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: 27
53
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 11:23 PM
link   

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?




posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 11:23 PM
link   

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.



Nobody targeted these guys. Read the article and what they even say themselves. This year they had 2 calls asking if they did Same Sex Weddings and they said no. Then they gave them alternative places to call that do. That's it. Nobody complained or said anything else about it. Nobody targeted anyone.

Will someone target them now after all this, probably. If so, they deserve it for screaming to the entire world, "Hey, look at us Anti Gay A-Holes over here!! Nobody is targeting us yet!! Yippee for Discrimination!!"

They are throwing their asses out there with a big target on it saying "I dare ya to take a shot!!" So, now, ya, someone is probably going to target them. But that's their own fault.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 11:29 PM
link   
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).



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 11:29 PM
link   
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.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 11:32 PM
link   

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).


You choose to ignore the religious aspect.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 11:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




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?



oh of course since you are obviously too good for it, but you still want them to bow before you at the altar, or your friends just because.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 11:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

Then by your definition, all religions discriminate.

Should all religions be condemned?


That's not My definition, that is the definition at the top of Google search that defines Discrimination.

I don't know about all religions, but maybe. But as we both know, it's allowed for Religious Organizations to Discriminate. Or even certain "Member Only" businesses and I'm sure there are other allowances for other organizations too. But so far, this chapel doesn't fit any of those. So until they change their business model or whatever they need to do, I guess they aren't allowed.

It's not like they don't have options here. They just don't want to have to follow the same rules that everyone else has to follow. They want to be special and play by their own rules because they BELIEVE they should be able to. Well, sorry, that's not how it works for anyone else, so it's not gonna work for them either.

Or maybe it will. Who knows. The whole damn system is just a big pile of BS stacked upon older BS and nobody seems to give a damn about it anyways, so maybe they will be allowed. We'll just have to wait and see.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 11:35 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer



You choose to ignore the religious aspect.


Where did I say that? I said that it doesn't matter what kind of business it is, be it satanic, nazi, christian, muslim, atheist, etc etc business. They ALL have to follow the laws.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 11:36 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace

Nobody has made a formal complaint and no citations have been issued to this couple or their business. All the press that they're getting is self imposed.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 11:37 PM
link   

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.





It came to light because they want to restraining order against this policy being put in place because they are afraid of getting in trouble for not following the law. Nobody has done anything toward them yet. The law was passed and they contacted someone in the Gov. to see if it applied to them. The answer they got was "Yes, it applies to you." So they freaked out.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 11:54 PM
link   
a reply to: JaxonRoberts

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.....


Should a 14 year girl be allowed to do this and the law never come down on the adult man who got her preggie? Is this the kind of equal rights you are demanding? After all shouldn't a 14 year old girl have the same rights as an adult female? Or should common sense prevail? After all a 14 year old cannot vote, cannot drink, and cannot join the army. Which of these laws would you change to reflect your idea of equality under THE law.

So in essence you want laws to exist for your particular agenda.....just because....citing equal rights, but do you believe the underage girl should have access to abortion on demand and nothing happen to the adult father? See, this is where society has to be careful what it demands, or what it claims as equal rights.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 12:13 AM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace

Oh, those terrible, terrible gays! How could they ask for a cake?!

The nerve!



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 12:15 AM
link   
a reply to: JaxonRoberts




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."




So there ya go, a Christian church group who performs these ceremonies. So go travel to one of them and make plans. That is not what you want though. You want everyone to do it, in fact maybe you live to make everyone do it, because otherwise you will have failed in your mission.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 12:15 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer




You choose to ignore the religious aspect.

I won't sell marriages to gays because I don't like them.
I won't sell marriages to gays because I think it's against my religion.

There's no difference. It's discrimination and it is against the law.


Supreme Court Chief Justice Waite, 1878:

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.
supreme.justia.com...

edit on 10/21/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 12:18 AM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus




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.....


Where is it required by law for a victim to report her rape and name her rapist? What does not wanting to be pregnant have to do with Planned Parenthood's (non) responsibility to force a 14 year old to name her rapist have to do with discrimination and gay marriage?



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 12:27 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

Last time I checked there were laws against a man having sex with an underage girl. But the point here is to test the case for equal rights.

For the purpose of extremity, that case seems fairly obvious to me. Yes, Planned Parenthood should not look the other way on such a thing. And they have been caught red handed doing so.
For the purpose of having laws tailored to the idea of equal rights..... an extreme case designed to make you think, is this really common sense just because I claim a need for equal rights?
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 ?


edit on 21-10-2014 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 12:31 AM
link   
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.
edit on 10/21/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 12:42 AM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus




Last time I checked there were laws against a man having sex with an underage girl.


Yeah. It's called rape.



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 ?



Both the 14 year old and 25 year old have the right to privacy. Planned Parenthood doesn't have the right to force anyone to name their rapist before delivering services.



But the point here is to test the case for equal rights.


I'm not seeing the connection here.



edit on 21-10-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 12:44 AM
link   

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.


oh ok so Jaxon wasn't bringing up equal protection under the law, aka equal rights with this post.....


" 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.



Now is that not an argument for equal rights? Any discrimination suit brought against a business for not selling to them is about "equal rights". I dunno somehow "equal protection of the laws" sounds a lot like equal rights to me. It just depends how one wants to slant the desire of the petitioner.
Why aren't we suing restaurants for not treating shoeless people with the same equal rights as people who wear shoes?



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 12:48 AM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus




Why aren't we suing restaurants for not treating shoeless people with the same equal rights as people who wear shoes?



Barefoot people are not a protected class.







 
53
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join