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.
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
39,031 posts, read 23,020,628 times
Reputation: 36027
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by gizmo980
You said, and I quote - "I've heard MORE racist remarks against white people." So how is that not implying that we suffer more than minorities? Don't try to back-peddle now, LOL.
When I stated that I've heard more racist remarks against white people, I was speaking from my own personal experience and did not mean to imply that whites suffer more from discrimination. I just get really annoyed with the whole concept of this so-called "white priviledge" because I have never experienced that personally. I don't like it when people make stereotypical assumptions that just because you are white that you automatically have lived a priviledged life free of discrimination and prejudice as that is often not the case.
When I stated that I've heard more racist remarks against white people, I was speaking from my own personal experience and did not mean to imply that whites suffer more from discrimination. I just get really annoyed with the whole concept of this so-called "white priviledge" because I have never experienced that personally. I don't like it when people make stereotypical assumptions that just because you are white that you automatically have lived a priviledged life free of discrimination and prejudice as that is often not the case.
This is really a discussion for another thread, so I'll leave it at that...
Methodists Sue New Jersey over Attempt to Force Gay “Marriage” at Church Owned Camp
that "church" was on public land(which incl park land and a pier) that rec'd tax breaks from public dollars. it's not the same thing as a "real" church. that church should not be able to discriminate in that situation. we absolutely need LESS churches. those monstosities take up too much valuable space and deprive our counties of too many valuable tax dollars that every other taxpayer must take up the slack for.
Unless we are reading a different article, the article plainly states that the campground and private retreat are PRIVATE PROPERTY:
It doesn't matter if YOU consider it a real church, 200 years of tradition, occupantcy, and church events pretty much answer the question of is it real.
I just find it hard to believe that you believe that people have a right to enter into a privately owned business and tell the business owner that they have no rights to their own business.
I'm not Muslim, how arrogant would it be for me to enter into their mosque and proclaim, "okay today everybody in here is going to serve Jesus Christ and if there's any problems I'm going to sue you out of business"!!!!!!!
I don't condone violence against folks, but if I did this then I would deserve the holy jihad Ass Whooping they would put on me.
If you want trouble keep messing with people's private property and I think you will get it.
The methodist affiliated "church" was renting the pavilion out to ANYONE "except" the lesbian couple. They would have even rented it out to Mr & Mrs Adolf Hitler, but no those loathsome carpet munchers. Can you picture a Catholic church marrying a Baptist couple? It would clearly not be done unless one in the couple is a catholic. It is a Public accomodation as described by the laws in NJ, therefore subject to those laws. The adjoining pier and boardwalk are also "public accomodations" used by all.
The methodist affiliated "church" was renting the pavilion out to ANYONE "except" the lesbian couple. They would have even rented it out to Mr & Mrs Adolf Hitler, but no those loathsome carpet munchers. Can you picture a Catholic church marrying a Baptist couple? It would clearly not be done unless one in the couple is a catholic. It is a Public accomodation as described by the laws in NJ, therefore subject to those laws. The adjoining pier and boardwalk are also "public accomodations" used by all.
Yup, that is it in a nutshell... my legal knowledge is limited, but I imagine that to exclude one group is clear discrimination.
And if a church is tax exempt, doesn't that make them a public institution? To give you an example, I run a public library, and some libraries (not mine) have meeting rooms for public use... because we are a PUBLIC non-tax-paying institution, we have no right to dictate who uses that room. The only rules we can maintain are that it cannot be used for profit, commercial, or political gain. Because it is for public use, one library in another state had to let a KKK group use it for their monthly meetings - much to the chagrin of the locals, who unfortunately had no grounds for complaint. They eventually found a loophole to get them out, by saying it caused a public disturbance, and impeded other citizens from using the library (because of demonstrators blocking the entrance). But in most circumstances, a church/temple can't have it both ways... either pay taxes and privatize yourself, or allow use of your facilities for ALL people. Can't have your cake and eat it too!
Excellent points! I know this will tick some people off here, but you've gotten me thinking that if churches discriminate against gays, they should have their tax-exempt status revoked!
I'm sick of these "Gays suck" posts, but I actually agree they shouldn't have to allow a gay service. A gay dating service doesn't have to allow a straight service.
I'm sick of these "Gays suck" posts, but I actually agree they shouldn't have to allow a gay service. A gay dating service doesn't have to allow a straight service.
That's not true at all. If a service operates in any state that bans discrimination based on sexual orientation, the protection is there for everyone - homosexual, heterosexual, and anywhere in between.
That's not true at all. If a service operates in any state that bans discrimination based on sexual orientation, the protection is there for everyone - homosexual, heterosexual, and anywhere in between.
That's kind of like wanting Chinese people to work in your Chinese restaurant, which is reasonable because it's a damn Chinese restaurant, but some people really take this religiously.
That's kind of like wanting Chinese people to work in your Chinese restaurant, which is reasonable because it's a damn Chinese restaurant, but some people really take this religiously.
Well, back to addressing your point: Because heterosexuals are rarely discriminated against because of their sexual orientation, you would rarely ever hear about that type of lawsuit. But it has happened.
When I lived in Minneapolis, some heterosexual couples were denied entrance to a gay nightclub. They sued based on the fact that they were being discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. They won the lawsuit.
Well, back to addressing your point: Because heterosexuals are rarely discriminated against because of their sexual orientation, you would rarely ever hear about that type of lawsuit. But it has happened.
When I lived in Minneapolis, some heterosexual couples were denied entrance to a gay nightclub. They sued based on the fact that they were being discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. They won the lawsuit.
Yup, that would definitely be sexual discrimination. But luckily that was a rare example, and possibly a complete fabrication... I'm a straight female who goes to gay nightclubs sometimes, and they don't ask your sexuality at the door! Point is, it's not right to discriminate against anyone, gay or straight or anywhere in-between.
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.