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.

 

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

page: 25
53
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

No. I'm saying that they're hypocrites hiding their bigotry behind the skirt of their religion.




posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 08:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: MarlinGrace

But is a patron going to be able to buy the vital good you're selling elsewhere or is he/she going to continue to meet the same asinine discrimination they found with you? But let's look beyond the human touchy feely aspect. Economically is it smart for a government to allow discriminatory commerce within their jurisdiction? No, it's pretty damn stupid. Whether you realize it or not, a government has the authority to deny business licenses and within the United States in order to obtain a business license a person or persons must agree to the terms of the local, state and federal government. One of those terms is to not discriminate and it has always been such, way back before the Civil Rights movement, it's just that the only people considered 'the public' were white men however, if Bob didn't like Steve he still had to sell nails to him if he operated a hardware store in downtown Upyoursville. To allow discrimination is to open your jurisdiction to all kinds of unrest which isn't good if you want your jurisdiction to flourish.

Rothbard was very wrong and rewrote some history in order to make his theories appear to work. His notion of a free market based on natural law cannot help but lead to interventionism which by all economic theory is a bad thing. A fully freely accessible free market is the only thing that can ever work, you sell, I buy. If I don't believe that men should drink alcohol why the hell would I open a liquor store? A market shouldn't abide cry-babies that can't handle selling goods and services to a diverse public.

I pity the Knapps, they're so small minded as to think that their religious views would continue to stand in authority in this Non-Christian Nation that held Christians as the gold standard for citizens. So they opened a business, never expecting their notion of marriage to ever be challenged, it is they that put themselves in a position of having to compromise that religious belief or suffer the consequences. There is no law that compels anyone to open a business to the public, and there is no law that states that they can't believe that marriage is only between a man and a woman. But, they are not being persecuted for their faith, they are being persecuted because their State now includes Gays as members of the public and now as public business owners they are refusing to comply to the newly expanded definition of the existing law. Boo hoo. Opening a business is always a gamble and they lost.


Your look at things appears on the surface to be that of an employee. I used to consider the government at the minimum a 50% silent partner. Between regulation, taxes, forced insurance, Matching SS, they were indeed a partner but things have changed when you could be forced into jail over not doing business with someone. Now they are not so silent anymore they have become nothing more than an all powerful majority partner that demands who your customer has to be. Or by some with an emotional thought process, considered a person that participates in asinine discrimination.

As a business owner where are my rights to do business? Why are they not granted equal to other businesses and not based on gender or sexual preference and not whatever my silent partner decides is good for business? As an example I offer this bit of information I have dealt with for years. If it is a Korean customer I never get the work it is always given to contractors of Korean descent first. When dealing with my silent partner they offer incentives to women's and minority businesses that are not offered to me. Since my silent partner is negligent in verification of said businesses I know of several where the wife gets government contracts for the husband, and blacks are hired as minority front men for white businesses. Where are my equal protections promised by the constitution?

Fairness is become a joke and so has the idea of the government making laws that would jail someone over not performing a wedding ceremony. The hypocrisy of forcing a business to perform services while extracting a percentage of it's profits is nothing more than government that panders for every last vote for 1.5% of the population, or in the case of the New and improved America is seriously moving towards communism.

Where is the choice government so proudly trumpets to the citizens? Apparently it's only a choice when it suits people looking to be politically correct and pandering to a ultra small minority of a population. Discrimination is and will always be a part of both business and personal life in the US, as it is in the majority of the world. Making legislation placing a business owner in jail for something as simple as not performing a wedding ceramony hardens, divides, and places both owner and customer at odds for the view of a not so silent government partner. Morality cannot and has never able to be legislated by government.

Cry babies are those that force people to do things that go against their beliefs, their desire to weed out what are obviously bad customers, and not hire the problem child before it cost thousands in litigation. Rothbard was right in the fact it is a voluntary transaction, even though the government works tirelessly with our money to go against the basic tenants of conducting a business. So if you give the warning signs of being difficult, slow pay, stupid, or lack common sense to make valued judgements, rather than suffer a jail term, my price will be to high, my schedule too busy, or I don't offer that service any longer. And not one of those warning signs will be based on color, race, gender, sexual or orientation.

You are correct in that opening a business is a gamble, to bad I have to be partnered with a government the size of a elephant, with a donkey that creates ridiculous business legislation seeking voting favor from the smallest minority with the loudest cry babies.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 08:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Dfairlite

No. I'm saying that they're hypocrites hiding their bigotry behind the skirt of their religion.


Maybe they are.

Funny thing though, they have the right to do so.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 08:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Dfairlite

No. I'm saying that they're hypocrites hiding their bigotry behind the skirt of their religion.


so you're calling people bigots based on what you assume to be the case. All the while your assumptions are simply false equivalencies. Allowing people who have sinned while not assisting others commit a sin is not Hypocritical. Good luck with your hatred though.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 08:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: Gryphon66

SEVERAL. SEVERAL faiths. You can be certified in Jewish ceremonies, Christian and any other you want in these cheapo tacky chapels no real gay man would be caught dead in. You offer weddings to Jews, you do the Rabbi thing. You get Catholics, you do the Catholic thing. You offer several religious services. No matter how trivial you think that is, it is still a religious ceremony.

