Thread: The Door Better Swing Both Ways
#1 The Door Better Swing Both Ways02-26-2014, 12:15 PM
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.
02-26-2014, 12:47 PM
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.
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.Human lives matter.
02-26-2014, 12:54 PM
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.
02-26-2014, 01:11 PM
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.
02-26-2014, 01:31 PM
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...
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
02-26-2014, 01:55 PM
(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.
We could say they are spending like drunken sailors. That would be unfair to drunken sailors, they're spending their OWN money.
02-26-2014, 05:01 PM
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.Human lives matter.
02-26-2014, 07:56 PMThe Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|