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

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: beezzer

I wonder if this applies to Muslim preachers as well?

Somehow, I'll bet it won't.......but if it does, things could get very interesting for sure!

It does so long as their belief does not infringe on mine. When they come to my place of work owned by me and tell me who I must run it to conform to them ... well, where does freedom work there? Sure, they don't want to eat bacon or pork, but is it fair to attempt to get me to force everyone else not to eat it while they are working for me?

To me, such a move wouldn't be any different than telling a Christian to conform to what two gays want when it forces a Christian to go in opposition to their beliefs.

That's not quite the same. A more appropriate way to look at it would be:

You refuse to serve them to beef, because you also sell pork, and they're muslim.

ETA, Got my replies mixed up. A muslim who was so against pork, would not be working for you. This is where a clear contract of employment is imperative. Duties: The handling for sale of pork products. It becomes a condition of employment.

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.

They weren't a religious business, now they are trying to become one, if they can do so successfully (meet the requirements of such) then public accommodation no longer applies.

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: beezzer

Is hypocrisy protected under religious expression too? LOL

Seriously?

Of course.

You're probably too young to remember Jim and Tammy Fay Baker.

Old guys rule, lets not forget Jessica Hahn at the time future porn star. Ok not so much a star but an porn actress.

originally posted by: mOjOm

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.

Truly undeniable massive balls would be offering and putting in place incentives for illegal aliens unavailable to United States citizens. Truly undeniable massive balls would be having a security in place before an establishment to allow only the best dressed, coolest, most popular people into a business. I know you will get this in Kalifornia you never hear a peep about hollywood parties. Truly undeniable massive balls would be forcing US citizens to a medical plan they don't want while you are in a privileged position of power to exempt yourself from the same plan. Truly undeniable massive balls would be having the full weight and force of the DOJ behind a race based crime and not having the same benefits because you are a different color. My personal favorite is, it being legal for congress to use insider information based on legislation to make money on investments. That discriminates to all citizens, this takes undeniable massive balls on a national scale. Who do we get to put in jail for these discriminations?

Discrimination happens everyday from highest echelons of government to the everyday man on the street. This is one of those moralities you can't legislate. Putting someone in jail over not performing a service is ridiculous, just go somewhere else tell everyone you know, and run an ad in the paper if you want. To force people into a belief change isn't possible hows it working for you in the middle east?

originally posted by: Deaf Alien

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 service they offer is a ceremony that joins a man and a woman who become husband and wife. They do not offer ceremonies that join 2 men to become husband and husband, or two women who become wife and wife.

It is not discrimination because they do not offer a ceremony that joins 2 people of the same sex. If they refused to marry a couple because one of them is gay or one of them is black, then that would be discrimination.

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: Deaf Alien

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 service they offer is a ceremony that joins a man and a woman who become husband and wife. They do not offer ceremonies that join 2 men to become husband and husband, or two women who become wife and wife.

It is not discrimination because they do not offer a ceremony that joins 2 people of the same sex. If they refused to marry a couple because one of them is gay or one of them is black, then that would be discrimination.

So discrimination based on race is wrong, but discrimination based on sex is a-ok.

Gotcha!

NOT

The state of Idaho defines marriage in Idaho. The Knapps do not define marriages. They just sell them.

a reply to: Elton

Irrelevant. The point is that the persons are being forced to perform it against their convictions, not where it is being performed. The justification is a technicality.

a reply to: Gryphon66

The chapel doesn't sell marriage, the chapel sells weddings. The state can't dictate what type of wedding the chapel sells.

Just as if I open a shoe store, they can't lock me up for refusing to sell Fubu shoes.

Ok....maybe this will clear things up.

Quote from the Hitching Post's website-
Who performs the wedding ceremonies?
All ceremonies are only done by our Licensed or Ordained Hitching Post ministers.

Right there.....they provide ordained, OR licensed Ministers.
IIRC Licensed / secular
Ordained / religious

On the surface it would seem they have offered both types of "christian based" marriage ceremonies. Guessing this is where the wheels originally came off the wagon so to speak? Aside from them not being legally designated as a Church.

It would seem the Knapp's don't personally have to officiate?
So most of this Bruhaha is of their own making?

hitchingpostweddings.com...

a reply to: Bone75

What is a wedding? An event that results in marriage. Your flawed example would be like saying that a restaurant serves meals not food.

