to discriminate due to age, gender, race, etc. Lowering the supply of employees raises wages - something no business owner wants.
Can something that's wrong ever be legal? Can something that's right ever be illegal? If the answer is yes, then legality is not all that counts.
My reading on this statute suggests that a church, if it engages in a "secular business activity", such as offering a facility for rent to the general public would indeed need to abide by the public accommodation law in Minnesota.
Pastors are often paid to perform wedding ceremonies. If charging a fee for the use of the building would constitute offering a public accommodation, would it not follow that a pastor charging a fee for perform a service, in this case a wedding, would also be offering a public accommodation, and could not discriminate in who that service is offered to? If not, what is the difference?
Pastors are often paid to perform wedding ceremonies. If charging a fee for the use of the building would constitute offering a public accommodation, would it not follow that a pastor charging a fee for perform a service, in this case a wedding, would also be offering a public accommodation, and could not discriminate in who that service is offered to? If not, what is the difference?
My interpretation is that, under Minnesota statutes (363A.26 (1)), a pastor maintains the right to refuse to perform a wedding ceremony.
Absolutely not. There are plenty of businesses that do cater to LBGT (many more that do than don't), and I'm thoroughly convinced that militant members of the LBGT community intentionally seek out businesses that look to uphold Biblical and family values for the sole purpose of destroying their business, causing controversy, and filing lawsuits. It is their way of waging war back in return for their perceived persecution.
I have no personal issues with the LBGT community, but I know malicious when I see it.
I agree with this post 100%. Growing up I was aware of several local businesses that didn't care for black people; I spent my money elsewhere. I have a girlfriend who wanted to order cake from a local bakery that was a well-known religious family-owned business for her same sex commitment ceremony (she wanted a picture of them together on the cake). When they declined her order she went on some one-woman social media quest to get them shut down..like that was the only place where she could get a cake.
It is not immoral and against God's law to be black. Your comparison is absurd.
Actually, for much of Christianity's history blacks were in fact considered immoral and cursed by God. A fact which was used by Christians to condone the enslavement of Africans. So yes, the comparison is indeed valid.
Of course, neither being black nor gay is against any "God's law" as The Bible isn't the law of any true God - but rather laws authored by primitive, bronze age tribesmen who created a tribal god in their own image mirroring their own prejudices.
Can something that's wrong ever be legal? Can something that's right ever be illegal? If the answer is yes, then legality is not all that counts.
Wrong and Right are subjective and in this case, irrelevant .
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.
