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: 32
53
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 09:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

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.


There are (at least) two rebuttals to this, the first being an agreement, but stipulating that there will be no accommodation for a gay couple (meaning they will be called husband and wife, cake will have man and woman on top of it, etc.).

The second is, the minister is performing a religious ceremony, he is free to choose who he performs said ceremony on due to religious freedom. The minister is a separate entity from the hitching post llc, he is an employee or contractor. If The hitching post doesn't offer services that come free of the minister, then they are unable to provide their service to gays as they cannot force their employee to violate their beliefs. In this case, if the hitching post wants to serve the gay community they can find a minister willing to serve them, however, they are under no obligation to do so.
edit on 21-10-2014 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: tadaman
No. They can choose what to sell to whom.


Can you be more specific? Sure, they can't sell legal weddings or condoms to under-aged people, etc, but if they sell a product to a man, they are legally required to sell it to women. If they sell a product to a white person, they are legally required to sell it to a black person. If they sell a product to a straight couple, they are legally required to sell it to a gay couple.



This isnt even just a US law.


You're right, this particular "law" is a city ordinance. Still punishable by 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.


BUT, all things being equal, if a white man and a black man both meet the criteria, they cannot legally refuse one because of their race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. (Depending on the laws in their area)



You dont have the right to dictate to a business what they do or dont sell.


No, I do not. The government (with whom the business is in contract) can, however.



Being that this business sells only religous ceremonies, you cant tell them to give you one.


Yes, I could. If that's what they sell, as an atheist, I could go in there and buy a religious ceremony. If they denied me based on my "religion", I could sue them. Plain and simple. If a gay person wants a religious ceremony, they should be able to buy one there.



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.


You're not understanding. The liquor store in your example doesn't sell Kosher wine to ANYONE. If they had it and sold it to SOME, but not to OTHERS, then there would be a legal problem. But if they don't have it, of course they don't have to sell it. Don't be silly.

I am against discrimination, regardless of who's doing it.



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.


Oh, I definitely would! If a gay business refused to sell their product to straight people, I would definitely argue AGAINST the business. It's discriminatory either way it goes.

(I am not gay, by the way.) I support equality all around.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 09:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: tadaman


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.



These are things that I can't wait to see happen.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 09:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
There are (at least) two rebuttals to this, the first being an agreement, but stipulating that there will be no accommodation for a gay couple (meaning they will be called husband and wife, cake will have man and woman on top of it, etc.).


I agree. The ceremony would have to be a product they already sell. The business owner would not have to make any "special" accommodations, whatsoever.



The second is, the minister is performing a religious ceremony, he is free to choose who he performs said ceremony on due to religious freedom.


If he charges for it and it's contracted out of his business, it's a business product, not a religious ceremony. If he were doing it in association with a church, it would be a totally different thing. But he doesn't work with a church.



The minister is a separate entity from the hitching post llc, he is an employee or contractor. If The hitching post doesn't offer services that come free of the minister, then they are unable to provide their service to gays as they cannot force their employee to violate their beliefs. In this case, if the hitching post wants to serve the gay community they can find a minister willing to serve them, however, they are under no obligation to do so.


I don't think this is true. The business sells flower arrangements, photographers, CIVIL weddings and wedding planning. They have been a wedding business for a hundred years, marrying people of all faiths and of no faith.



In the past their web page openly admitted they would "marry you using a traditional or civil ceremony" and would also "perform wedding ceremonies of other faiths as well as civil weddings." Now the ADF claims the business will "only perform ceremonies consistent with their religious beliefs.

At no point did the doctrines the Knapps believe restrict their business activity prior to same-sex marriage becoming legal. These admissions were scrubbed from their page after they filed their lawsuit.


Source
edit on 10/21/2014 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Bone75

If a business offers weddings, they offer weddings to whomever (1) can be married and (2) who has the money.

The records for the Hitching Post indicate that they are willing to perform non-Christian services for those folks who want that product. If course, they've deceitfully tried to scrub that from their website ...

Businesses that serve the public don't arbitrarily choose which members of the public to serve.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: macman

A double-standard has already been seen.

These same people that say a business cannot discriminate are the same ones that cheer a business who discriminates against people who open-carry.

So when they "say" that they would be for the people, they really aren't being very honest.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 09:50 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Hence Macman's ever proven statement that "It is always different for Progressives".

I really does remind me of the "Stomp out violence" campaign many cities saw in the early 90s.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 09:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
These same people that say a business cannot discriminate are the same ones that cheer a business who discriminates against people who open-carry.


Red Herring. It's a logical fallacy, but it works for collecting stars.


People who carry guns are welcome in businesses. Their guns are not. A gun doesn't have legal rights to be in a business.
edit on 10/21/2014 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

So, with that, since the Gun has nothing to do with a person. Customers can leave their "Gay" outside as well.

Gay doesn't have any rights.


Discrimination is discrimination. Regardless if it pertains to sexual orientation or someone exercising a right that has a belief of personal protection is a high item.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: beezzer
These same people that say a business cannot discriminate are the same ones that cheer a business who discriminates against people who open-carry.


Red Herring. It's a logical fallacy, but it works for collecting stars.


People who carry guns are welcome in businesses. Their guns are not. A gun doesn't have legal rights to be in a business.


Splitting hairs (hares
)

But if it helps you sleep at night, then more power to you.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

First: In Idaho, in Coeur d'Alene, there are laws requiring fair treatment of all sexual orientations, sexes, et. al. If you are a business providing products or services to the public, then you serve the public.

