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.
Do you really want someone who doesn't want to do a job for you doing the job for you? If someone doesn't want to work with me because of whatever reason ill take my money elsewhere. Its pretty funny that a group that fought so hard to gain acceptance of their lifestyle and beliefs is more than willing to trample another groups lifestyle and beliefs into dust to force their agenda. There are plenty of businesses that will take your money.
When I was a contractor I didn't give a hoot if you worshiped avocados or had sex with whomever. As long as your check cashed I didn't give a flying f. I charged whatever I felt the job would cost. Too many people get too offended over stupid s**t.
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.
Yes. You can't turn away people because you don't like gay people any more than you can turn away people because you don't like black people.
Both of the groups you mentioned are protected classes (race & sexual orientation). And guess what..... So is religious preferences, ideals, and practices.
This is coming from a Deist who believes gay marriage should be legal in all states. So how do we handle this dilemma?
Both of the groups you mentioned are protected classes (race & sexual orientation). And guess what..... So is religious preferences, ideals, and practices.
This is coming from a Deist who believes gay marriage should be legal in all states. So how do we handle this dilemma?
There's no real dilemma here. Race constitutes a federally protected class, and sexual orientation is protected in several (20-25?) states.
Religious affiliation is federally protected, however, using religion as a basis for engaging in discriminatory behavior is not a protected activity.
A homosexual-owned business operating in public would be engaging in discrimination if it refused to provide services/goods to a potential customer based upon that customer's actual or perceived religious affiliation.
There's no real dilemma here. Race constitutes a federally protected class, and sexual orientation is protected in several (20-25?) states.
Religious affiliation is federally protected, however, using religion as a basis for engaging in discriminatory behavior is not a protected activity.
A homosexual-owned business operating in public would be engaging in discrimination if it refused to provide services/goods to a potential customer based upon that customer's actual or perceived religious affiliation.
If the head of a church who was outspoken in his opposition to homosexuality tried to buy something from a homosexual business owner, it would seem only fair that the business owner be able to turn him away. It doesn't infringe on the church leader's freedom. He still gets to believe what he wants, where he wants, and how he wants. The government has made no religious requirements of him. Why should the gay business owner be required to support someone whose beliefs he opposes?
Religious affiliation is federally protected, however, using religion as a basis for engaging in discriminatory behavior is not a protected activity.
So.... If a "church", let's say Westboro Baptist, denied a known homosexual who tried to join their congregation, this would be against the law? If this is the case, why has this "fight fire with fire" method not been employed by militant homosexuals. Both the WBC and the LBGT's seem to love lawsuits. It seems like a common sense tactic to me. What am I missing?
So.... If a "church", let's say Westboro Baptist, denied a known homosexual who tried to join their congregation, this would be against the law? If this is the case, why has this "fight fire with fire" method not been employed by militant homosexuals. Both the WBC and the LBGT's seem to love lawsuits. It seems like a common sense tactic to me. What am I missing?
No, because a church is not a public accommodation.
No, because a church is not a public accommodation.
What about a church that rents out its facilities for weddings? While many churches will only allow their pastors to marry people who subscribe to a certain set of beliefs, they will allow other clergy to perform weddings in their facilities. They usually charge the couple a fee for the use of their church building. That starts to sound like a public accommodation. Would a church that opposes gay marriage be required then to rent its facilities to a gay couple for their marriage? It seems like they would. If not, what's the case law behind that?
What about a church that rents out its facilities for weddings? While many churches will only allow their pastors to marry people who subscribe to a certain set of beliefs, they will allow other clergy to perform weddings in their facilities. They usually charge the couple a fee for the use of their church building. That starts to sound like a public accommodation. Would a church that opposes gay marriage be required then to rent its facilities to a gay couple for their marriage? It seems like they would. If not, what's the case law behind that?
Here is the relevant Minnesota statute relating to religious-based exemptions from the public accommodations statute:
Quote:
363A.26 EXEMPTION BASED ON RELIGIOUS ASSOCIATION.
Nothing in this chapter prohibits any religious association, religious corporation, or religious society that is not organized for private profit, or any institution organized for educational purposes that is operated, supervised, or controlled by a religious association, religious corporation, or religious society that is not organized for private profit, from:
(1) limiting admission to or giving preference to persons of the same religion or denomination; or
(2) in matters relating to sexual orientation, taking any action with respect to education, employment, housing and real property, or use of facilities. This clause shall not apply to secular business activities engaged in by the religious association, religious corporation, or religious society, the conduct of which is unrelated to the religious and educational purposes for which it is organized.
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.
So.... If a "church", let's say Westboro Baptist, denied a known homosexual who tried to join their congregation, this would be against the law? If this is the case, why has this "fight fire with fire" method not been employed by militant homosexuals. Both the WBC and the LBGT's seem to love lawsuits. It seems like a common sense tactic to me. What am I missing?
You are funny! Are you generalizing that all LBGTs love lawsuits? That's like saying all straight conservative Christians are moral.
There are many gay people who are non-scene and/or in straight marriages, so how would you know they are gay? Are you going to peek in their windows at night?
I think a proprietor has the right to run his/ her own business as they please.
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.
