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.
Taking part in a homosexual wedding is a serious sin in the Catholic religion. Forcing them to take part violates their religious freedom.
First, they were not in any way taking part in a wedding. There wasn't even a wedding taking place. They were looking to rent a room for a reception.
And again, you failed to address my question. How does renting a hall or serving a meal or renting a hotel room to gay people (or black people, or Jewish people, or Muslim people, or Mormon people) prohibit anybody from practicing their religion?
They aren't being forced to violate their religious views. They are being forced to follow LAWS that ban discrimination. If they can't handle FOLLOWING THE LAW, then they can't handle owning a business.
You're flat out wrong. The ACLU and this couple are attempting to force them to violate their deeply held religious beliefs.
They aren't being forced to violate their religious views. They are being forced to follow LAWS that ban discrimination. If they can't handle FOLLOWING THE LAW, then they can't handle owning a business.
Laws banning discrimination are unconstitutional in the sense that Congress has no power to force someone (in this case a business owner) to associate, or do business with someone they choose not to for whatever reason they deem fit.
Laws contrary to the Constitution need not be followed.
This is a case of individuals and an organization attempting to use the state to force someone to violate their religion.
No its not. Their religion isn't violated by following the law. If someone's religion is against people of a different color, should they be able to ban them and say its my religion??
You can't BREAK THE LAW and use religion as an excuse for BREAKING THE LAW, no matter what it is.
Congress shall make no laws, limited THE PEOPLES right..
hell when the Constitution was written there were state sponsored churches.. Do you guys not know this stuff?
Again, did you guys all forget about the Boy Scout lawsuit by gays? The Boy Scouts won!
You are making no sense. The 1st Amendment is a limit on the government. It is not a limit on what a gay couple in Vermont can sue for. That gay couple is not a state or federal government entity trying to pass a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Therefore, the 1st Amendment does not apply!
The reason State's had official churches, is because the 1st Amendment only applied to Congress (i.e the Federal Government) until 1925. 1925s Gitlow v. New York is when the State's could no longer endorse a specific religion.
My gosh the lack of education of how our legal system works on this board is embarrassing.
They aren't being forced to violate their religious views. They are being forced to follow LAWS that ban discrimination. If they can't handle FOLLOWING THE LAW, then they can't handle owning a business.
Did they own that business before that law was passed? Did those two people really give a damn if they got to use that facility for their game? I would say that they did what they did because of an agenda either for the ACLU or some gay group. When they say that they sued for $1 it becomes very obvious to me that there is something just a bit fishy going on here.
The fact that they never talked to the owners makes this seem a bit fishier, also.
The Boy Scouts is a private organization. A rental hall is a business of public accommodation. Apples to oranges.
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.