http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/f-...religion-business-owners-threatened-for-refus In yet another clear cut case of religious intolerance, a homosexual couple filed a legal complaint against a Christian couple. Their "right" to tie the knot at a particular location trumps religious freedom. And to top it off, other homosexuals are showing true class with comments of F this, F that this is where the left is heading where intolerance of religion is being pushed. excerpts A Christian couple is facing a state complaint, business cancellations, and vulgar, harassing, and threatening e-mail messages after refusing to rent out a business facility for a gay wedding. Dick and Betty Odgaard said they could not in good conscience allow a homosexual couple to use their business, the Görtz Haus Gallery, to conduct the ceremony itself. To us, [marriage] is a sacrament, Betty Odgaard said, that exists only between a man and woman. She told Billy Hallowell of The Blaze their rejection was totally a faith-based issue, adding the couple would be happy to serve the homosexuals in any other way, besides being the site on which they traded vows. As the story of their denial broke, frightening messages began filling up the Odgaard's inbox, the couple says. (*)(*)(*)(*) you, (*)(*)(*)(*) your God, (*)(*)(*)(*) your religion," said one message from an angry gay rights activist. The same writer enlarged upon his thoughts, adding, You are mean, rude, selfish, mother(*)(*)(*)(*)er racist sons of (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)es from hell. I wonder if this was a Muslim couple if the state would even take the homosexuals seriously or simply told them to stop sniveling and book a different location. Clearly, there is a war against Christians being waged by the left. Whether or not you are overtly religious you must find this troubling. Note to moderating staff please notice the ; in between the 2 thoughts so despite the anticipated complaints you will receive from some, the title is absolutely correct as the data in the article confirms and the ; separates 2 thoughts which is a common practice within the printed media
it would seem that is incorrect when they are Christians. The war is against Christianity and for some reason, it appears that the 2008 election emboldened the movement
yes, those evil and nasty Christian zealots should be ashamed of themselves. They should discard tradition and values and embrace the new secular movement. All hail big govt.
Well now they know how it feels to be ridiculed and persecuted just as gays still are. - - - Updated - - - No they do not.
That's a lie, I mean no offense, but anyone that's been looking can see they are vindictive, rude, and utterly without respect for anyone that isn't 'them', I mean that as a movement, not as individuals... Therein lies the biggest problems with the alphabet deviants, they refuse to police their own, so when something like this happens it builds resentment and dislike. There are plenty of decent folks that are of the alphabet deviants, but since they refuse to even chastise their own they bring scorn upon themselves. A little respect could go a long way... - - - Updated - - - The alphabet deviants have been persecuting everyone else, they got their 'voice' but they just don't shut up...
This isn't discrimination against Christianity. If the owners weren't Christian but refused the gay marriage on personal moral grounds, it would still be illegal. If the owners were homosexual and refused the marriage of a Christian couple because they're Christian, it would still be illegal. And yes, if it had been a Muslim couple refusing the gay marriage, it would still be illegal. This isn't about anything trumping religious freedom, it's about everyone's personal freedom trumping some rights of anyone who brings a business in to the public market. There is an element of balance of course but it has been deemed by a series of democratically elected governments that if you choose to open a business to the public, there are a number of grounds on which you can't discriminate against customers, including race, religion and sexual orientation. You're entitled to dislike this fact, you could even campaign to change the law but claiming the law in itself is discriminating against Christians is simply wrong. The offensive messages they received are also very wrong but are hardly unique to this kind of situation unfortunately. I don't think there can be a conflict raised in the media that won't trigger this kind of response. None of it impacts the fundamental rights and wrongs of the dispute itself.
Where is the freedom in all that? Unlike the kneelers in the UK, the USA is about freedom and individual liberties. If one does not want to do business with another, for whatever reason, why should the government get involved? That is not conducive to what our Founders' gave us...
Do you have a reference for a law that makes it illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation? The references I find indicate that there is no such law at a federal level and few states have such laws that apply to anything other than workplace discrimination.
Why do you think people should be forced to work when they don't want too? Should private black universities be forces to host KKK rallies? Should they be forced to serve them?
