Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Frazzled wrote:

How aboout a little more of the golden rule and less religion bashing please?

Well thats not gonna happen.

Except for the church of the Great Wienie... Not sure if it's because we all live in fear of it, or we have that much respect and admiration for it

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

How aboout a little more of the golden rule and less religion bashing please?

Well thats not gonna happen.

Except for the church of the Great Wienie... Not sure if it's because we all live in fear of it, or we have that much respect and admiration for it

Thats because we take all comers (except cat people), and our guiding mantra "The Way of the Wienie" is truly the work of Dog.

So I never got an answer in the last related thread.

Where does the clause pasted above every business I go into "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" end and it becomes discrimination?

It ends when they discriminate.

I am not aware of any state law that states "discrimination is illegal unless they totes got a sign up".

I think it comes down to (not specifically in this case perhaps)


but where does someones right to be gay stop, and somones right to practice their religion begin?

They are sometimes at odds, and, to myself, recently it seems like the right to be gay defacto trumps the right to religion.

One you can choose to be. It's really not that difficult.

And that's the polite post.

 easysauce wrote:

They are sometimes at odds, and, to myself, recently it seems like the right to be gay defacto trumps the right to religion.

Or that the right to not be discriminated against defacto trumps the right to discriminate against others.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
So I never got an answer in the last related thread.

Where does the clause pasted above every business I go into "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" end and it becomes discrimination?

The sign can refer to abusive people, those that treat a business as a hangout, in the case of a game store I went to, they would boot people who were unhygenic, that kind of thing. As far as I know, the business cannot boot people based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

Relapse wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
So I never got an answer in the last related thread.

Where does the clause pasted above every business I go into "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" end and it becomes discrimination?

The sign can refer to abusive people, those that treat a business as a hangout, in the case of a game store I went to, they would boot people who were unhygenic, that kind of thing. As far as I know, the business cannot boot people based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

This exactly. It's a bit of a safety if someone puts up a fuss about being kicked out.

 d-usa wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

They are sometimes at odds, and, to myself, recently it seems like the right to be gay defacto trumps the right to religion.

Or that the right to not be discriminated against defacto trumps the right to discriminate against others.

its discrimanatory both ways there son, but nice try.

 easysauce wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

They are sometimes at odds, and, to myself, recently it seems like the right to be gay defacto trumps the right to religion.

Or that the right to not be discriminated against defacto trumps the right to discriminate against others.

its discrimanatory both ways there son, but nice try

Forcing someone to comply with state laws so that they get the benefits of state laws is not discrimination, no matter how hard you wish that it were so.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
One you can choose to be. It's really not that difficult.

And that's the polite post.

thats totally unrelated,
regardless of choice in the matter, you have a right to religion and a right to your own sexuality.

when the two end up in conflict, defaulting to one of the other always leaves someone left out, even if discriminating against religion is "in stye" as it were.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

They are sometimes at odds, and, to myself, recently it seems like the right to be gay defacto trumps the right to religion.

Or that the right to not be discriminated against defacto trumps the right to discriminate against others.

its discrimanatory both ways there son, but nice try

Forcing someone to comply with state laws so that they get the benefits of state laws is not discrimination, no matter how hard you wish that it were so.

its like you dont even read the posts... did you miss the part of my quote you cut out where I stated in THIS SPECIFIC CASE its not applicable?


its called having a discussion for petes sake, I brought up the conflict between religious rights and sexual ones to be discussed.

If being able to only marry straight couples is such a huge matter of integrity for these ministers, why not just give up on the whole 'for profit' bit and run their service how they like?

 easysauce wrote:


its like you dont even read the posts... did you miss the part of my quote you cut out where I stated in THIS SPECIFIC CASE its not applicable?

Awesome. Good thing that I'm not just talking about THIS SPECIFIC CASE.

I'm talking about EVERY SINGLE CASE in which someone decides to take advantage of state laws to get a license, take advantage of state laws to form a business to get legal protections by separating their business from themselves, take advantage of state laws to get tax benefits, take advantage of state funded infrastructures to make money only to then turn around and decide that all over sudden state laws should no longer apply to them.

Want the benefit of the state, follow the laws of the state. That is in no way shape or form an attack on my religion.

I'm licensed by the State of Oklahoma to practice the full scope of Nursing. I don't get to decide that I don't want to take care of my patient because he is gay. I don't get to decide that I don't want to take care of my patient because he is Muslim. I don't get to decide that I don't want to take care of my patient because they had premarital sex. I don't get to decide not to take care of my patient because they are a drug abuser. I take my state issued license and I provide the same service to anyone even if their lifestyle conflicts with my religious beliefs.

Country be in a jam if those who are legal to officiate wedding authorised by the state just stops doing wedding's period for EVERYONE
Justice of the Peace is swamped and additional funds for the state WOOT

Both sides WIN

 d-usa wrote:
It ends when they discriminate.

I am not aware of any state law that states "discrimination is illegal unless they totes got a sign up".

I believe that it would end when a business owner/operator says "but" or "because" as an example "We do perform weddings, but not for people like you" or "you need to leave, because"

There is of course, a caveat to that, because "we do perform weddings, but we're booked on the weekend you're asking for" or "you need to leave, because you have no shirt on" are valid reasons to turn down a business transaction.

It pretty much fails when people try to treat is as a "do whatever I want and get away with it" sign.

I see a new cruise liner business......Traditional/Same Sex Wedding Cruise, marriage by Captain

It would depend on the laws of whatever place they are anchored at wouldn't it? Or does it depend on place of registry?

I could see nations that rely on tourism dollars to legalize it as it becomes legal in more states in the US though.

 d-usa wrote:
It would depend on the laws of whatever place they are anchored at wouldn't it? Or does it depend on place of registry?

