Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 71
  1. #31  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    I'm not arguing this with you again. You've lost the argument where it counts.
    Don't pretend that you've won the argument. You've simply applied superior force in the form of money, political clout within a party that is committed to American decline in all areas (and this will accelerate it), and media noise. It doesn't make you right, just more powerful in the short run.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #32  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    15,861
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    The First Amendment adequately addresses that, but if it makes some folks feel better, then who cares? One would note however, that when Loving v Virginia was decided, no one seemed to feel the need to protect the churches from marrying interracial couples, or members of other races. Moreover, unlike country clubs, churches can't even lose their tax exempt status for being blatantly racist.
    Bullschtein. There is already precedent. There was a photographer in New Mexico who was brought before the New Mexico Human Rights Division for refusing to photograph a commitment ceremony because homosexuality was against their religious beliefs. They were sued and they lost. So, the photographer is forced to take part in something that they don't believe in. Is that religious freedom? Hardly. But the Constitution grants us the right to not only religious freedom but the free exercise thereof. However, the linked story grants someone's lifestyle choice over someone's Constitutionally protected rights. Now, I'm quite sure there are more than 1 photographer in New Mexico, especially in a big city like Albuquerque but IMO this lesbian purposely picked this photographer to stir the shit pot and they got what they want. I'm guessing you're happy about this.
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #33  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    There was a photographer in New Mexico who was brought before the New Mexico Human Rights Division for refusing to photograph a commitment ceremony because homosexuality was against their religious beliefs. They were sued and they lost. So, the photographer is forced to take part in something that they don't believe in. Is that religious freedom? Hardly.
    How many times do we have to do this? A photographic business is not a church and a photographer is not a priest. A photography business which offers its services to the public may not discriminate. Walgreen's can't refuse to develop pictures of customers due to their religious beliefs, Howard Johnson's can't refuse to rent rooms due to their religious beliefs, and the Jesus Saves Waffle House in Florence South Carolina cannot refuse to serve gay people due to their religious beliefs.


    Here is the relevant language from New York. It would not protect a discriminatory public accommodation- that has already been settled, it's illegal.


    "Notwithstanding any state, local or municipal law, rule, regulation, ordinance, or other provision of law to the contrary, a religious entity as defined under the education law or section two of the religious corporations law, or a corporation incorporated under the benevolent orders law or described in the benevolent orders law but formed under any other law of this state, or a not-for-profit corporation operated, supervised, or controlled by a religious corporation, or any employee thereof, being managed, directed, or supervised by or in conjunction with a religious corporation, benevolent order, or a not-for-profit corporation as described in this subdivision, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #34  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    B But the Constitution grants us the right to not only religious freedom but the free exercise thereof.
    The free exercise of religion does not include everything you say and do as long as you say , "In Jesus' name" after you do it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #35  
    Senior Member jnkbortka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Salem, Indiana
    Posts
    380
    Quote Originally Posted by linda22003 View Post
    Here's a real Drama Queen thread:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-...ts?q=1&;page=1

    It wishes everything on NY from another 9/11 to a nuclear strike, after the gay marriage vote.
    well NYC can go to hell. i lived there for 7 years and all i got from it is how to act like a black guy lol. the cost of living is as high as the gang violence.
    If you want to see my political views, check out my profile. i have them on my wall because there wasn't enough room in the info section.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #36  
    Senior Member jnkbortka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Salem, Indiana
    Posts
    380
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    The First Amendment adequately addresses that, but if it makes some folks feel better, then who cares? One would note however, that when Loving v Virginia was decided, no one seemed to feel the need to protect the churches from marrying interracial couples, or members of other races. Moreover, unlike country clubs, churches can't even lose their tax exempt status for being blatantly racist.
    because theres nothing in the good book against it DUH
    If you want to see my political views, check out my profile. i have them on my wall because there wasn't enough room in the info section.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #37  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,800
    Quote Originally Posted by jnkbortka View Post
    well NYC can go to hell. i lived there for 7 years and all i got from it is how to act like a black guy lol. the cost of living is as high as the gang violence.
    NYC is a great place to live. I've lived here for 14 of my 20 years. I lived in another state and have visited several others and outside of some of the Southern states there's no place I'd rather be. The grandeur of the South is the only place that is, to my mind, comparable with NYC.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #38  
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    11,361
    Quote Originally Posted by CaughtintheMiddle1990 View Post
    NYC is a great place to live. I've lived here for 14 of my 20 years. I lived in another state and have visited several others and outside of some of the Southern states there's no place I'd rather be.
    As Fran Leibowitz memorably said, "When you leave New York, you are astonished at how clean the rest of the world is. Clean is not enough." :p
    "Today, [the American voter] chooses his rulers as he buys bootleg whiskey, never knowing precisely what he is getting, only certain that it is not what it pretends to be." - H.L. Mencken
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #39  
    Senior Member Rebel Yell's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    South GA
    Posts
    5,181
    Nova, if you had asked me 10 years ago if I thought the government would dictate what kind of light bulb I had to buy, I'd probably laughed at you. If you had asked the average American 100 years ago if the government would have it's filthy hands in as many aspects of our lives as it does now, you would have been committed. Don't think for a second that the government (notice I didn't just say Dems) wouldn't jump at the first chance to get into the church. That's the final frontier.


    As far as reciting the 1st amendment, we are thought we were protected from being forced to purchase insurance.
    I feel that once a black fella has referred to white foks as "honky paleface devil white-trash cracker redneck Caspers," he's abdicated the right to get upset about the "N" word. But that's just me. -- Jim Goad
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #40  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    15,861
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    How many times do we have to do this? A photographic business is not a church and a photographer is not a priest. A photography business which offers its services to the public may not discriminate. Walgreen's can't refuse to develop pictures of customers due to their religious beliefs, Howard Johnson's can't refuse to rent rooms due to their religious beliefs, and the Jesus Saves Waffle House in Florence South Carolina cannot refuse to serve gay people due to their religious beliefs.


    Here is the relevant language from New York. It would not protect a discriminatory public accommodation- that has already been settled, it's illegal.


    "Notwithstanding any state, local or municipal law, rule, regulation, ordinance, or other provision of law to the contrary, a religious entity as defined under the education law or section two of the religious corporations law, or a corporation incorporated under the benevolent orders law or described in the benevolent orders law but formed under any other law of this state, or a not-for-profit corporation operated, supervised, or controlled by a religious corporation, or any employee thereof, being managed, directed, or supervised by or in conjunction with a religious corporation, benevolent order, or a not-for-profit corporation as described in this subdivision, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage.
    Thank you for opening this can of worms. Let me ask you: Does an exclusive restaurant have the right to deny service to someone who doesn't wear a jacket and tie or who doesn't dress appropriately? And in NY, aren't there clubs that the average person will not get in because they are not one of the beautiful people? Be careful how you answer.
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •