Really- why do you care? Should a Christian be able to refuse to allow Jews to be married in his meeting hall because he disapproves of Jews? Bigotry is bigotry. A bigot who refuses to sell milk to a Jew or Black or a Homosexual because he is a bigot and doesn't approve of Jews or Blacks or Homosexuals is wrong. I am always annoyed by this whole argument about whether people are born homosexuals or not- we are not 'born' with any religious faith- ultimately we all choose our religious faith, yet most people recognize that religious bigotry is wrong- and we know that refusal of service to someone because of their religious faith is illegal. That is why the argument about whether someone is 'born' gay or not is specious- regardless of why someone is 'gay' I have never met anyone who has chosen to be a homosexual- any more than I have met someone who has chosen to be a heterosexual- but I have met lots of people who have chosen to be Baptists or Muslims.
As far as I can tell they have the legal right to deny it based on it being used for a gay wedding ceremony. "Property owners and managers are subject to the federal Fair Housing Act, which prohibits "any preference, limitation, or discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin, or intention to make such preference, limitation or discrimination." Nothing about sexual orientation. Until the law is changed I don't think the lawsuit is going anywhere.
This case is in Iowa. In 2007 Iowa updated it's version of the civil rights act to specifically include sexual orientation and gender identity. Look up "Iowa Civil Rights Act of 1965" and you'll see the current version that applies. (I'd post a link, but that is difficult to do from my phone. )
It is not. People don't choose their sexuality. And nobody would want to be homosexual. Mainly because in many countries the least they face, are beatings. And in USA they face a lot of discrimination, and looking down by people. No one would choose that. Homosexuality is not a choice. A choice is hide your homosexuality or not. But nothing else. If homosexuality was a choice, many heterosexuals would become homosexuals, and I don't know any. And for example, I could become homosexual if I would like, and not. I cannot. I like women, and for more that I could try to feel attracted to men, I cannot. I was born heterosexual and I will die heterosexual. Like one of my friends was born homosexual and he will die homosexual.
It depends on the specifics but probably not. There are several factors that would make it inappropriate or even dangerous for them to do so and, significantly, being a member of a specific political group isn't a characteristic identified in the relevant discrimination law. If it were a rally that just happened to be run by white people, with no implicit political connotations, the dance troop would be on very thin ice refusing on the grounds on skin colour/race. That's a perfectly valid question though. Unlike a lot of people, I am not claiming it's a simple issue of fundamental principles (until they find themselves on the wrong side of the principle of course ) but one that needs consideration on a case-by-case basis in the context of the law in detail.
Good to know you're an expert on Christianity. I'm sure many look to you for the final word on all things "Christ-like". Something very apparent in all of your posts. ffs... Would love to see you attempt to actually back up that comment.
Exactly. I absolutely agree. As much as I would hate to see any business turn away blacks, "for being black", I do support the freedom of business owners to choose their clientele. People ignore the fact that this goes on in hundreds and hundreds of lines of work, and focus only on the current news story of the day. If these people feel they were wronged, then by all means scream it "loud and proud" as they claim to be. It will fade out fast, as it always does, and the business will do just fine. But forcing their way into places they aren't welcome does nothing but make them look bad. That said, I think as Christians, these business owners should have welcomed them while at the same time making it known that they are Christian. Manifesting a Christian attitude toward these people, that will stand out...compared to the media's version of "Christian"....(i.e. the bad examples they love to show on the news). Of course. Thing there is that many people support the business owners (this goes for any situation, not just this one) and will do what they can to support them. Even renting the hall for no real reason, as a show of support. Chik-Fil-A is a good example of that. While the gays were outside screaming terrible things... an equal amount of people were buying product... including many first time customers... as a show of support. Financially... a boycott by a minority group doesn't do much. And since it is usually based on something silly (in the case of CFA, just the owner's opinion)... it only ends up making the protesting group look stupid.