Second: Then the Hitching Post needs to find a minister who is not so squeamish or stop claiming to offer a business open to serve the public. It's not the customer's responsibility to make accommodations to make sure the business can serve them, it's the businesses' responsibility to make the accommodations necessary to serve the public. It doesn't matter if the customer is "gay" or not. The Hitching Post doesn't decide which members of the public it will serve.

It can become a church, or a private club, but it doesn't get the benefits of being a for-profit corporation if it doesn't want to act like one.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: tadaman
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.



i think your analogies are flawed because the gay couple walked in and asked for the SAME WEDDING that they do for everyone else. the ONLY difference is that the couple would be a gay one. the ceremony would essentially be the same. so yeah, flawed analogy because they aren't asking for a different product than what heterosexual couples would get. unite us in a more beautiful and memorable manner than signing a paper in a courthouse. not too difficult a request, especially if you are getting paid. and really, being a homophobe doesn't pay the bills nearly as well as sucking it up long enough to unite them in marriage so they give you a fat paycheck for the honor. but thats just the practical outlook and i can understand if some people have trouble appreciating it.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 09:57 AM
link   
I don't know all the details about this case. Specifically, making the minister perform the wedding... Does he have other people working for him who can? What is the specific law? What is the Hitching Post's lawsuit charging? I'm not sure. We'll have to wait and see how it comes out. They could be exempt, but from what I've read so far, they are not.

I'm not that interested in this case, but I wanted to set a few things (assumptions and misunderstandings) straight. I'll do more reading on it, but it's not really a big deal to me. I learned all I needed to know in the Colorado Gay Cake thread. LOL



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Remember back when "they" told us that there would be no problem if a business chose to restrict "open carry"?

Remember back when "they" told us that the Hobby Lobby decision was not setting a precedent but was a scope-limited act only affecting Hobby Lobby?

Yeah, you just can't trust Regressives to tell the truth.

/sad eye roll emoticon



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

In Idaho, now, there is no "gay" wedding. A marriage is a marriage; a wedding is a wedding.

It's against the law to discriminate based on sex as well as on sexual orientation.

This is really not a difficult concept.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: macman
So, with that, since the Gun has nothing to do with a person. Customers can leave their "Gay" outside as well.


But they cannot. Just like race, gender, etc. What's funny is that I actually expect this sort of response from you.


I guess, to you, because owning a dog is a right, I should be allowed to take him anywhere. Right? WRONG! Because dogs don't have legal rights to equality and neither do guns.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer
Morning Beezzerbub! Hope we're all in a cheerier mood this fine day :-)


I've penned much on how freedom is a double-edged sword.

And written extensively that when you inhibit/restrict some freedoms, you end up denying freedoms that many enjoy.

When we start using the law to beat each other over the head and use said law to deny behaviour that might not be acceptable to some, then you are opening yourself up to future laws that might turn around and bite you in the metaphysical rear.

Just exactly where would I find my metaphysical rear? Then, once located - how do I know for sure that the new laws designed to promote discrimination will protect my heavenly ass?

I think, beezzer, that for you freedom means never having to say you're sorry...Freedom from consequence - is that what you really want? For all of us? Religious belief should allow each and every one of us to do what we believe in our hearts to be right?

Well, whatever. Maybe all these Christian freedom fighters manning the front lines of this battle for their civil rights need to do is call themselves a private club. If they're looking for a work-around - that would do it

Much (much, much...) more paperwork - but then they could pretty much do whatever they wanted. They could exclude whoever they choose to exclude

Way to go civilization! Mankind takes one giant step forward - then steps back two thousand years
edit on 10/21/2014 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 10:05 AM
link   

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.


LOL!

You mean their magic doesn't work on gay couples? Or, do you mean that they don't have the right magical incantation that joins them together? Or, maybe the magic doesn't work at all on a chromosomal level for same sex couples?

I don't recall Jesus saying anything about the quality of the "Rabbi" that performs "the ceremony" is what joins a "man and a women". Silly me! Here, all this time I thought he was talking about the sexual union of two people that love each other makes them one flesh.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

As is usual in the right-wing media echo chamber, at this point, it's much ado about nothing.

The City of Coeur d'Arlene has taken no action against the Knapps. No action, no damage, no case. Yet.

Of course, the shyster firm that probably talked these folks into being "a test case" will push it as far as they can.

No one has been put in jail; no one has been fined.

Religious freedom is still very much intact in the USA.

Christians are still 80% or so of the population.

The First Amendment is alive and well.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: beezzer
Morning Beezzerbub! Hope we're all in a cheerier mood this fine day :-)


I've penned much on how freedom is a double-edged sword.

And written extensively that when you inhibit/restrict some freedoms, you end up denying freedoms that many enjoy.

When we start using the law to beat each other over the head and use said law to deny behaviour that might not be acceptable to some, then you are opening yourself up to future laws that might turn around and bite you in the metaphysical rear.

Just exactly where would I find my metaphysical rear? Then, once located - how do I know for sure that the new laws designed to promote discrimination will protect my heavenly ass?

I think, beezzer, that for you freedom means never having to say you're sorry...Freedom from consequence - is that what you really want? For all of us? Religious belief should allow each and every one of us to do what we believe in our hearts to be right?

Well, whatever. Maybe all these Christian freedom fighters manning the front lines of this battle for their civil rights need to do is call themselves a private club. If they're looking for a work-around - that would do it

Much (much, much...) more paperwork - but then they could pretty much do whatever they wanted. They could exclude whoever they choose to exclude

Way to go civilization! Mankind takes one giant step forward - then steps back two thousand years


I have no idea where you get that.

Are you deliberately misinterpretting what I'm saying to support your own agenda?

Sometimes, reading your posts gives me a headache.

I'm not as bright as you are.

Maybe if you dumb it down a bit, then I can understand your insinuations and back-handed insults a little better.



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join