Yes, in Idaho they can; marriage is defined as a legal contract between two adults regardless of their sexes.

In the city of Coeur d'Alene, it is illegal to discriminate based on sex, or sexual orientation.

A business that is a public accommodation (as the Hitching Post has admitted, before the court, that it is) cannot refuse to serve based on sex.

As far as the spurious shoe store example, they can lock you up in Coeur d'Alene if you won't sell the Fabu shoes based on sex or sexual orientation.

That is the only valid comparison.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Marriage does not require a wedding. You can go to the court house and get married without a wedding. Yes the state defines marriage, but they don't define weddings.

a reply to: Leahn

Counter example:

Someone works in a drug store and has a strong personal belief about birth control.

A customer comes in to buy birth control; does the employee tell the customer that the store won't sell birth control, or do they go get someone to sell it that doesn't have a moral restriction.

The latter is the obvious legal answer.

That's a more realistic way to deal with "strong personal convictions."

a reply to: Gryphon66

If they own the store, they can choose not to sell them....that is a more realistic example.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: macman
Ahhhh, so we, as business owners, now loose more rights.

Gotcha.

Gotta love the Progressive way of thinking. Tolerance no matter what. Even if forced by Govt.
The intolerant will be forced to be tolerant, by those intolerant of the intolerant.

If you want to see it that way, that's your choice. I don't consider it to be losing more rights since I don't think you ever had that right to lose in the first place. But I could be wrong I suppose. But I thought that for a quite some time now, a business that served the public was supposed to serve the public without bias. That's what that whole Equal Rights Movement was about. But I guess some people didn't realize the meaning of Equal Rights and thought it meant Black Rights. So now we have to have another Gay Rights Movement too. Then some other movement later on I guess. Too bad, because the Equal Rights Movement should have covered everyone the first time around.

SO again. Tolerance only of those that accept your point of view.

Look, I have never stated state that is it the correct thing, to treat people differently just because they have a different skin color, view on what ever or religion.
But, the freedom afforded to each US citizen is just that. If someone wants to deny service to gays....when on earth does anyone want to force them to serve gays?? Unless one is so narcissistic that they feel sanctimonious enough to push their views and values on others,there is no reason to do this. You are just as bad as the person you are railing against.
If people don't see the obvious hypocrisy in doing this, well then you really are just a biased blind moron forcing your will on others.

For my business, I have the ability to deny the sale of my items to anyone I choose, and I don't have to give a reason.

Have I denied someone a sale because they are gay?? Nope. In fact 2 of my repeat customers are gay, as we have had this discussion before. And when I say repeat, I mean 4 items each, and different times. Each items costing about $3k and it being a luxury item.

The money spends no different from them, as opposed to a straight customer.

Now, I have been to a local Mexican Seafood restaurant many years ago. Walked in, sat down and noticed I was the only white guy in the whole place. I was politely told by one of the staff that I was not exactly welcome and really should consider eating elsewhere.
Did I throw a fit, file a lawsuit and stomp around like a child having a tantrum because someone didn't want my money??? Nope. It does no good to force others to do what I want. I like my food without foreign items in it.

Do I care really that this place still doesn't really want gringos there??? Nope.

I take my money elsewhere. No need to force them to serve me. It has not harmed my in any way.

People need to grow up a bit and stop being butthurt about every little thing in life.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: Gryphon66

If they own the store, they can choose no to sell them....that is a more realistic example.

Exactly. The drug store owner can choose which types of contraceptives (products) to offer. The wedding is the product. No one is saying gays can't attend weddings at the hitching post. No one is trying to keep them out of the establishment. What they are doing at the hitching post is saying they don't offer a product that fits what the gays are demanding.

It's really simple but some people don't like the facts, they want there to be discrimination.

a reply to: JaxonRoberts

Would I put a sign up like that??? Nope.
Money is money.

Do I understand that as a privately owned business there is no law within the Constitution stopping that? Yes.

But, you keep proposing dramatics as your response.

originally posted by: Gryphon66



You seemed to be pining for those good ol' days when business owners could keep the undesirables out as they wished, weren't you?