What many people fail to understand is that a Christian that has a certain set of beliefs would of course conduct their business in a way that follows the Bible, including not supporting any group/action/belief that goes against it. Should this couple be forced to rent their hall out for a NAMBLA convention ? Of course not, and no one here would disagree. And like homosexuals, that's a legitimate group with beliefs opposing the owners. But in certain cases they want to force the owners to bend over. So they then ask "what were these business owners expecting?".... they were expecting their belief in God to be noticed and challenged. The outcome here isn't an issue, because of course their business isn't in any risk. The success lies in the fact that they made their opinions known, and will garner support and new business because of it. Again, as a Christian I would have taken a different route, but they have every right to take the one they did.
This isnt discrimination based upon sexual orientation. This business owner would equally oppose two heterosexual men marrying. As the article states, The christian god doesnt limit marriage to men and women in order to keep homosexuals out of the institution of marriage but instead to include all who have the potential to become father and mother to their children. The ancient Romans didnt limit marriage to a man and a woman in order to exclude homosexuals. They celebrated homosexual behavior. They so limited marriage because-
Next to the Commandment that says "thou must allow homosexuals to party on your premises". ?! What a dumb question. Homosexuality is defined as wrong numerous times in the Bible. Are you saying if there isn't a specific Commandment about something, that what God says is irrelevant ? Have you even read the Bible ?
Oh, I suspect many bisexuals who finds themselves in a homosexual relationship choose to be homosexual. And those who find themselves in a heterosexual relationship choose to be heterosexual.
The bottom line is that one of the responsibilities of doing business in the state is to be non-discriminatory. It really is that simple. The state voted to include sexual orientation in their non-discrimination law. You would know that going into the business. That is part of the contract with the society we live in. There can be an argument for the role of government in this, I mean there is a man who wants to run for President who doesn't like the Civil Rights Act, but in this case the business violated a law. It would be the same as discriminating against a Christian group telling them that there can be no painting of Jesus or crosses brought into the place. As for the Chik-Fil-A thing, the ignorance of many of the supporters (and not a few of the protesters) was stunning. It was a lemming reaction we often see. The bottom line was Chik-Fil-A's leadership supports with profits an organization that includes people who want to round up gays in concentration camps. That publish lies about gay people to make them look like evil predators and act to disenfranchise gay people at every turn. Supporting that is evil plain and simple. It is also remarkably anti-Christian. People who stood up to support Chik-Fil-A were doing the exact opposite of what they thought they were doing. They were promoting the distortion of the gospel to use it for hate. - - - Updated - - - no they are still bisexual who have chosen to be with one person. Behavior does not equal orientation. When one understands that it is easier to understand most everything else.
Of course they are. I mean nowhere near as "protected" as homosexuals.... but who is, eh? The KKK are certainly legally protected/allowed to hold rallies and other assemblies.... like any other group on Earth.
Im not referring to their behavior. I am referring to their choice to identify as homosexual or heterosexual.
Well then they can choose to stop doing business, religious freedom does not allow you to violate the law. Probably not since that is not included in the law from my understanding. Can you tell me more about NAMBLA since I am not sure if the advocate simply changing law or actually violating it. Yes the law forces people to do things they might not like. I don't like sharing the road with drivers who drive 15 miles an hour. Can we do something about that? Can I run them off the road? ... not if the law says differently. - - - Updated - - - But that too doesn't change their orientation....
I don't think anyone was addressing the "incident" you are using to support your insult. The point is racism in general. Why do you always do that ? It's "you're". Bad grammar means insult-fail.... every time.
Of course they can. Ow. Way to insult the people you are attempting to defend. So you're saying there is something wrong with homosexuality, since "nobody would want to be homosexual" ? Please... elaborate....
If a business was started before the change in laws, why are they expected to hold up that "responsibility" ? Sure, you could whine that "legally they HAVE to!!"... but if you start a business under certain existing laws, then those are the laws you would expect to have to follow. This is all a non-story. Like every other gay outrage... it will fade shortly. The level of twist is astounding sometimes. Those angry liberal talking points failed when the story was news.... what good do you expect them to do now ? Yeah... and like those who were gay for a period of their life then realized later they weren't anymore... those are just the people that "pretended". Those who choose gaydom are frauds!! And so will all others who someday go the other way be. The group hates those that can choose their way out of it. They lessen the validity of "born that way".
Sounds like they are acting true to themselves, American hating MaO'Bama voting progressive neo-communist leftist losers and just plain ass hats.
