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.
That's a good point. Whether Churches or religious organisations should be allowed to opt out of the law on religious grounds has been a knotty one. It seems now that the situation is clarified. The Law says no discrimination and religious beliefs in NOT an excuse.
That said, compromises can be offered. if possible. A stewardess can be excused serving booze if another one can do the job. If the plane is too small , then she must find another job.
A registrar must issue marriage licenses to SS couple. A compromise means others can do it while she sits in her office reading the Bible at public expense.
A dating site cannot discriminate, but the compromise there is presumably that those who refuse to handle gay dating can be replaced by those who will. If they haven't any, then they had better hire some, damn' quick.
In their shoes, I would simply create a club in which the first step of joining was to agree to the rules and beliefs of the club. One belief and rule would deal with homosexuality . Don't like our rules and beliefs, don't join. WHEN you have agreed and joined , THEN you get to participate in the functions of the club .
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,870,306 times
Reputation: 4559
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallflash
I'm not arguing the law here, but the principle of it . I'm not sure what the laws are on online sites , whether they are considered public entities like a restaurant , or whether they would be more of a club that could set its own rules . None of this matters in principle though . This is a Christian site that objected to actually facilitating gays meeting and developing romantic relationships . There was no real need for these gay guys to go there . A quick check of the net shows that Christian gay dating sites exist , so these guys were not harmed or deprived by not being allowed to select other men at this site . This action is purely a militant one whose purpose is to attack those who don't accept gays .
To pretend this is about the principle of discrimination on the part of the gay men is naive . Its vindictive , nothing more . As I said, I understand the vindictiveness and feel it has been earned by some Christians for , unfortunately , most all Christians , but this doesn't make the actions of the gay guys any less vindictive . If you accept that they have the right to be vindictive , then so be it . But let's not pretend these guys are acting out of principle and feeling harmed by the inability to register as gays . There would not be any other gay men on the site obviously . It's about sticking it to the Christians for past behavior towards gays , and we should all be honest about that .
The judgement is against the owner of Christianmingle, Spark Net. It's other sites include "Military Singles" and "Deaf Singles" and "BBW" (Big Beautiful Women) along with dating sites targeting Jews and SDA, as well as others. It is a niche dating network, heavily focused on various religious groups, but not exclusively so.
It is not a church. It is NOT a Christian site. It targets them. It has no religious exemption available to it.
The judgement is against the owner of Christianmingle, Spark Net. It's other sites include "Military Singles" and "Deaf Singles" and "BBW" (Big Beautiful Women) along with dating sites targeting Jews and SDA, as well as others. It is a niche dating network, heavily focused on various religious groups, but not exclusively so.
It is not a church. It is NOT a Christian site. It targets them. It has no religious exemption available to it.
This doesn't really matter to the principle of the gays going after them . So this bunch may not be actual Christian . Was this a consideration by the courts, that the owners weren't really Christian, so their case is not genuine ? What if a site actually is ran by devout Christians to genuinely appeal to other Christians ? Will that matter then ? If the courts based this on the fact that this was not an actual religious inclined site but a purely secular business site without religious beliefs, then OK on their end. If this ruling means that actual Christian sites could not make this determination to not allow gays to search for romantic relationships with other gays , then bad idea .
This isn't a case of gays suing because they are being bigotedly denied a service a business freely provides to others . This is a case of gays forcing a business to create a service they didn't previously offer to cater specifically to the homosexuality community .
Here's the point . Why would two gay men choose to sue over not being able to register on a site that logically would have no other gay men on it , when there already are Christian gay dating sites they could go to and get much better results if their reason for joining is genuinely to meet other Christian gay men ?
Last edited by wallflash; 07-02-2016 at 12:07 PM..
When will companies learn they CAN NOT discriminate against sexual orientation? Good to see that once more the courts understand the Constitution and laws.
Weird. I thought "Christian Mingle" was a website for Christians to mingle. I guess that's not allowed.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,870,306 times
Reputation: 4559
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallflash
This doesn't really matter to the principle of the gays going after them . So this bunch may not be actual Christian . Was this a consideration by the courts, that the owners weren't really Christian, so their case is not genuine ? What if a site actually is ran by devout Christians to genuinely appeal to other Christians ? Will that matter then ? If the courts based this on the fact that this was not an actual religious inclined site but a purely secular business site without religious beliefs, then OK on their end. If this ruling means that actual Christian sites could not make this determination to not allow gays to search for romantic relationships with other gays , then bad idea .
This isn't a case of gays suing because they are being bigotedly denied a service a business freely provides to others . This is a case of gays forcing a business to create a service they didn't previously offer to cater specifically to the homosexuality community .
