Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19
  1. #1 The Door Better Swing Both Ways 
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16,291
    We're all familiar with the cases where gay couples wanted Christian businesses to service their weddings and made the courts force them into doing so. Well, what if the shoe were on the other foot? Someone posted this on Facebook yesterday that puts the issue into perspective. Keep in mind, when the passage refers to WBC they're referring to the Westboro Baptist Bhurch:

    Scenario: The leader of the WBC walks into a local packaging and mailing store franchise owned by Robert and Frank Fitzpatrick, a gay couple who have been together for years and were married as soon as it was legal in their state, and who have owned the franchise store they run for many years as an integral part of the surrounding community.

    The leader of the WBC is in town to run a large protest at a gay wedding at a local church and orders several large signs and a banner with the usual WBC slogans. Robert and Frank refuse to service the leader of the WBC and recommend another place he can go to have his signs made.

    Was that within the rights of Frank and Robert to refuse service? Does the leader of the WBC have grounds for a lawsuit for religious discrimination?
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Constitutionally speaking, WBC has more rights than the gay couple does. They can't refuse him service without risking a lawsuit.

    WBC has been challenged before.

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...030304124.html


    WBC in my opinion has more constitutional rights than the gay couple because they're protected by the first amendment. I personally think that the people who didn't want to use their services to participate in gay weddings should have been protected.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    CU Royalty JB's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    8,088
    Someone was listening to Medved yesterday.

    He also put out a scenario if a Muslim florist could refuse to make a large Star of David flower arrangement for a Jewish wedding.
    Be Not Afraid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Power CUer noonwitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Warren, MI
    Posts
    12,859
    The company would not have any problem finding legal reasons to refuse WBC's order, because WBC frequently violates community standards as far as indecent language is concerned.


    If WBC just wants a bunch of stuff printed with their name alone on it, and a company refused, then they would have a case the same way a gay couple would if a bakery refused to make them a wedding cake that had the two men's names on it. But if they want to force a company to print merchandise that says "God hates fags", the business could claim that the use of the term "fags" is considered indecent language.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16,291
    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    Constitutionally speaking, WBC has more rights than the gay couple does. They can't refuse him service without risking a lawsuit.

    WBC has been challenged before.

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...030304124.html


    WBC in my opinion has more constitutional rights than the gay couple because they're protected by the first amendment. I personally think that the people who didn't want to use their services to participate in gay weddings should have been protected.
    What constitutional rights do WBC get that gays don't get? Kindly list them here. I'll wait.
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Resident Grandpa marv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Shell Knob, MO
    Posts
    3,035
    A court could rule that WBC's protests might be more political than religious given past protests. OTOH, it's been ruled that US flag burning is "free speech".

    Where the hell have this nation's senses been for the past half century...

    http://members.socket.net/~mcruzan/images/allen-west.jpg

    Four boxes keep us free: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.

    THIS POST WILL BE MONITORED BY THE NSA
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Senior Member Apache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Tree rats are watching you
    Posts
    7,050
    Quote Originally Posted by noonwitch View Post
    But if they want to force a company to print merchandise that says "God hates fags", the business could claim that the use of the term "fags" is considered indecent language.
    Well PC terminology isn't the law... and the point is still valid. Held to the same standards they've pressed for and being intellectually honest the gay couple should be forced, by law, to produced the goods or face the same penalties....


    (Not that I agree with forcing any business to do anything that they disagree with. However, fair is fair. Right?)
    Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.
    Ronald Reagan

    We could say they are spending like drunken sailors. That would be unfair to drunken sailors, they're spending their OWN money.
    Ronald Reagan

    R.I.P. Crockspot
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by JB View Post
    Someone was listening to Medved yesterday.

    He also put out a scenario if a Muslim florist could refuse to make a large Star of David flower arrangement for a Jewish wedding.
    In theory, that should be protected in states trying to throw in a law where one can discriminate based on religious reasons.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    What constitutional rights do WBC get that gays don't get? Kindly list them here. I'll wait.
    Westboro Baptist Church is claiming that they are doing this for their religion's sake. That's protected by the first amendment. Gay couples do not have that to claim in most cases. They're just saying that they should not be refused service for being gay.

    Now, there are some churches for gay marriage who are doing their own thing. I suppose if the same sex couple came from one of those churches, they could then claim religious freedom against the WBC.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16,291
    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    Westboro Baptist Church is claiming that they are doing this for their religion's sake. That's protected by the first amendment. Gay couples do not have that to claim in most cases. They're just saying that they should not be refused service for being gay.

    Now, there are some churches for gay marriage who are doing their own thing. I suppose if the same sex couple came from one of those churches, they could then claim religious freedom against the WBC.
    Are you saying that being gay is an unrecognized religion? If not, gays have 1st amendment protection like everyone else. Now kindly list the constitutional rights afforded to Phelps' gang that gays do not get. I'm still waiting.
    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
  •