Not really. What I want is for people to be able to exercise their rights, be it in their homes or private business.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I haven't said anything about private homes or friends and that doesn't apply here.

Then explain your statement from earlier.
Otherwise, one is left to what is appears as.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. The State of Idaho may enforce their laws.

Oh, so semantics is the name of the game.
Your backing of ID to enforce the law, is by several degrees your want.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
You brought up the Brownshirts Mac, not me. I just asked if you had insider information.

No insider info needed.
You and the others wanting private business to be forced to do what you want. You know, what the Brown Shirts have done.
Have you gotten yours in the appropriate size you need?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Progressive, Regressive, butcher, baker and candlestick-maker ...

Hey, did you see that someone beat you to the Alinsky punch this time around? My money was on you, bud.

Tsk.

Well, I can't fulfill your Progressive wants all the time.

Funny, as someone else calls you out on the same thing, and you try to dismiss it as well.
I smell smoke.......

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Donald and Evelyn Knapp, owners of Hitching Post Wedding Chapel in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, are asking to be elevated above the laws of Idaho because of their Christian belief. Of course it has something to do with it!

Yes, THEIR Christian beliefs is what is stopping them from accepting money from others for service.
NOT their Christian beliefs are forcing others to do an action.
You either are dim, and not seeing the absolute hypocrisy in this. Or, your Progressive mindset could care less and you want what you want.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Oh, so it's Freedoms as a whole now? So, freedom of the press, assembly, speech, habeas corpus, et. al are also being threatened? Should we cue the John Philipps Sousa band now?

Sure, if they can keep in time with all the dancers.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Sheesh, do you have enough red, white and blue to paint yourself in? Give us a break.

Nope, can I borrow some??

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Oh, and this gem: "Oh, so Christians are forcing others to do what they think???"

I'm just going to leave that one right there.

Why, because you can't address it??
Okay then. I understand.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Glad I can still make you laugh, Mac; the magic is not dead yet!

I can't help but laugh when Progressives come out, show their hypocrisy in full view and dance around everything like little kids.

It is funny.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
Exactly. The drug store owner can choose which types of contraceptives (products) to offer. The wedding is the product.

If the wedding is the product, they are legally obligated to sell it to everyone. Period.

Sure, you can decide what type of contraceptives to sell (let's say condoms), but if you sell condoms to straight people and not to gay people (because they're now "gay condoms"), you're discriminating and breaking the law.

This "chapel" sells weddings. Selling them to straight people and not to gay people is discrimination.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

No. They can choose what to sell to whom. This isnt even just a US law.

Ferrari sells Ferraris. ONLY product they offer really. TRY to buy one. Even if you can afford one, they will outright deny sale if you dont meet their criteria. You have to have owned one beforehand, OR have a couple letters of recommendations from Ferrari owners guaranteeing that you arent a reckless person who will lower the prestige of their product by having it rotting in a junk yard somewhere after you crash it or damage it.

You dont have the right to dictate to a business what they do or dont sell. Being that this business sells only religous ceremonies, you cant tell them to give you one. You dont get to bend the rules. You cant walk into a church and demand Eucharist for the same reasons you cant force a chapel to give you a religious ceremony.....

I couldnt buy condoms when I first started having sex. I looked to young and they outright said no.

The reverse of this that would have you all going ape isht would be for a Jewish man to walk into a gay owned liquor store and demanding to buy Kosher wine if they dont have it. And then suing because they were not accommodated.

OR

A Neo Nazi walking into a Gay bar with his friends and demanding you put on skin head music, because he filled the bar to capacity and now wants most of the patrons to be served and have the music they came there for to be played.

IF this continues, and that stuff happens, which it will, I will tell you to deal with it.

So when bored KKK members use this fanciful interpretation of the law to harass gay businesses you better smile and take their money and run out to fetch them what they want.

OR when you get crazy Baptists in your communities hunting for a gay a business and they take these laws and draw up endless insulting and horrendous tactics to target gay businesses, and they walk into your businesses with a smile and hatred...deal with it.

a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe

While I am still going to read the rest of the thread, I had to reply to your comments as you are the only sane person so far in this thread. You and you alone restore a little of my faith in humanity. People are discussing this as if it is a matter of law but the law is a mere technicality. This is about imposing your will unto in others in a perverse and depraved way in order to humiliate them.