Here's the point . Why would two gay men choose to sue over not being able to register on a site that logically would have no other gay men on it , when there already are Christian gay dating sites they could go to and get much better results if their reason for joining is genuinely to meet other Christian gay men ?
To answer your points, someone has to be wronged in order to bring a law suit. The Freedom From Religion Foundation will not take on a case unless there is a local litigant available. In other words, you can complain about that cross on public property, but unless you are willing to put your name to a lawsuit that the FFRF will lodge, nothing will or can happen.
The same for the Spark Network site, Christianmingle. Plain and simple, it was discriminatory, and needed to be called out.
And now it includes those christians seeking a same sex relationship. Which many christian churches approve of.
Weird....now "Christians" can "mingle" and seek out the relationship that is explicitly condemned in Scripture, while their "church" approves. Not that they couldn't do it before, but they had to bully their way into this site.
To answer your points, someone has to be wronged in order to bring a law suit. The Freedom From Religion Foundation will not take on a case unless there is a local litigant available. In other words, you can complain about that cross on public property, but unless you are willing to put your name to a lawsuit that the FFRF will lodge, nothing will or can happen.
The same for the Spark Network site, Christianmingle. Plain and simple, it was discriminatory, and needed to be called out.
I have admitted that legally they likely have a case . I am talking about the principle behind this and the motivation of the gay men . So answer me these questions .
Why would two gay men want to list their names on a Christian site that obviously had no other gay men on it, since they were arguing for the right to be the first ?
Why, if your desire is truly to just find a site to meet other gay Christians, wouldn't you simply go to one of the already existing sites that cater to gay Christians and enroll there ? It's not as if it would require extra effort on your part . When you see this one doesn't seem to have a gay option, you enter gay Christian dating sites in the search forum of your computer , click , and then choose from the existing . How much trouble is that ?
Why should someone be allowed to force a business to create something they don't offer just to cater to a couple of militant gays who can't stand it that there way of life isn't listed ? There is NO evidence that gays were actively being discriminated against . The site simply didn't offer the " men wanting to meet men" option. So now we have decided we can dictate to business what services they have to offer , and if one that a minority wants isn't offered , they can sue and demand it on the basis of discrimination .
Do you relay believe the motive here is a concern that there was a dearth of dating sites for gays so this one had to be forced to offer this so that gays wouldn't be harmed by the lack ? Be honest . Do you not get that this is simply targeting a group because you can and you have past grudges to settle , and you now have the law on your side ?
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,870,306 times
Reputation: 4559
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallflash
I have admitted that legally they likely have a case . I am talking about the principle behind this and the motivation of the gay men . So answer me these questions .
Why would two gay men want to list their names on a Christian site that obviously had no other gay men on it, since they were arguing for the right to be the first ?
Why, if your desire is truly to just find a site to meet other gay Christians, wouldn't you simply go to one of the already existing sites that cater to gay Christians and enroll there ? It's not as if it would require extra effort on your part . When you see this one doesn't seem to have a gay option, you enter gay Christian dating sites in the search forum of your computer , click , and then choose from the existing . How much trouble is that ?
Why should someone be allowed to force a business to create something they don't offer just to cater to a couple of militant gays who can't stand it that there way of life isn't listed ? There is NO evidence that gays were actively being discriminated against . The site simply didn't offer the " men wanting to meet men" option. So now we have decided we can dictate to business what services they have to offer , and if one that a minority wants isn't offered , they can sue and demand it on the basis of discrimination .
Do you relay believe the motive here is a concern that there was a dearth of dating sites for gays so this one had to be forced to offer this so that gays wouldn't be harmed by the lack ? Be honest . Do you not get that this is simply targeting a group because you can and you have past grudges to settle , and you now have the law on your side ?
The answer is simple.
What Spark Networks was doing was discriminatory and illegal. The complainants, I suspect, felt that whenever they see such illegal and discriminatory activity, that it needs to be called out, as opposed to be acquiescenced to by silence. That would only encourage other such illegal and discriminatory activity by other organizations or corporations.
Either one believes a principal needs to be adhered to or not. There is no "almost pregnant" middle ground.
What Spark Networks was doing was discriminatory and illegal.
No, it wasn't.
Quote:
The complainants, I suspect, felt that whenever they see such illegal and discriminatory activity, that it needs to be called out, as opposed to be acquiescenced to by silence. That would only encourage other such illegal and discriminatory activity by other organizations or corporations.
Either one believes a principal needs to be adhered to or not. There is no "almost pregnant" middle ground.
So they decided to be offended needlessly?
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.
