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.
what liberals want is for everyone to think they way they are TOLD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
These people are people of religious faith, who offer a service for people who fit a certain RELIGIOUS criteria.
what YOU and your liberal Brownshirt friends have decided is, people are not allowed to have religious beliefs that YOU dont like. period.
This is the First Amendment being trampled and your good with it, because doing so forces people to do what you demand.
You people are the most intollerant people America has ever seen.
Do they ask for baptismal certificates and/or statements of faith before marrying people?
Or do they marry pretty much any couple with a license (aside from same-sex couples) that walks through the door?
If there is no religious "test" prior to them conducting the marriage ceremony, then it is pretty safe to say that there are no religious criteria.
None.
People are allowed to have, or not have, any religious beliefs they choose.
What you don't seem to understand is that those beliefs cannot be forced upon anyone in the daily pursuit of doing business.
If they wanted strict adherence to their own set of religious beliefs, they should have opened a church.
The only court case so far is the Knapps trying to overturn City Ordinance §9.56.
In that case they claim that:
12. This past summer, after the Idaho district court enjoined Idaho’s marriage laws,
City officials told Mr. Knapp twice that Ordinance §9.56 required him to perform same-sex
wedding ceremonies if same-sex marriage became legal. Deputy City Attorney Warren Wilson then publicly declared the City’s position when a journalist asked him about the Hitching Post:
“For profit wedding chapels are in a position now where last week the ban would have prevented them from performing gay marriages, this week gay marriages are legal, pending an appeal to the 9th Circuit… If you turn away a gay couple, refuse to provide services for them, then in theory you violated our code and you’re looking at a potential misdemeanor citation.”
Sure I did, it is the firm suing them that claims they could face jail time due to the ordnance violation so the reality is they are not being threatened by anyone it was simply the group reminding them what they could face under the law. Meaning that your thread is in reality a .....................Lie. I knew we would get around to that before the dust cleared.
The couple said city officials issued the threats. Read the article.
So I have a question for you, not as a matter of law but common sense: what gay couple would want to be married by people who don't like them? It sounds like, other than to prove a point, make them mad and shove it in their face, there is no real reason. This behavior doesn't sound like the type of thing that changes hearts and minds.
Maybe they should not have opened a business that is a public accommodation. If you can not follow the civil laws regarding business because of your personal religious beliefs, then that is your problem. Your personal religious beliefs do not trump state laws.
Maybe people should quit trying to force others to do what they don't want to do because of their right to have their own feelings and thoughts about an issue?
I wouldn't want anyone to perform my Marriage Ceremony if I knew they did not believe in my Marriage.
I'm sure there are numerous other places that would marry this couple without issue and it would be a joyous celebration not a forced performance.
The couple said city officials issued the threats. Read the article.
So I have a question for you, not as a matter of law but common sense: what gay couple would want to be married by people who don't like them? It sounds like, other than to prove a point, make them mad and shove it in their face, there is no real reason. This behavior doesn't sound like the type of thing that changes hearts and minds.
One more time it does not matter why they would want to be married by that business the fact of the matter is that they must follow the law or pay the price, why is that so difficult to grasp. Maybe they should comply with the law or sell the business so they can be true to their beliefs, or suffer the consequences of their own actions as business owners not complying with the law.
Granted, this chapel operates as a business regardless that the proprietors are pastors, which is why they are in hot water. However, what's to say that a church that charges a fee to get married isn't next on the block? It seems the minutiae of legality between what is recognized as a church or protected religious rights is getting blurred and restricted case by case.
For those who have been discriminated against for a very long time, they seem to delight at trampling the religious freedom of anyone who stands in their way now that the law is on their side. Not only that, but armies of SJW's applaud the bullying tactics these groups utilize to attack Christians who are standing up for their beliefs.
"Discrimination against perceived discrimination" is considered a justifiable reason to threaten, boycott and destroy the livelihood of business owners who stand up for their religious values.
One more time it does not matter why they would want to be married by that business the fact of the matter is that they must follow the law or pay the price, why is that so difficult to grasp. Maybe they should comply with the law or sell the business so they can be true to their beliefs, or suffer the consequences of their own actions as business owners not complying with the law.
Because I don't understand what gay couple would want to get married there, or conduct business at any business that hates them. That's what I don't grasp.
Granted, this chapel operates as a business regardless that the proprietors are pastors, which is why they are in hot water. However, what's to say that a church that charges a fee to get married isn't next on the block? It seems the minutiae of legality between what is recognized as a church or protected religious rights is getting blurred and restricted case by case.
No minutiae at all, churches have a very distinct registration with the IRS which designates it as a religious institution. A for-profit wedding chapel would hold no such registration.
Because I don't understand what gay couple would want to get married there, or conduct business at any business that hates them. That's what I don't grasp.
It does not matter if you understand it or not, someone tried and when they were refused service the lawsuit was filled, as is their right to do.
Because I don't understand what gay couple would want to get married there, or conduct business at any business that hates them. That's what I don't grasp.
Why is a church, an insititution based on the teachings of guy who was in favor of self sacrafice, charity and was anti-wealth, operating as a business?
There are all kinds of strange things happening in this situation, why get hung up on just one?
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.
