Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Salty, Aug 30, 2014.
This couple occasionally open their Albany-area home for weddings.
The owners should appeal the verdict. You should not be able to force private businesses to serve sodomite functions.
I keep telling folks....there's coming a day when the LGBT folks are gonna start suing churches and pastors who won't "marry" them. Oh they told everyone on NPR that they would never do it, but they'll do it. Just give it time.
Edit: and this is one minister that will NEVER perform a so-called "same-s3x marriage". They can put me in jail, I'll NEVER do it.
If you engage in public business...well, I don't think that they have a chance of winning an appeal. It'd be more wasted money on their part. I'd consider it money well spent for standing on what I believe. But if they don't want to "abide by the rules," then they should not be open to the public. And that's another issue that isn't being spoken about. When we engage in business...when we seek that profit from the public...we are bound to an extent by these laws. If it were me, I'd have done the same thing...and would have to pay a fine (which, BTW, I couldn't pay...being me and all).
Unfortunately, if you're gonna declare yourself a "for profit," then you're declaring that you're gonna abide by both state and federal guidelines for businesses--and that includes not discriminating for any reason. I'm not saying that I agree with it.
Now, if you forego your for-profit status, and are willing to allow people to use your personal property, and they're willing to "gift" you or donate to you, then that's a different story.
Ewwwwww....sodimite....how very ewwwww.
Sounds like people with religious convictions against homosexuality will not be able to run many types of businesses unless they compromise their beliefs. This sounds like discrimination.
It sounds like discrimination, but the ACLU folks would say it is simply applying tolerance and diversity according to the laws that govern equal opportunity for all!
We are a very small congregation. Most Primitive Baptist churches are. Although we have hundreds of baptized members (all PB churches do), most have passed on to glory, moved on to other states, and some have stopped coming to church for one reason or another, and so, mostly we have at most 25 to 40 attendees every Sunday, although there are a couple, maybe three, churches, in the southeast who still have over 50 regular attendees.
25, 40, or over 50, even near 100, the fact is that everyone knows everyone, and in many cases, churches are made up of kin, or near of kin.
I have often preached, and warned, that the day is coming, when somebody we don't know, might be sitting there finding out what is being preached from the pulpit, and patiently, like a lion in the bush, wait for that opportune time when the preacher speaks on the sin of sodomy and same-6 relationships, and then the lion pounces.
But the church will know from which direction the ambush came, not that it should deter a faithful preacher from preaching the whole counsel of God. In fact, unlike in bigger congregations where one can sit surreptitiously in a corner and just record or listen, in smaller congregations like ours, the ambusher can be immediately forced out with a little 'hello, glad you could come to our service today....will you join us for lunch ?" and go on from there.
We will become just like The People's Republic of Canada.
Edit: Biblical preaching will be "hate speech" and if you're going to preach on certain sins, your congregation will have to sign waivers.
I am having a difficult time understanding how sexual practices constitute a protected class of rights. It is self-evident that sodomites do not believe in freedom of conscience, and like Islamic jihadists, they are willing to resort to violence and terror and illegal recording of telephone conversations.
Just remember that it's ole slew-foot behind such dastardly policies, and he has a whole lot of ready & willing minions to do his bidding.
I remember a few years ago a friend of mine stopped at a store to buy a soda. They would not serve him because they held racist convictions (my friend was not a white guy, but he found himself in Bubba's quick stop). I suppose if he had sued (he probably would have won) they would have felt like they were being discriminated against because of their convictions.
A private business shouldn't be forced to do business with anyone just because they might get their feelings hurt.
My friend didn't really get his feelings hurt because they wouldn't serve him because of the color of his skin. He was shocked because he didn't think that sort of racism was still around (but this was a country store in the middle of nowhere). We laughed it off, but I know he felt awkward and offended (not "hurt feelings"...racism is probably a deeper evil than that).
I am not, BTW, linking the topic of the OP with racism...only in that doing business with the public carries, perhaps unfortunately, an obligation to not discriminate based on the customer (you are selling something, not picking out of the public who to sell to). Discrimination is discrimination when it comes to public businesses.
You see, I went into a car dealership and ordered a pizza and they said that they didn't sell pizzas but only cars. I told them that they were racist and wouldn't sell me a pizza just because I posted on the Baptist Board. My lawyer thinks that I will own the car dealership pretty soon and that I will never have to work again a day in my life.
We had the experience of not being served at McDonald's. The workers actually walked to the back and we were standing there until one finally yelled that nobody was going to come up. Everyone with me was a teen, but the one male is 6' 4" so maybe that looked intimidating? Dunno. (black, white, Asian, middle eastern all represented)
We just went to Wendy's.
the person most upset was hubby, and he wasn't even there.
Ah well. Such is life. But it didn't occur to me to sue. We still got dinner. Another place just got our money - one that wasn't jerky to us and I figure that's a good thing.
As far as discrimination on sexual preference, the case being discussed is, and people will agree to that when hetero's aren't served. But since it IS a religious belief, historically held to via Holy Scripture in the religion of our Fathers, shouldn't itbe protected?