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.
This is the strangest post I've seen all week. What the **** does the holocaust have to do with this?
Here, if you'd like to address my question, I'll ask it more precisely: How does renting a hall (or a hotel room, or a lawn mower) to a lesbian couple infringe on the right of a Catholic to practice Catholicism?
Y'all keep harping on the law and that I do not understand the law. I understand the law quite clearly. I disagree with the law. That should have been abundantly clear. The holocaust photo simply shows two things 1) laws sometimes are unjust 2) attacking religious and property rights is wrong. Obviously, the holocaust was an extreme violation of these basic human rights.
It appears to me the couples decision was based on their religious beliefs. It should not be mine, yours or the state's opinion of how rational these beliefs are when the couple's actions are confined to their own property providing they are not violating the rights of others. You should not have a "right" to infrige on another's property rights.
Y'all keep harping on the law and that I do not understand the law. I understand the law quite clearly. I disagree with the law. That should have been abundantly clear. The holocaust photo simply shows two things 1) laws sometimes are unjust 2) attacking religious and property rights is wrong. Obviously, the holocaust was an extreme violation of these basic human rights.
It appears to me the couples decision was based on their religious beliefs. It should not be mine, yours or the state's opinion of how rational these beliefs are when the couple's actions are confined to their own property providing they are not violating the rights of others. You should not have a "right" to infrige on another's property rights.
Y'all keep harping on the law and that I do not understand the law. I understand the law quite clearly. I disagree with the law. That should have been abundantly clear. The holocaust photo simply shows two things 1) laws sometimes are unjust 2) attacking religious and property rights is wrong. Obviously, the holocaust was an extreme violation of these basic human rights.
It appears to me the couples decision was based on their religious beliefs. It should not be mine, yours or the state's opinion of how rational these beliefs are when the couple's actions are confined to their own property providing they are not violating the rights of others. You should not have a "right" to infrige on another's property rights.
And what did these Inn keepers do? They infringed on the right of this couple to not be discriminated against, and they paid the price.
Y'all keep harping on the law and that I do not understand the law. I understand the law quite clearly. I disagree with the law. That should have been abundantly clear. The holocaust photo simply shows two things 1) laws sometimes are unjust 2) attacking religious and property rights is wrong. Obviously, the holocaust was an extreme violation of these basic human rights.
It appears to me the couples decision was based on their religious beliefs. It should not be mine, yours or the state's opinion of how rational these beliefs are when the couple's actions are confined to their own property providing they are not violating the rights of others. You should not have a "right" to infrige on another's property rights.
The "problem" here is simple. You disagree with the law.
I'm glad their losing their business, they're bigots. Bigotry in 2012 (or anytime, really) is completely unacceptable.
The "problem" here is simple. You disagree with the law.
I'm glad their losing their business, they're bigots. Bigotry in 2012 (or anytime, really) is completely unacceptable.
Do you believe people should be able to choose who they allow in their home?
"How does renting a hall (or a hotel room, or a lawn mower) to a lesbian couple infringe on the right of a Catholic to practice Catholicism?"
Help me with my reading comprehension. Where did you answer that one?
Western Pilgrim provided an answer earlier in this thread. For me the question does not matter how I would answer that question. What matters is how the owners of the property answer that question.
The only disagreement you and I have is if a property owner should lose rights when he opens to the public, I argue with a few exceptions, primarily regarding safety, he should not.
I repeat, you should have no right to a claim on the property of others.
It's not a claim, in the strict legal sense.
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.
