It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: beezzer
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.[/quote
Are you intentionally obtuse?
originally posted by: EternalSolace
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: Deaf Alien
a reply to: beezzer
Then by your definition, all religions discriminate.
Should all religions be condemned?
There you go again ignoring again. This isn't about religion. This is about business (doesn't matter what kind it is).
I'm not trying to get married and I assure you if I were this sleaze-bag little outfit would not be on the list. So what are you on about?
originally posted by: beezzer
Then by your definition, all religions discriminate.
Should all religions be condemned?
originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: mOjOm
If no one complained or said anything else about it, this issue would have never been brought to light. This place was in business for over twenty years. I'm sure it's widely known that the preachers who owned the chapel were ordained and their beliefs were known.
Why was it that shortly after the new law in Idaho went into effect, this is all coming to light? The answer is there was now a way to effectively target the chapel and preachers.
It's also rather ridiculous to say that were screaming to the world that they weren't performing gay ceremonies. If the couples that called were hated that much, and the preachers didn't want to see them wed at all, the preachers would have never referred them to chapels that would perform their ceremony.
Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches (UFMCC), is an international Protestant Christian denomination. There are 222 member congregations in 37 countries, and the Fellowship has a specific outreach to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender families and communities."
You choose to ignore the religious aspect.
supreme.justia.com...
To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.
Um okay lets case test your claim. Take a 14 year girl....gets pregnant by an adult....goes to Planned Parenthood, gets abortion without parental consent... Planned Parenthood never reports adult father.....
But the point here is to test the case for equal rights.
Last time I checked there were laws against a man having sex with an underage girl.
after all, both a 14 year old and a 25 year old are females.
Or do you think this is different somehow? Or what if it was your daughter....equal rights ?
But the point here is to test the case for equal rights.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus
But the point here is to test the case for equal rights.
We are discussing discrimination. Not equal rights.
Gays have the right to marry. Businesses do not have the right to discriminate against them. Don't like the law? Change it so anyone can discriminate against anyone they want to.
" No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Why aren't we suing restaurants for not treating shoeless people with the same equal rights as people who wear shoes?