I'm no lawyer, but I do believe that cruise ships fall under the laws of their "home nation", however actions that happen off the ship are subject to whatever land they are on. (ie, Greece or Germany, Jamaica, etc)

International water

Edit

Bah

More restrictive then typical marriage license in the US but ports that recognize same sex marriage can do them but the State may not recognize the license
Though I do know a certain federal agency that does ignore same sex marriage laws

The minister has the right to move their business to a state where same-sex marriages are still not legal...otherwise, he should STFU and obey the law of the land in which he hangs his plaque/shingle/certificate or business license.

In this case, the town in question has an anti-discrimination ordinance that requires his compliance. He can just move outside the city-limits and preach whatever form of hate-bile he wishes.

Since the OP is from Fox, here's another take on the situation:
http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/how_many_lies_is_the_religious_right_willing_to_tell_in_the_idaho_for_profit_wedding_chapel_story

Apparently not the only town in Idaho to pass such an ordinance.
http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/fifth-idaho-city-passes-non-discrimination-ordinance

Interesting article here with actual quotes from people in the town:
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/jun/05/dozens-speak-cda-council-meeting-discrimination-la/

Gookin said discrimination in any form is wrong, and this change reflects existing protections based on race, creed, color and national origin.

“I don’t think we can actually legislate from the Bible up here,” he said.

Pretty much sums up my thoughts.

Councilwoman Deanna Goodlander said she does see parallels to North Idaho’s past struggles with white supremacists operating in the area.

“Human rights are human rights, period,” Goodlander said. “Coeur d’Alene has stood against hate – strong stances against hate.”

“We do have to send the message that intolerance does not belong in Coeur d’Alene,” she added.

 Jihadin wrote:
International water

Yeah, that's why I didn't know if it has to follow the law of the country of registry for the ship while in international, and/or the country of whatever water they are floating in when they are near a stop.

More restrictive then typical marriage license in the US but ports that recognize same sex marriage can do them but the State may not recognize the license
Though I do know a certain federal agency that does ignore same sex marriage laws

Which makes me wonder how legalization here will affect legalization in cruise destination. If more people would actually benefit (and would be more likely to spend money on a cruise wedding with the whole family and friends coming along) the tourism dollars might cause a change there.

Jesus. The new civil rights movement dot com? You're gonna cite that?

Facepalm.

Additionally, they're not preaching any "hate bile". In fact, they aren't preaching at all.

Honestly, I hope they have plenty saved for retirement and close. Tell the city to feth right off.

I don't care one way or another as long as same sex couple (married) couples do not get an advantage over traditional marriage couples

So if a Justice of the Peace says he/she cannot do a same sex marriage then they can sue the state right for Discrimination right

 cincydooley wrote:
Jesus. The new civil rights movement dot com? You're gonna cite that?

Facepalm.

Additionally, they're not preaching any "hate bile". In fact, they aren't preaching at all.

Honestly, I hope they have plenty saved for retirement and close. Tell the city to feth right off.

Nice, focus on my hyperbole and ignore the salient point that if his morals are so against the prevailing morals of the community in which he lives, it's his problem, not the community's.

City Councilman Mike Kennedy sponsored the ordinance, which is modeled after one adopted in Boise last year. It seeks to protect gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people from discrimination in housing, employment and public accommodations.

The Idaho Legislature has spurned attempts each of the past seven years to add the words “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the state’s Human Rights Act, which now bans discrimination on the basis of race, sex, color, national origin, religion, age or disability.

In response, some cities have taken up the issue, beginning with Sandpoint in December 2011. Boise, Moscow and Ketchum followed with similar laws.

 agnosto wrote:


Nice, focus on my hyperbole and ignore the salient point that if his morals are so against the prevailing morals of the community in which he lives, it's his problem, not the community's.

You're the one who offered the ridiculous comment about "hate-bile," not me.

And like I said, they're not even preaching. At all.

 cincydooley wrote:

 agnosto wrote:


Nice, focus on my hyperbole and ignore the salient point that if his morals are so against the prevailing morals of the community in which he lives, it's his problem, not the community's.

You're the one who offered the ridiculous comment about "hate-bile," not me.

And like I said, they're not even preaching. At all.

And still ignoring the point.

In related news, the pastors in question have decided to sue the town; to which the city attorney had this to say:

But according to Coeur d'Alene City Attorney Michael Gridley, the suit filed against the city has no grounds, since Hitching Post filed for religious corporation status with the secretary of state as a religious institution Oct. 6, exempting it from the nondiscrimination standard to which for-profit companies are held.

"I want to be clear that absent a change in the city's anti-discrimination ordinance or other applicable state or federal law, the city will not prosecute legitimate, nonprofit religious corporations, associations, educational institutions or societies or other exempt organizations or anyone else as a result of their lawful exercise of their First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and religion," wrote Gridley in a memo to David Cortman of Alliance Defending Freedom.

"I believe that given the current facts, your clients' lawsuit is premature and not ripe for adjudication. As such, I would ask that you review this letter with your clients and urge them to dismiss their Iawsuit before any more time and resources are expended," he wrote.

http://www.boiseweekly.com/CityDesk/archives/2014/10/21/coeur-dalene-responds-to-chapel-lawsuit-over-nondiscrimination-ordinance

 Jihadin wrote:
International water

First they gays wanted to be in the military, then they wanted to be married and next, they'll want to bet on monkey knife-fights.

 Ouze wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
International water

First they gays wanted to be in the military, then they wanted to be married and next, they'll want to bet on monkey knife-fights.

It's a slippery slope, bro. Everything is happening just like Lewis Black said it would.