Minister criminally charged for not performing homosexual marriage

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
I still don't understand why any gay couple would even go to a church to get married.

Not a church. Read the thread...

a reply to: AnonymousCitizen

**ATTENTION**

Before this becomes a thread of misinformation allow me to set the record straight.

A) This happened back in October 2014
B) The Idaho city where this apparently happened has no record of any complaint filed against The Hitching Post
C) The Hitching Post was operating as a for-profit business meaning it fell under the city's antidiscrimination ordinances BUT the city decided to allow the couple to continue to operate their business as long as they only perform religious marriage ceremonies

It took me all of 5 minutes to find all this. Google before you get taken in by sensationalized headlines like we've been seeing so often lately on ATS.

**End of Unofficial PSA**

We had all of this years ago in the UK, there was a well publicised case where a B&B refuse to allow a gay couple from staying at their business due to their personal beliefs. The court ruled that because they were a business that they were not allowed to discriminate against people.
It's pretty simple, if you run or work for a business you leave your personal beliefs at home and act like a professional.
It's now not really an issue and it's all pretty clear cut, I haven't heard of a discrimination case in a while.

To be honest all parties involved in this case are suspect to be establishment plants anyway. Explicitly intended to antagonize the situation further. This is still a conspiracy site right?

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
This is why marriage should be in the placed hands of religious institutions,

Sorry. Marriage is a LAW. And non-religious people have the LEGAL right to marry, too.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Isn't that what the gays were fighting for in the first place, to be accepted in Public and Private life?

Uh... no. They were fighting for equal RIGHTS, and continue to do so.

If it's a business I say yes, they do have to marry them.
When you become for profit any claim to religious freedom rings very hollow.

a reply to: TrappedPrincess

That is what apparently happened according to what I found on Google.

Idaho Pastors’ Victimhood Story Almost Entirely Fabricated By Religious Right

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: TinfoilTP

How does that comparison make sense?

You just laid out a scenario where they were asked to do a service their company doesn't do...

How does that relate to a business denying one couple what they offer to others?

It's as if one day Jiffylube woke up and the Supreme Court ruled that a "Lube Job" includes paint jobs too. It doesn't change what they only have experience in and are equipped to offer. It would be gaming the system to pull your car into jiffylube knowing they won't put a paint job on your car just so you could sue them.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
It's as if one day Jiffylube woke up and the Supreme Court ruled that a "Lube Job" includes paint jobs too. It doesn't change what they only have experience in and are equipped to offer. It would be gaming the system to pull your car into jiffylube knowing they won't put a paint job on your car just so you could sue them.

Still doesn't make any sense. These business owners offered marriages, flowers, decorations, music, weddings. That's what they offer and no one asked for anything different...

Rereading your post, it's clear you don't understand the Supreme Court ruling. Oh, well, better luck next time.

a reply to: alienjuggalo

A million stars to you

a reply to: MonkeyFishFrog

Yaaas!

Thank you, but i bet one of my Lace Fronts that no one pays attention to your post and continues with the sensationalism

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Come through Hyperbole!

Why should Religion be "In" anything? it's a personal belief system... not "Laws" or "Rules" that govern everybody because not everyone believes in the same religion

They don't want religious people "In" anything.
They want them out of public service jobs for what they do in private.
They want them out of private business for what they do in private.

Sound familiar?

a reply to: saudi

For being wrong?

How was this couple to know that these people would not want to marry them?

a reply to: TinfoilTP

It's as if one day Jiffylube woke up and the Supreme Court ruled that a "Lube Job" includes paint jobs too.

....

So again, what new service was this place asked to do?

They were in the business of marriage, this couple wanted a marriage....
What does jiffy lube have doing paint jobs have to do with that.

Here's a hint.... Nothing.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
I still don't understand why any gay couple would even go to a church to get married.

Not a church. Read the thread...

I understand that. I'm just saying it's a stupid move. Why would anyone go somewhere they know they are not wanted? Your just asking for problems when you do things like that. If you enter a room full of snakes do you really think one of them won't bite you?

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: AnonymousCitizen

This is an unfortunate situation and I do not believe ministers should be forced to perform a ceremony clearly contrary to their religious beliefs.

Then they shouldn't be running a for profit business. When you are acting like a church to make a buck the freedom of religion clause doesn't cover you.

Its pretty much donation based, so your argument is invalid. Freedom and liberty as long as it aligns with your views eh?

a reply to: alienjuggalo

It may not even be a legitimate gay couple trying to get married. I mean think about how easy it is to attack ministers now, just go out purposely looking for ministers who don't want to marry gay couples, and create a firestorm about it.

As an atheist who supports gay marriage, I feel disgusted seeing people being forced into doing something they strongly disagree with.

a reply to: Darth_Prime

Yep, I'm already seeing it. People are arguing over something that didn't even happen. I thought we were suppose to fight and expose propaganda at ATS, not help it fester and breed.

a reply to: AnonymousCitizen

For profit business. Businesses can't discriminate, even if they carry the title of Minister.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: TinfoilTP

How does that comparison make sense?

You just laid out a scenario where they were asked to do a service their company doesn't do...

How does that relate to a business denying one couple what they offer to others?

It's as if one day Jiffylube woke up and the Supreme Court ruled that a "Lube Job" includes paint jobs too. It doesn't change what they only have experience in and are equipped to offer. It would be gaming the system to pull your car into jiffylube knowing they won't put a paint job on your car just so you could sue them.

It's as if one day Jiffylube woke up and the Supreme Court ruled that they have to do lube jobs for gay people.

I know you still disagree with that but just trying to make your analogy more analogous.