Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That was a wedding chapel in Idaho, I believe. I saw the article last night.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014...-who-refuse-to-perform-same-sex-weddings.html
The problem with that is what you are basically saying is if you are a person or group who holds to Christian morals and values... Don't expect to make a profit.
It doesn't really matter. They are a religious institution and the judge said he was basing his decision on “a much lower standard [than the Law Against Discrimination] that tolerates some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals.” Who is he to decide that the Bill of Rights can be shredded for the purpose of attaining "important societal goals? Who determines what societal goals are important? It's just ridiculous that a court can tell a church what they can believe and practice. They want separation of church and state? Then they need to abide by it just like they insist the churches abide by it.They opened it up to the public. They are then subject to the same laws that businesses are subject to because they are acting as a business. I imagine the income they brought in from that area was even taxable as a business and not tax exempt as a church.
It doesn't really matter. They are a religious institution and the judge said he was basing his decision on “a much lower standard [than the Law Against Discrimination] that tolerates some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals.” Who is he to decide that the Bill of Rights can be shredded for the purpose of attaining "important societal goals? Who determines what societal goals are important? It's just ridiculous that a court can tell a church what they can believe and practice. They want separation of church and state? Then they need to abide by it just like they insist the churches abide by it.
It doesn't really matter. They are a religious institution and the judge said he was basing his decision on “a much lower standard [than the Law Against Discrimination] that tolerates some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals.” Who is he to decide that the Bill of Rights can be shredded for the purpose of attaining "important societal goals? Who determines what societal goals are important? It's just ridiculous that a court can tell a church what they can believe and practice. They want separation of church and state? Then they need to abide by it just like they insist the churches abide by it.
But they are a church. The original tax-exempt status required that they be open. They now have the correct tax-exempt status.There were not a church, you are mistaken.
If they were set up and operated like a church, they could refuse whoever they chose to refuse. This is reality.
But they are a church. The original tax-exempt status required that they be open. They now have the correct tax-exempt status.
The problem is, when they change the laws, they don't notify everyone who needs to make a change in their status. I guess they just sit in wait for them to do what they always did, and then penalize them for it.
But they are a church. The original tax-exempt status required that they be open. They now have the correct tax-exempt status.
The problem is, when they change the laws, they don't notify everyone who needs to make a change in their status. I guess they just sit in wait for them to do what they always did, and then penalize them for it.
You are comparing a retreat center to a grocery store? Way to go, there, with the relevancy. What is hard to understand that the laws were changed after they received their first tax-exempt status, making it obsolete and needing replaced? Now they are the correct tax-exempt status, and, yes, they are a church.When they open up a secondary business, that business is not a religious institution. If a Church opened up a grocery store, they would be required to follow all the laws of business that their Church wouldn't be required to follow. Having a place to rent for the public makes them a business not a religious institution.
You are comparing a retreat center to a grocery store? Way to go, there, with the relevancy.
You keep going on about a business. Being open to the public doesn't necessarily mean it is a business. Parks are open to the public and they aren't "businesses". And you'd best bet that park owners (governments (local, most likely)) have a litany of restrictions in place if you should desire to use it. Which kind of make them ................ discriminatory. We should sue them because they have rules I don't like.Seems identical to me when run as a business.
I can promise you one of those rules isn't "No Black People".You keep going on about a business. Being open to the public doesn't necessarily mean it is a business. Parks are open to the public and they aren't "businesses". And you'd best bet that park owners (governments (local, most likely)) have a litany of restrictions in place if you should desire to use it. Which kind of make them ................ discriminatory. We should sue them because they have rules I don't like.
You keep going on about a business. Being open to the public doesn't necessarily mean it is a business. Parks are open to the public and they aren't "businesses". And you'd best bet that park owners (governments (local, most likely)) have a litany of restrictions in place if you should desire to use it. Which kind of make them ................ discriminatory. We should sue them because they have rules I don't like.
Rules are made to keep people out. That is the nature of them.Nope, because those rules of use apply to EVERYONE, not just a select group of people.
I bet, public parks can't refuse to let gays visit.
Rules are made to keep people out. That is the nature of them.
Rules are made to keep people out. That is the nature of them.
That's true, but I don't know what it has to do with anything. The Methodist Church stated their beliefs, which do not include marriage outside of one man and one woman. The government, which originally said that they would not force churches into conducing gay weddings if they felt it violated their beliefs, is now changing the goalposts and doing just that in the name of "an important societal goal". They are interfering with churches in ways they do not have the right to do.And the rules apply to EVERYONE.
If I own a restaurant, I can make it a policy people have to wear ties and a suit jacket and these rules would likely keep some people out, but they would apply equally, to everyone.
That's true, but I don't know what it has to do with anything. The Methodist Church stated their beliefs, which do not include marriage outside of one man and one woman. The government, which originally said that they would not force churches into conducing gay weddings if they felt it violated their beliefs, is now changing the goalposts and doing just that in the name of "an important societal goal". They are interfering with churches in ways they do not have the right to do.
That's true, but I don't know what it has to do with anything. The Methodist Church stated their beliefs, which do not include marriage outside of one man and one woman. The government, which originally said that they would not force churches into conducing gay weddings if they felt it violated their beliefs, is now changing the goalposts and doing just that in the name of "an important societal goal". They are interfering with churches in ways they do not have the right to do.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?