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: 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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
the first amendment protects the right to exercise religion.
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.
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.