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.
The consequence of allowing discrimination is separate entrances for whites and African Americans, men and women. Different hotels for the races. Even different banks and residential areas. In the end, separate did not mean equal and hence discrimination was outlawed.
So what do you then make of Black only dorms in college now? Separate Black graduation ceremonies? The New Segregationists are not white.
Quote:
Originally Posted by webster
We regulate religion. Polygamy is outlawed. With the exception of WV, southern and border states have outlawed snake handling in churches.
Plural marriage (polygamy) is outlawed for now. I don't see how the laws against plural marriage can stand in the face of the SCOTUS rulings against traditional marriage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldhag1
I encountered designated water fountains and still remember having to pee in a cow field behind a post because I was the wrong race for the bathroom of the only gas station in miles. I could go on and on and on as to how this is different in terms of impact, but let’s just leave it with denying the ladies the use of their facility for the reception will not in any way prevent them from being able to get married.
No one is saying or supporting the idea that the couple should be kept from eating breakfast there or renting a room for the night. There is a difference between selling a product and being a participant in a celebration. If they had been denied throwing a birthday party for grandma because they were a gay couple or because grandma was gay, I would have an issue with that - unless they belonged to some weird religion that said it’s wicked for birthdays to be celebrated. It is forcing them to be part of a celebration of something they have been preached at for years is a sin and should be forbidden, that is at issue -ESPECIALLY when they can just drive 5-10 minutes to get equal or better service.
I just love your common sense and wisdom. I couldn't rep you again. This is the best I can do
It’s amusing that some Christians seem to believe “marriage” is a Christian concept. It’s not. It predates Christianity and all religions. Christians can believe they have a lock on the definition, meaning, intent, interpretation of what marriage is meant to be, but that’s not remotely true. They have the right to enforce what they believe about marriage for ceremonies in their churches, but not when it comes to anything that happens outside those walls.
Marriage is a State Institution and has to do with the collection of taxes.
Marriage between a man and a woman is a Christian concept.
The State doesn't care.
btw: to avoid having to pay higher taxes to the State, many couples just live together in sin.
There are plenty of places for the couple to marry. Whhat is the hangup on try to force persons of faith to do that which they do not nor ever will, do? Leave them be and get on with it somewhere else that is more receptive, friendly and hospitable.
Marriage between a man and a woman is a Christian concept.
Long before Christianity, actually. There is recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man as early as 2350 B.C. in Mesopotamia.
Marriage between a man and a woman is a Christian concept.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppyHeel
Long before Christianity, actually. There is recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man as early as 2350 B.C. in Mesopotamia.
Now that is interesting --- however, before (the turn of the century 1 A.C.) modern day governments there was the Catholic Church, the Roman one, that waged wars and collected taxes --- and enacted the law of the land - thus any man dispute such law, something really really bad would happen to him. The Church of England --- people ran all the way here to get away from them. The beginning of the rebellion can date to Martin Luther and his thesis. The church split ---
So I guess we are looking at the development of Christianity the Church the laws the culture and the government collection of taxes since, along with the laws that have been enacted. Which is where my comment came from --- not the culture, but the government and its right to tax, what once was know as, Institutions.
The people make their moral distinctions, but the government doesn't care what its people do, only in its ability to tax 'em for doing it.
So then give your money to a different venue that will want your business and be more welcoming. Problem solved.
You are right. But they never wanted to use that venue. The lesbian couple targeted the business to bring attention to themselves, posing as victims and possible a monetary reward.
I wish people these days would stop with the "we didn't expect to ignite controversy with our social media venting" nonsense. The reason why people post these things on social media these days is precisely because they expect and want their drama to become viral, and to shame the business.
This couple is out of luck though. As the article mentions there are no state protections in North Carolina or federal legislation banning anti-LGBTQ discrimination in public accommodations.
It's not a public accommodation, and it's not a wedding.
Marriage is a State Institution and has to do with the collection of taxes.
Marriage between a man and a woman is a Christian concept.
The State doesn't care.
So there were no marriages of a man and woman prior to Christianity? Nothing before Christ was a "Christian concept".
Quote:
The people make their moral distinctions, but the government doesn't care what its people do, only in its ability to tax 'em for doing it.
Well, the government wouldn't allow same sex couples to get married prior to 2015. If the government doesn't care what its people do, there would be no penalties or punishments.
Some who oppose same sex marriage do so because they believe that marriage is an institution meant for promoting procreation. You may argue that such a view is under-inclusive/over-inclusive as not all heterosexual couples can procreate, etc., but that view isn't inherently anti-LGBT. Similarly, only supporting two person marriage does not mean that one does so out of hatred toward those who believe in polygamy.
Supporting what has been the traditional basic definition of marriage for thousands of years doesn't mean that one does so out of hatred toward gays.
You can be for something or against something without hating others who believe in different things.
The problem there is, of course, that same sex couples can - and do - procreate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Veritas Lux Mea
but its a religious ceremony ...
Not necessarily. Many people who are not religious do marry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
Marriage is a State Institution and has to do with the collection of taxes.
Marriage between a man and a woman is a Christian concept.
The State doesn't care.
btw: to avoid having to pay higher taxes to the State, many couples just live together in sin.
Actually, the US tax system favors marriage. There are other benefits to marriage, including issues surrounding property rights and inheritance. There have, in the past, been instances, for example, when same sex partners were denied hospital visitation because the partner was deemed "not immediate family."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casey73
You are right. But they never wanted to use that venue. The lesbian couple targeted the business to bring attention to themselves, posing as victims and possible a monetary reward.
Source? There is nothing to suggest that in the article in the OP.
Marriage is a State Institution and has to do with the collection of taxes.
Marriage between a man and a woman is a Christian concept.
The State doesn't care.
btw: to avoid having to pay higher taxes to the State, many couples just live together in sin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stepnking
So there were no marriages of a man and woman prior to Christianity? Nothing before Christ was a "Christian concept".Well, the government wouldn't allow same sex couples to get married prior to 2015. If the government doesn't care what its people do, there would be no penalties or punishments.
Can a person have Christianity before Christ?
Okay, so why allow it now? What changed really?
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.
