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.
churches are not required to rent out their facilities to those whose beliefs they disagree with. This was one of the fears/arguments against gay marriage, and I believe churches are protected against doing so. I can't quote the law right now as I'm in my iPad. Churches have their own set of rules, regulations & case law. I'm sure you are aware they are non-501(c)3 tax exempt....so different standards & regulatory bodies.
Rogread seems to disagree with your interpretation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogead
My reading on this (Minnesota) 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 nothing else, since we have two posters who are well versed and basically on the same side of the discussion in disagreement as to whether or not a church can discriminate in providing its facilities, I think we can agree that the issue is not clear. Lack of clarity in legal matters is, of course, what makes for lawsuits.
Last edited by Glenfield; 09-04-2013 at 07:39 AM..
Wrong and Right are subjective and in this case, irrelevant .
Thank you for the clarification. Of course to some people, right and wrong are the most important issues, but I appreciate your clarification that you see them as irrelevant and view the law to be the determinating factor.
It would follow then that you would have supported racial segregation when it was legal, and would have opposed the Underground Railroad because it was illegal. After all, "Wrong and Right are subjective" but the law on these matters was clear.
Interesting question. If it is against your religous convictions where do you draw the line?
I still don't know why people continue to use the word Christian as anti-gay considering there are many Christian sects that are fine with Gays and even have Gay Ministers. If someone like the all forgiving Christ actually existed he would probably be fine with all people including Gays.
That's easy. "People" are using the word "Christian" because, in most cases, these are businesses owned by Christians. Being"fine" with LBGTs has nothing to do with it. BTW, it's the Christian-owned businesss that are being targeted by mean-spirited members of the LBGT (pardon me if any other groups with special protections were added since I last read the paper) community. They haven't been bothering businesses owned by Muslims or beefing about their refusal to serve those whose lifestyle/practices go against their religion.
Good for the latest victims of intolerance, who weren't forced out of business but decided, intstead, to change their business model and work out of their home. We will surely see that practice increase.
As a hobbyist photographer who has done a couple of weddings for friends as a courtesy, while I don't consider myself skilled at the trade enough to do it professionally, I can tell you that performing photography for someone is not the same as making a hamburger for them at McDonald's. The latter is a very mechanical thing one can do no matter their level of skill with "real cooking," the former requires inspiration & feelings of appreciation regarding the event you're covering in order for you to do it with any level of decent performance. Gently refusing to photograph a wedding you can't be inspired to cover is NOT the same as denying someone a meal at a restaurant, it's not even 2% the same thing.
Most people I know who get into photography either as a professional or as a hobby, they do so because they like to photograph certain subjects & they derive their joy from taking photos of what they LIKE to take photos of, and in offering their services as a professional they're offering their services for events they LIKE covering, for people who need those services. You can no more ask a wedding photographer to enjoy and be good at, say, photographing a political event as a photojournalist if that's not what gets them going anymore than you would, say, expect Alan Jackson to perform a rap music song or Jay-Z a bluegrass song. Alan Jackson's country, Jay-Z is rap, and that's that. If a particular wedding photographer enjoys photographing weddings but not political events, then that's that--that they don't care for such ensures that they're being pressured to do something that is not their cup of tea and also ensures the results, by default, will be inferior, and not due to any maliciousness nature on their part, but just because that's how it works with artistic endeavors.
So, asking a wedding photographer to photograph a gay wedding that they disagree with is inherently wrong, it's asking a photographer to be artistically expressive of something that doesn't "do it for them," when such is absolutely a requirement for successful photography. Making someone photograph something that doesn't inspire them is a violation of all that being a photographer is & is nothing less than trying to redefine the very profession of photography itself. It's not the same as denying someone a McDonald's hamburger, people HAVE to eat and one's ability to make a McDonald's hamburger doesn't hinge on how much they like or dislike the person eating it, because all you do is follow the directions in a very much "2+5=7" kind of way, and it's done. Inspiration, morals, feelings towards the end consumer have nothing to do with it.
Photography and eating--apples & oranges.
LRH
This is complete and utter nonsense. I was a photographer who has done weddings. Photographers don't love doing weddings, they are tedious and time consuming, with too many kids. The fact that a man or woman is missing from the group has nothing to do with your ability to shoot the groomsmen or the first dance. This is a terrible excuse, work is work, and shooting a wedding is nothing more than work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delahanty
That's easy. "People" are using the word "Christian" because, in most cases, these are businesses owned by Christians. Being"fine" with LBGTs has nothing to do with it. BTW, it's the Christian-owned businesss that are being targeted by mean-spirited members of the LBGT (pardon me if any other groups with special protections were added since I last read the paper) community. They haven't been bothering businesses owned by Muslims or beefing about their refusal to serve those whose lifestyle/practices go against their religion.
Good for the latest victims of intolerance, who weren't forced out of business but decided, intstead, to change their business model and work out of their home. We will surely see that practice increase.
Why would these people go to a business just to receive discrimination? I hope all these bigots lose their business. They were pushed to close their doors because the sane citizens of this country are tired of the "Christians" who shall "Love thy neighbor" but instead are filled with hate. I didn't know the Bible said to hate thy neighbor.
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.
OK, where do you draw the line then? Should Jewish businesses be allowed to discriminate against Muslims and vise-verse? Should a "militant" lesbian business owner be allowed to discriminate against men?
If I own a business...not a publicly traded company....I have the right to so serve the customers I want and it's nobody's damned business what I do.
Having said that I would serve anyone (except for a convicted pedophile or terrorist) regardless of their sexual orientation; their money is the same color as anyone else's.
What gets me is that the Lbgt community wants respect then they do stupid crap having a kiss in at Chick Filet and try to force privately owned businesses to serve them.
Making asses of themselves isn't going get acceptance.
Dude, if you own a business and you think that because you're not publicly traded company that exempts you from Federal and State discrimination laws then you're going to be in for a rude awakening. Do you have a Federal and State tax ID? If so, then you have to obey the law. If you are operating a business without a license or tax credentials then you have bigger problems.
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.
Should they have to serve anyone? No, they don't have to serve anyone at all. If they are going to serve white people, should they have to serve black people also? That seems reasonable to me. Why is it that people being born gay deserve to be treated differently?
Hilarious original post. "They received hate filled e-mails". They acted out in a way stinking of hatred and are now claiming to be the victims? As a white heterosexual male, any store near me that doesn't serve black people or gay people will be avoided. I don't just avoid them for one day though. It takes one instance of that kind of disgusting discrimination, and I'm done shopping there forever.
PS. For those getting upset about people choosing not to shop at stores operated by bigots, how would you feel about a store that refused to serve customers with disabilities? There may be some LGBT groups that are actually attacking the businesses, but publishing the businesses practices is not making them a target. The other customers have a right to know if the person in line with them will be treated with contempt. It is against my religious beliefs to support businesses that target individuals for ridicule based on their age, gender, sexual orientation, or race.
Last edited by geographystudies; 09-04-2013 at 09:17 AM..
This is complete and utter nonsense. I was a photographer who has done weddings. Photographers don't love doing weddings, they are tedious and time consuming, with too many kids. The fact that a man or woman is missing from the group has nothing to do with your ability to shoot the groomsmen or the first dance. This is a terrible excuse, work is work, and shooting a wedding is nothing more than work.
Why would these people go to a business just to receive discrimination? I hope all these bigots lose their business. They were pushed to close their doors because the sane citizens of this country are tired of the "Christians" who shall "Love thy neighbor" but instead are filled with hate. I didn't know the Bible said to hate thy neighbor.
LOL, instead of going to another bakery, they filed a complaint. And avail yourself of the many examples of threatenting, mean-spirited comments, phone calls, the business owners have received.
Americans are free and under no obligation to accommodate religious beliefs they don't adhere to. They will do what they have to (as the Christian store owners did) to adapt.
Now, just who are the hate-filled, intolerant bigots again?
LOL, instead of going to another bakery, they filed a complaint. And avail yourself of the many examples of threatenting, mean-spirited comments, phone calls, the business owners have received.
Americans are free and under no obligation to accommodate religious beliefs they don't adhere to. They will do what they have to (as the Christian store owners did) to adapt.
Now, just who are the hate-filled, intolerant bigots again?
Hate filled bigots are the people who refuse to treat gay people, black people, disabled people, or any other minority group to the same level of service that they would provide for others. When they choose to discriminate, they have no right to complain about others choosing not to be involved with them. That is like throwing a punch and then claiming to be a victim when someone else returns the punch. You can't fire first and claim to be a victim.
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.
. If it is against your religous convictions where do you draw the line? 
Being"fine" with LBGTs has nothing to do with it. BTW, it's the Christian-owned businesss that are being targeted by mean-spirited members of the LBGT (pardon me if any other groups with special protections were added since I last read the paper