Someone is going to loose some level of freedom by definition. Any time two people want contradictory things it's clearly inevitable. The law bases the necessary compromise on (in very simple terms) whichever side is running a business. Some people seem to want to base it on whichever side is (or claims to be) Christian. Because of the social harm widespread discrimination can bring. Whole classes of people being treated as second class citizens (or worse) is not a good thing and there's no reason to assume it wouldn't happen since it did extensively in the past (and still does to an extent). Maybe your founders weren't always right.
No, but the article clearly suggests such a law exist at the state level; "The couple quickly filed a legal complaint before the Iowa Human Rights Commission, saying that state law forbids any public venue from denying the use of its premises on the basis of sexual orientation."; http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/f-...religion-business-owners-threatened-for-refus I can't see the case getting even this far if the law didn't exist at all, though there could obviously be disagreements on the details. My point isn't really about the law as it stands in any given jurisdiction anyway, but moral principals and double-standards.
Please don't butcher my statements, either quote it all or none, just a pet peeve... Nobody has to 'lose' freedom, its there, by definition one should be able to choose which aspects of society they accept or not, the real point being there are aspects one can reject, and have no guilt, no consequences for doing so, that would be freedom... The alphabet sexual deviants basically appear to have waged a war on Christianity, probably because Christianity refuses to accept them, but really hasn't been all that hostile towards them in any civilized society in the last 100 years or so... Discrimination happens everyday, all the time, whether intentional or not, there is no avoiding it, but trying to protect this group or that will only lead to conflict and strife, which is best avoided. If we all want to be equal we must accept that. It starts with ourselves as individuals, can we accept that we won't be able to shop at store X or drink at pub Y? I'm ok with that, I've been plenty of places where it was obvious I wasn't wanted, so I accepted it and moved on, why is that so hard for others? Not everyone is going to like everyone else, why try to force the issue? It simply builds strife and discomfort. Trust me, if its just discomfort, that's only the beginning, because it only gets worse from there, that's where real hate starts. Been there, and hate is too much for me, way too much effort... I hate nobody now, but I did, for a while, but I got over it, as we all can, so long as we have better things in mind, like actual freedom and actual equality... The Founders' were wrong about lots of things, but they were so freaking brilliant they gave us a solution to all the problems they left behind, the Constitutional Amendment process, I wish I could have had one day with any of them, to fully realize their brilliance...
Christians are resisting the new religion of the Left- secular humanist socialism also known as cultural Marxism.
Homosexuals assault elderly Christian woman. [video=youtube;15rO7uWnNE8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15rO7uWnNE8[/video]
Of course someone is going to loose freedom - one person wants the freedom to marry in the same venues at heterosexuals and another person wants the freedom to run a marriage venues only open to heterosexuals. You can't have both those things at the same time. The only question is where you strike the compromise (or who gets stung up first). There is no more (or less) a war on Christianity than there is a war on homosexuality. At the extremes, you're all as bad as each other but in the mainstream, you all get on just fine - heck, there are plenty on Christian homosexuals after all. Discrimination is inevitable but I disagree that laws aimed at reducing it are necessarily divisive. They can certainly be spun to create division, claiming that they're about protecting specific groups. The fact is that these laws generally don't refer to specific groups. They're against discrimination on grounds of sexuality, not protecting homosexuals or discrimination on grounds of religion, not protecting Christians. The only reason specific groups are identified is that they're the ones most commonly discriminated against and people only complain about specific groups being protected because they want to discriminate against those groups. The only reasons laws like this will create hate is if the people who already hate are permitted to control the narrative. This is about stamping down on the hateful extremists (from any direction) and the rational amongst us reaching sensible compromises. Most places, including most places in the USA, are managing to do that just fine.
Don Glock: So apparently there are violent jerks in this world who are also gay. Is that the point you're trying to make?
When are the "Brave Gay Guevaras" going to go AFTER ISLAM,which still prescribes DEATH as the "remedy" for homosexuality?
It would appear that the business was not marrying the couple, but rather renting a facility. http://www.kcci.com/news/central-io...ple/-/9357080/21359294/-/w3wa0tz/-/index.html In 2007 Iowa passed a law that states that folks can not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation on public accommodations. http://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights_hiv...ation-based-sexual-orientation-and-gender-ide
Na, Gays are merely useful idiots, slaves of progressive communists, who are attempting to destroy America, and the American dream.
Those America-destroying progressive communists are really everywhere. Thanks for the laugh. You're right, I didn't see that. Although that other post said basically the same as yours.
