Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:Yep, I asserted something similar in one of my posts earlier in this thread....

 

this thread makes me curious what your age is. would you be willing to answer that?

Quote:this thread makes me curious what your age is. would you be willing to answer that?

 

why does it matter? 

Quote:why does it matter? 

 

its an interesting topic and generally the older generations have similar opinions to yours.

its somewhat of an antiquated stance to take so i was curious what your age was.

Quote:its an interesting topic and generally the older generations have similar opinions to yours.

its somewhat of an antiquated stance to take so i was curious what your age was.

 

Thats the problem with a lot of the younger people right there. They assume just because an older person thinks a certain way, that they are right and older person is wrong. They label everything older as antiquated and while true in some cases, its not true for things like discipline, yet, look around, thats exactly how it is nowadays. 

 

What exactly is "antiquated" about my views on this topic? I've stated time and time again, I am FOR equality., But just as flsportsgod, me and a few others suggested, mere equality isn't good enough is it?....That was only a stepping stone. As typical with a democrat/ liberal, they'll claim they only want X but once they get X they want Y & Z and every other letter as well. 

 

Or is it the morality of it all??. Is morality now antiquated? LOL.....or God/ religion? Antiquated, right?.... 

 

I feel bad for the younger generation/ most of the liberal/ democrats, I really do. 

 

They really are trying to rewrite the rules to suit man. Thats been tried before, its being tried now, and I'm sure it will be tried again in the future....it usually doesn't end well for man. 

Quote:Thats the problem with a lot of the younger people right there. They assume just because an older person thinks a certain way, that they are right and older person is wrong. They label everything older as antiquated and while true in some cases, its not true for things like discipline, yet, look around, thats exactly how it is nowadays. 

 

What exactly is "antiquated" about my views on this topic? I've stated time and time again, I am FOR equality., But just as flsportsgod, me and a few others suggested, mere equality isn't good enough is it?....That was only a stepping stone. As typical with a democrat/ liberal, they'll claim they only want X but once they get X they want Y & Z and every other letter as well. 

 

Or is it the morality of it all??. Is morality now antiquated? LOL.....or God/ religion? Antiquated, right?.... 

 

I feel bad for the younger generation/ most of the liberal/ democrats, I really do. 

 

They really are trying to rewrite the rules to suit man. Thats been tried before, its being tried now, and I'm sure it will be tried again in the future....it usually doesn't end well for man. 

 

1. i never said you were wrong for what you thought, even though i do disagree with your opinion on it, i never said that at the time.

 

2. what makes your religion the correct one? (obviously this isnt something we can get into)

 

i could go on about the inconsistencies of it all but it isnt allowed here, most of the antiquated idealism comes from the religious side, so im just gonna let it go for now.

Well, that didn't take long at all...

 

"Coeur d’Alene officials told the Knapps privately and also publicly stated that the couple would violate the city’s public accommodations statute once same-sex marriage became legal in Idaho if they declined to perform a same-sex ceremony at their chapel. On Friday, the Knapps respectfully declined such a ceremony and now face up to 180 days in jail and up to $1,000 in fines for each day they decline to perform that ceremony."

 

http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/9364

Quote:Well, that didn't take long at all...

 

"Coeur d’Alene officials told the Knapps privately and also publicly stated that the couple would violate the city’s public accommodations statute once same-sex marriage became legal in Idaho if they declined to perform a same-sex ceremony at their chapel. On Friday, the Knapps respectfully declined such a ceremony and now face up to 180 days in jail and up to $1,000 in fines for each day they decline to perform that ceremony."

 

http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/9364

 

You predicted it. 

Quote:Well, that didn't take long at all...

 

"Coeur d’Alene officials told the Knapps privately and also publicly stated that the couple would violate the city’s public accommodations statute once same-sex marriage became legal in Idaho if they declined to perform a same-sex ceremony at their chapel. On Friday, the Knapps respectfully declined such a ceremony and now face up to 180 days in jail and up to $1,000 in fines for each day they decline to perform that ceremony."

