Government to Ordained Ministers: Celebrate Same-Sex Wedding or Go to Jail

a reply to: beezzer

I don't get why you keep ignoring the fact that it is a for-profit business?

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: beezzer

I don't get why you keep ignoring the fact that it is a for-profit business?

It's a for profit religious business.

a reply to: beezzer

Well ok then show me a law that allow "religious businesses" to discriminate.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: beezzer

Well ok then show me a law that allow "religious businesses" to discriminate.

It's not discrimination.

It simply goes against the tenets of their faith.

a reply to: beezzer

Again you keep ignoring. The LAWS are there. The owners of the chapel KNEW it.

I don't see why you make the distinction between "religious businesses" and just plain businesses.

Chik-Fil-A comes to mind. They don't serve ANYONE on Sundays so they close every Sunday.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

You want to consider it a business.

Fine.

I will consider it a religious business.

I believe there is a distinction.

You obviously don't.

originally posted by: seeker1963

That's the other thing I don't understand. Why would anyone want to be married by someone who is against their marital union in the first place?

It's selective targeting. Just like the bakeries and flower shops that refused to cater a gay ceremony, now chapels will be targeted. It's a brute force tactic to further their agenda.

originally posted by: beezzer

It's not discrimination.

It simply goes against the tenets of their faith.

For anyone else doing the exact same thing, it's called Discrimination. But when the Christians do it, it's no longer Discrimination. There couldn't be a better example of a Double Standard.

It doesn't matter where the root of the belief comes from. Discrimination is Discrimination. Not even the Religious Kooks in favor of this try and hide the fact that it's Discrimination. They know that it's Discrimination and admit that it is. They simply want to be legally justified in doing. How far are you willing to go with your BS??

It's not Discrimination??? What massive balls....Truly undeniable massive balls you have to actually say something like that.

a reply to: beezzer

I do see the distinction you mean.

However business is business, NO MATTER WHAT KIND IT IS.

There is either non-profit or for-profit businesses. There is no middle.

The owners of that "chapel" KNEW the laws. PERIOD. It's as simple as that.

Don't like the laws? Change the laws.

a reply to: beezzer

If Hobby Lobby and other Christian businesses can get a pass on the health care law on religious grounds, I don't see why this chapel can't get a pass on religious grounds. This whole situation is very hypocritical.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
That's the other thing I don't understand. Why would anyone want to be married by someone who is against their marital union in the first place?

It's selective targeting. Just like the bakeries and flower shops that refused to cater a gay ceremony, now chapels will be targeted. It's a brute force tactic to further their agenda.

Only nobody has targeted them at all. Nobody has done anything or even threatened them with anything at all. This is all about them Freaking Out about something that Might happen or could possibly happen. But so far, zip. Nobody other than than themselves are a part of this.

a reply to: mOjOm

When is adherence to a religious tenet considered discrimination?

a reply to: EternalSolace

It's funny though, that nobody else is as petty as the christians and that no matter how unbelievably, disgustingly, repulsively bigoted and hypocritical christians are, others don't often feel the need to reciprocate the way they are treated by them.

It says a lot about christians.

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: beezzer

What makes it a religious business?

They are ministers doing minister stuff for their ministry/chapel business.

So should all ministers get special exemptions from the law?

If so what exemptions are they?


BTW I looked at their website and nowhere did it say they ministered to anyone. So what kind of "stuff" are they doing for their ministry?

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: mOjOm

When is adherence to a religious tenet considered discrimination?

I suppose when it fits this definition exactly as it's worded.

Discrimination is action that denies social participation or human rights to categories of people based on prejudice.

a reply to: mOjOm

Of all the bakeries in Colorado, why was that specific bakery chosen by the gay couple wanting a ceremony? It's a simple answer. They were targeted as a Christian organization.

Of all the florists in Washington State, why was that specific florist chosen by the gay couple wanting a ceremony? They were targeted as a Christian organization.

Of all the chapels in Idaho, why was that specific chapel chosen by the gay couple wanting a ceremony? They were targeted as a Christian organization.

It is selective targeting. There is no doubt about it.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: beezzer

If Hobby Lobby and other Christian businesses can get a pass on the health care law on religious grounds, I don't see why this chapel can't get a pass on religious grounds. This whole situation is very hypocritical.

A valid point.

a reply to: beezzer

When is adherence to a religious tenet considered discrimination?

When the service is offered as advertised (for a price) to the PUBLIC and they refuse the service to a certain group of people, then it's considered discrimination.

The church is not a business. Churches have EVERY RIGHT to refuse service to anyone.

See the distinction?

a reply to: SomePeople


What's ironic is that the ones who scream for tolerance the loudest, are the ones who are most intolerant of others opinions and beliefs.

Both sides are very petty. Not just one or the other.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: mOjOm

When is adherence to a religious tenet considered discrimination?

I suppose when it fits this definition exactly as it's worded.

Discrimination is action that denies social participation or human rights to categories of people based on prejudice.

Then by your definition, all religions discriminate.

Should all religions be condemned?