I rarely start threads at all. And I don't go around looking for things to be outraged about. There are a number of posters here who obsessively start threads dealing with homosexuals- I leave it to them to start the thread denouncing the treatment of gays in Muslim countries- I will be glad to denounce that treatment. And for the record- yeah- most Muslim countries treat homosexuals horribly and I have no problem denouncing that.
But it doesn't. If the couple were running a church, and their religious doctrine said that they should discriminate- heck just like Catholic Churchs will not(I believe) marry a non-catholic couple, they could discriminate against gays, jews, blacks, born agains, Muslims- what ever. But if a person runs a business in Iowa, they are subject to the Iowa Civil Rights Act- and they can't discriminate. They can avoid this conflict with their religious beliefs by choosing not to do business.
How about discriminating because they want to perform a marriage ceremony between two people of the same sex? NOT because they are "gay", but instead because they want to perform a marriage ceremony contrary to their christian beliefs. They would do the same thing if it was two heterosexual men who wanted to marry. Or if it was a ceremonial offering of the young virgin bride to lucifer. Its contrary to their beliefs and I dont think our government has any business imposing upon them by law an obligation to do so.
I understand what you think and what you want, but they cannot claim a religious exemption when they are not running a religious institution. They are running a business- and they can't discriminate against blacks or jews or homosexuals even if their religious beliefs say that they should. Heck just like a Muslim taxi cab driver couldn't chose to not pick up a woman rider because she was not wearing a burqa. If you don't agree, well move to Iowa and work to have the law changed.
Then why complain about the law suit.......oh that is right, right wing protesters don't think the consequences apply to them. You should read it. True. They can be sued every day. No, if you do something and it becomes illegal then you shouldn't do it anymore. No just proves you can't talk intelligently about more than one thing. By looking like a horse's ass...spouting off about things you don't know much about. That would be stupid....I am just pointing out that you didn't back up what you said....I am sorry you got mad....seems to me that you should just relax and explain why you are advocating bigots break the law instead of giving up their bigotry. Yes because apparently you don't seem to care when you look silly. - - - Updated - - - very true but how is this stopping them from exercising their religion. Do tell?
And they have full right to exercise their religion- if doing business under the laws of Iowa conflicts with their religious beliefs, then they shouldn't be doing business in Iowa. Just because I claim that my religious beliefs mean that I as a doctor don't have to treat Muslims, doesn't mean that I will not be obligated by law to treat everyone equally.
so now the gays dictate policy for business owners? They can tell religion what they must do in order to be a religion? Who put the gays in charge?
You must have jumped in late to this thread. The State of Iowa dictates 'policy' to business owners, when it comes to whom they cannot discriminate against. They can't choose to deny their services to blacks, jews, Catholics and homosexuals among others.
.....if businesses are privately owned, then they all need to shut down for 1- 4 weeks. Then let the gays come back to the bargaining table........See who dictates to whom.
You must have jumped in late to this thread. The State of Iowa dictates 'policy' to business owners, when it comes to whom they cannot discriminate against. They can't choose to deny their services to blacks, jews, Catholics and homosexuals among others. - - - Updated - - - And it doesn't contradict christian doctrine for a christian to lease their property to a homosexual couple to get married. I am quite confident Jesus never forbade that.
If efforts focused on boycotting rather than litigation, I think they would be more successful. But since anti-discriminatory laws are the way things are, it makes more sense for gay people to pursue litigation. If such laws did not exists (for any group, including race), you would probably have a lot more effort in boycotts and raising awareness of businesses that were either gay-friendly or not. You'd have a much bigger campaign to change the way people think rather than the way the law is enforced. I've never really eaten at CFA, and I probably never will. If the owner was a huge gay rights supporter I might go more often, but I don't think a mass boycott makes much sense. The restaurants still serve everyone, and if I boycotted everyone who I disagreed with on certain issues I probably wouldn't have anywhere to shop. Agreed. I think the business owners are ignorant (to put it bluntly), but I don't think the law should force people to associate with each other (aside from government of course, which cannot discriminate against citizens it must serve equally). That seems to do more harm than good.
They aren't discriminating because they are "homosexuals". They would equally exclude them if it was two heterosexual men who wanted to marry. AND like I said, the "free exercise" of religion is an individual right not limited to "institution"s
yes they are discriminating against them because they are homosexuals. But I look forward to the couple trying to make that claim in court. I understand what you think and what you want, but they cannot claim a religious exemption when they are not running a religious institution. They are running a business- and they can't discriminate against blacks or jews or homosexuals even if their religious beliefs say that they should.
Oh stop. It's obvious the issue is with homosexuals, since they are the ones who actually want to marry the same sex. They would exclude two straight men for the same anti-homosexual reason, even though they are straight.
So now you speak for Jesus.............ain't that a hoot. I bet He's proud of that statement.................. You forget one thing. If enough people got behind the notion to shut down their businesses, the State suffers from lack of revenue. We are not in business to support the government. Some seem to forget that. Just think of it...going Gault to prove a point. Not much the state could do if everyone shut down for a week. Kind of like a strike..........
Agreed. It was argued that Obamacare was un constitutional in that the federal government had no authority to compel someone to purchase Insurance from a private company. The supreme court decision argued that people aren't compelled to purchase insurance by the penalty for those who don't purchase insurance because the penalty isn't a penalty, and is instead just another tax. Had the plaintiffs been able to argue that the penalty is in fact a penalty, the individual mandate was unconstitutional in that the government simply doesn't have the authority to compel individuals to purchase a service from a private company. I don't think government has the constitutional authority to compel an individual to sell a service, or rent their building to a private individual. ESPECIALLY when it conflicts with their free exercise of religion
Homosexualists who viciously attack conservative heterosexuals often secretly desire to become conservative heterosexuals.
If I believed that Jesus was still around, I like to think that he would be. Jesus had a real problem with adulterers of any persuasion, but is never recorded once in the Bible mentioning homosexuals. Yeah reminds me of the people who said that all we had to do is stop paying taxes to the Federal Government. The IRS didn't have to arrest everyone- just the first ones. I imagine though that it would be a heck of promotion for a business- "I am shutting down for a week because I don't think its fair that I can't discriminate against homosexuals or blacks or jews or catholics or anyone else I want to discriminate against" Winning PR campaign that.
no you missed the whole point. Shut down because it is your business, not the government's. To establish business as a private enterprises, then have rules and regulations to only operate as a government approved business, violates and discourages new businesses. That's the whole concept behind free enterprise. it has nothing to do with taxes. It has everything to do with protesting government controlled businesses. I what I propose is using the same tactics in reverse. Rather than pander to the government, just shut it down. Enough businesses shut down, there will be reform. The government does not have the Right to intervene in anyone's private business or how's it's conducted. It just simply gave itself the ability to do so. It destroys free enterprise and establishes the ol' company store. Do business our way or else. That's not free enterprise. It was okay when the gay crowd boycotted Chic filet, but it's not ok when it's done in reverse, eh?