 

http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/9364

 

I don't think such an arrest would hold up in court.  However, it is an interesting case.  What your blurb does not say is that they operate a for-profit wedding chapel, and the local officials have decided that, unlike a church, a for-profit wedding chapel is a "public accommodation."  

Quote:I don't think such an arrest would hold up in court.  However, it is an interesting case.  What your blurb does not say is that they operate a for-profit wedding chapel, and the local officials have decided that, unlike a church, a for-profit wedding chapel is a "public accommodation."  

 

Yep. It's gonna be a nasty legal fight. This is what happens when the government is permitted to encroach on a religious institution.

Quote:Yep. It's gonna be a nasty legal fight. This is what happens when the government is permitted to encroach on a religious institution.

 

I don't think it'll go very far.  It's a pretty obvious overreach. 

Quote:I don't think such an arrest would hold up in court. However, it is an interesting case. What your blurb does not say is that they operate a for-profit wedding chapel, and the local officials have decided that, unlike a church, a for-profit wedding chapel is a "public accommodation."

I'd like to know why being for profit makes it a public accommodation. Is their argument that all facilities which opperafe for a profit are not allowed to refuse service?


Once again this is where I have a problem with discrimination laws. It's also a good example of how we address a problem matters, equal access to marriage is great all we need to do is remove government from the equation. Instead we create more legislation saying same sex marriage is legal. then the question pops up, well can they make people or organizations that don't believe in SSM perform their ceremonies? After all if SSM is legal isn't it discrimination to say we won't marry you because you're homosexual just like a church can't say we won't marry you because you're black.


When you use government to fix problems you only get more problems.

Quote:I don't think such an arrest would hold up in court.  However, it is an interesting case.  What your blurb does not say is that they operate a for-profit wedding chapel, and the local officials have decided that, unlike a church, a for-profit wedding chapel is a "public accommodation."  

 

I don't know how being for-profit voids their 1st Amendment right to practice their religion free from government interference. 

Quote:Thats how they roll.... you know, the "purveyors of tolerance".

 

In reality they aren't tolerant at all. Less tolerant than the people they accuse of being "intolerant"...lol. They are only "tolerant" if you agree to 100% of their entire agenda - all while you're kissing their feet as well. 

 

IMO, that actually works against what they are allegedly trying to accomplish at least with me. I used to be much more empathetic towards their cause of seeking equality when it seemed thats all they were aiming for. I don't get that vibe anymore. With their all out bullying assault on Christians and people that may not agree with them driven by the liberal media (except for Muslims who also disapprove of homosexuals, but they are scared of Muslims so they'll act as if that 800 lb gorilla isn't in the room) , all it seems they really wish to do is "dominate" this culture and force people to not only give them the equality they initially were seeking, but also now to have their belief system as well - and like it. Well, it don't work that way. If you want equality, fine, I'm for that but don't you dare force people to approve of your lifestyle, or endoctrinate the children with this crap in schools at early ages. It has no place there. The idea is that 2 consenting ADULTS can do whatever they wish, sexually. The libs are force feeding their agenda in schools at early ages intentionally. Its underhanded. 

oh.... be tolerant or my intolerance?

Quote:Thats the problem with a lot of the younger people right there. They assume just because an older person thinks a certain way, that they are right and older person is wrong. They label everything older as antiquated and while true in some cases, its not true for things like discipline, yet, look around, thats exactly how it is nowadays. 

 

What exactly is "antiquated" about my views on this topic? I've stated time and time again, I am FOR equality., But just as flsportsgod, me and a few others suggested, mere equality isn't good enough is it?....That was only a stepping stone. As typical with a democrat/ liberal, they'll claim they only want X but once they get X they want Y & Z and every other letter as well. 

 

Or is it the morality of it all??. Is morality now antiquated? LOL.....or God/ religion? Antiquated, right?.... 

