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.
Nope they are modern day Freedom Riders who will force everyone, and every faith to accept their way of life. And even declare that what generations thought was a sin against their god is in fact not a sin against their god.
There is also legally a difference between refusing to serve these customers or refusing only to book this particular event. As with the baker case, the only service refused was for the wedding, but they had performed other work for the couple. If this venue is open to booking them for birthday parties, graduations, etc but not a wedding, it's a different scenario than just outright refusal to serve.
Not exactly. There are laws in place to prevent companies from discriminating protected groups; gays don't fall into a category in accommodations in NC or at the federal level. I'm old enough to remember white only accommodations. In this case, there is no law preventing discrimination against gays, so the company is operating legally; that is now going to be fodder to add local legislation to prevent discrimination in that locality.
HB2 which was the legislation in NC prohibiting localities from passing their own non-discrimination legislation expired on Dec. 1. For better or worse, the venue's owners are going to be held up as an example of bigotry. Its going to bring up other analogies since its in a state which went kicking and screaming when it came to civil rights legislation. In the end, what could be more conservative than a couple taking marriage vows?
Conservative values and religious values are not identical. I know conservative agnostics/atheists. I also know very religiously devout liberals. Additionally, the rest of us don’t get to demand someone has to believe in or follow everything in a text or religious tenant to be legitimate or that there can’t be conflicts in some of the things they believe. After all, the very first of the Bill of Rights says Freedom of Religion, so if we are demanding textual purism the concept that the owner or workers must host this particular reception would not exist, simply because it goes against their freedom to practice their religion, as they understand it and as is supported by their religion’s guiding text.
I really do think most of these cases ought to hinge on ease of redress - are you being denied access to a service or are you being denied making a particular person give you that service? There is a difference. As a person who has been subjected to blatant discrimination at various times and to differing degrees, I think context matters a great deal. If you can get the service elsewhere with minimal inconvenience then it isn’t appropriate to force another private individual/business to do something against their will. Government entities are a different story, they don’t get to have moral objections, only legal objections.
On a different note, I think anyone who tries to force another person to serve them food or drinks is an idiot. Nasty hidden revenge is too easy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RPC324
There is also legally a difference between refusing to serve these customers or refusing only to book this particular event. As with the baker case, the only service refused was for the wedding, but they had performed other work for the couple. If this venue is open to booking them for birthday parties, graduations, etc but not a wedding, it's a different scenario than just outright refusal to serve.
Absolutely.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
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.
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
24,120 posts, read 12,846,170 times
Reputation: 10669
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by berdee
I do feel much the same as you.
I was not speaking of what the bible says, I was speaking of the beliefs that peoples have for which ever religion they believe in. Do you believe that the free exercise of religion, no matter what religion, should no longer be protected by the First Amendment?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClaraC
ABSOLUTELY I DO. I think every religion should be allowed to gather, and practice their beliefs, if their practices are legal.
I disagree. I believe that free exercise of religion should continue to be protected by the First Amendment.
Quote:
Nothing illegal, like the sacrificing of children etc.
Agree.
Quote:
But once you own a business, that's open to the pubic, you're open to the public. You can't decide who to serve and who not to serve.
Sure you can. Businesses make that decision all of the time. Should having dress codes for customers be outlawed?
Dress codes are different than discrimination based on factors like race. The difference lies in how the business wants to project its image - by requiring everyone wear a tie for example; a business cannot hold one group to a different standard. Due to the discrimination faced by certain groups of people as a group, that discrimination has been outlawed.
Right now, the owners are in compliance with law. But if the law were to change, no one would be preventing them from operating their business as long as they don't discriminate. If they want to discriminate, they can operate it as a church, a hobby or a private club. They can pray all they want, but when it comes to operating a public business, there are some standards which have to be met.
We regulate religion. Polygamy is outlawed. With the exception of WV, southern and border states have outlawed snake handling in churches.
They have every right to shame the business. Until God comes down from heaven or whatever and says gay couples are going to hell, refusing to marry gay couples based on their so-called "Christian values" is just BS. They are refusing based on their own prejudice and discrimination.
They have the right to practice their religion. Until God comes down and says that they must do gay couple weddings, based on the gay couple's so called "rights to infringe on others rights", it's just BS. Anyone saying otherwise is being discriminatory towards Christians.
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.
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.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
They have every right to shame the business. Until God comes down from heaven or whatever and says gay couples are going to hell, refusing to marry gay couples based on their so-called "Christian values" is just BS. They are refusing based on their own prejudice and discrimination.
And they are allowed, it is freedom of choice and they chose not to participate. Call it what ever you like.
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.