What gets me is that there are plenty of these cheapo whore chapels that wed people by just civil union. TARGETING the ones that dont is done to set a precedent and everyone knows that no matter the subterfuge used to hide the fact...


I have no idea what makes you think gays don't like tacky! In fact, I would go so far as saying we actively promote tacky and I'm damn proud of it.

Tacky and crazy are what make the word spin.

Edit: I'm doing my bit for crazy as well.


edit on 20-10-2014 by SomePeople because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: SomePeople

Thanks for the smile man.

I went off the deep end there for a bit. I am psychotic.

Tacky is ok if you go all out. There is a limit on single items of leopard pattern clothing. You are good if you don a full suit. Wearing a nice African american woman's Sunday hat is also acceptable if you update the floral accessories and to match your color scheme. Not doing so just makes you look insane.

Also, there is no limit on glitter. None.

Have a good one.

No T no Shade.

edit on 10 20 2014 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman



what you are saying is like going to a Chinese restaurant and asking for a dominoes pizza. Then demand it because they advertise that they sell food...and thats the food you want.


Wow ok. Whatever you see on the menu is what you get. If the food you want isn't there, then you won't get it. Besides, how would they even make a Domino's pizza?

Now to the point...

They advertise marriages for a price (it is a for-profit business).

Now in the article linked in the OP:



the city has a non-discrimination statute that includes sexual orientation and gender identity, and because the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Idaho’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, the couple would have to officiate at same-sex weddings in their own chapel.


Is it clear now? It is a matter of law.

As Phage said... don't like the laws? CHANGE the laws.

It has nothing to do with freedom of religion or beliefs or anything.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 09:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Dfairlite

No. I'm saying that they're hypocrites hiding their bigotry behind the skirt of their religion.


so you're calling people bigots based on what you assume to be the case. All the while your assumptions are simply false equivalencies. Allowing people who have sinned while not assisting others commit a sin is not Hypocritical. Good luck with your hatred though.


Sinned? A sin is a religious concept referring to an offense against God. You have no testable evidence proving that God even exists.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 09:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Dfairlite

No. I'm saying that they're hypocrites hiding their bigotry behind the skirt of their religion.


so you're calling people bigots based on what you assume to be the case. All the while your assumptions are simply false equivalencies. Allowing people who have sinned while not assisting others commit a sin is not Hypocritical. Good luck with your hatred though.


Sinned? A sin is a religious concept referring to an offense against God. You have no testable evidence proving that God even exists.


And there is no testable evidence of the big bang or of evolution. But hey, we all have our faith.

As aquinas said: "Hence the fact that some happen to doubt about articles of faith is not due to the uncertain nature of the truths, but to the weakness of human intelligence."

But let's not get too far off topic here, the first amendment protects the right to exercise religion.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 09:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite



And there is no testable evidence of the big bang or of evolution. But hey, we all have our faith.


ROFL but ok let's not go off the topic.



the first amendment protects the right to exercise religion.


Who said it doesn't? I have read most of this thread and I haven't seen anyone who stated otherwise.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 09:54 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Is hypocrisy protected under religious expression too? LOL



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 09:56 PM
link   

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.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 10:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Dfairlite

No. I'm saying that they're hypocrites hiding their bigotry behind the skirt of their religion.


so you're calling people bigots based on what you assume to be the case. All the while your assumptions are simply false equivalencies. Allowing people who have sinned while not assisting others commit a sin is not Hypocritical. Good luck with your hatred though.


Sinned? A sin is a religious concept referring to an offense against God. You have no testable evidence proving that God even exists.


And there is no testable evidence of the big bang or of evolution. But hey, we all have our faith.

As aquinas said: "Hence the fact that some happen to doubt about articles of faith is not due to the uncertain nature of the truths, but to the weakness of human intelligence."

But let's not get too far off topic here, the first amendment protects the right to exercise religion.


If it really, truly did, christians would be burning witches and muslims would be much closer to their sharia dreams.

There are limits to how much freedom a person or thing has and should have.
edit on 20-10-2014 by SomePeople because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 10:12 PM
link   


The article claims countless cases and links to The Heritage Foundation (I guess to prove their claim) which sites zero cases of clergy being forced to marry same sex couples.


Last time I checked any 'Justice of the peace' can marry people.

So the issue is what ?

So why is 'gay marriage' an issue ?

Oh yeah POLITICS!.

For the record:

If any 'discrimination' is going on.

It is by the government not the church.
edit on 20-10-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 10:14 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

I suppose you're right. The Catholic Church's pedophiles are protected.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 10:22 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

I don't think you get any argument from me on the faults of religions.

It's the freedom of religious expression that I'm concerned with.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 10:26 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Why are you so hung up on freedom of religious expression? Nobody here is against the freedom of religious expression.

You keep ignoring the fact that this 'chapel' is a BUSINESS, not a place of worship. Businesses are subjected to different laws.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

It's a religious business. A wee bit difference than a Starbucks.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 10:36 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

What makes it a religious business?



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 10:41 PM
link   

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.



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join