 

I feel bad for the younger generation/ most of the liberal/ democrats, I really do. 

 

They really are trying to rewrite the rules to suit man. Thats been tried before, its being tried now, and I'm sure it will be tried again in the future....it usually doesn't end well for man. 

Yes.

 

The second statement is interesting all things considered.... Shame it can't be discussed. 

Quote:I don't know how being for-profit voids their 1st Amendment right to practice their religion free from government interference. 

 

I guess being for-profit means you do not qualify as a church in the way that would get you out of obeying a law. 

 

You can't just obey the laws you want to obey, and then say you are exempt from obeying certain laws because of your religion.  So there has to be some definition of what is a church and what is a business.   My guess is that being a for-profit wedding chapel makes them a business and not a church under the law. 

 

I'm totally speculating here.   I am no constitutional expert, obviously. 

Quote:I guess being for-profit means you do not qualify as a church in the way that would get you out of obeying a law.


You can't just obey the laws you want to obey, and then say you are exempt from obeying certain laws because of your religion. So there has to be some definition of what is a church and what is a business. My guess is that being a for-profit wedding chapel makes them a business and not a church under the law.


I'm totally speculating here. I am no constitutional expert, obviously.

From what I've read that seems to be te case. For profit business are required by discrimination laws to serve equal access. So here's where it becomes sticky, every church, every minister had always charged some kind off fee to use their church and perform ceremonies so will they then be considered acts of business or religion?

Quote:From what I've read that seems to be te case. For profit business are required by discrimination laws to serve equal access. So here's where it becomes sticky, every church, every minister had always charged some kind off fee to use their church and perform ceremonies so will they then be considered acts of business or religion?

 

Yeah, they've charged a fee, but I'd say that's a bit different from being a for-profit wedding chapel.  It's sticky, but let's keep in mind that the Knapps (Until recently) advertised the fact that they performed ceremonies for people of all faiths.  It was only recently that they changed it to only performing "A Traditional Christian Ceremony"  (And that was a bit after they filed their suit).  Of course, being a for-profit chapel, they still perform weddings of other faiths.  They're just careful not to advertise it so much.


Also keep in mind that they aren't actually facing prosecution at this time, and that the gay couple they turned down is not suing for the right to get married by them, but the chapel is suing to have the ordinance overturned. 


It's a very sticky situation.  I mean... can a justice of the peace also say "Nope, not performing this ceremony.  It goes against my religious beliefs."  I agree that churches should not be required to perform any services that conflict with their beliefs.  But gay couples still need options of who to get to perform their services.  

If I was running a for-profit wedding chapel, and I didn't believe in performing a gay wedding service, I'd probably hire someone on staff who was willing to.  

Here is something that I'll throw out just for the sake of discussion.

 

There are many establishments that have a sign that says "No shirt, No shoes, No service".  Is this discrimination?

 

What about places that refuse service to persons carrying a concealed weapon?

Quote:I guess being for-profit means you do not qualify as a church in the way that would get you out of obeying a law. 

 

You can't just obey the laws you want to obey, and then say you are exempt from obeying certain laws because of your religion.  So there has to be some definition of what is a church and what is a business.   My guess is that being a for-profit wedding chapel makes them a business and not a church under the law. 

 

I'm totally speculating here.   I am no constitutional expert, obviously. 

 

Your referring to tax-exemption status. I'm referring to the ability to practice one's religion free from government interference. The constitution doesn't require that all religious establishments or persons must be government-approved. This isn't some fly-by-night religion, custom, or practice. There are, literally, 1,000's of business that will grant them what they're looking for. Their belief doesn't harm anyone, and imposing a law that requires them to violate their beliefs goes against the very reason why this country was founded. 

Quote: what do you think was happening when man wrote that book?

This is hilarious you asking this question knowing full well my previous response has already been removed.


You already have this argument won because of censorship why continue?