Construction of Georgia mosque halted due to threats by armed militia

Do believe people should not be forced to make cakes for a wedding they don't believe in. IE religious freedom.

You run a secular business, you play by the secular business rules. And one of those rules is public accommodation. You can't refuse service to a specific group of people based on their membership in that group. Especially if it is in a protected class.

The courts have ruled on this time and again. Have you not paid attention?
 
You run a secular business, you play by the secular business rules. And one of those rules is public accommodation. You can't refuse service to a specific group of people based on their membership in that group. Especially if it is in a protected class.

The courts have ruled on this time and again. Have you not paid attention?

They aren't discriminating against a group. They aren't saying gays can't come in and dine. They are refusing to perform at certain ceremonies. Should the govt be forcing people to perform at gay weddings? I thought you just said you believed in Religious Freedom.

So I guess its religious freedom that you AGREE with.
 
They aren't discriminating against a group. They aren't saying gays can't come in and dine. They are refusing to perform at certain ceremonies. Should the govt be forcing people to perform at gay weddings? I thought you just said you believed in Religious Freedom.

So I guess its religious freedom that you AGREE with.

Wrong. It isn't the ceremonies. You're referring to the wedding cakes. Sorry, not part of the ceremony. There has never been a ruling forcing participation in the ceremony itself.
 
Maybe he thinks issuing a marriage license is performing a ceremony.

County clerks can and do perform civil marriages in many jurisdictions. They may have a constitutional right to refuse to perform those duties of their jobs based on religious belief if an alternative is available.



State law generally requires city or county clerks or registers of deeds to issue marriage licenses to qualified individuals—‘qualified’ here meaning those couples that are legally entitled to marriage, have completed an application, and are able to pay a license fee. Though a particular local government official may have religious-based objections to same-sex marriage, a government should be exceedingly careful in letting such an objection be the basis for the non-issuance of a license for or the refusal to perform a particular marriage, because doing so effectively makes the official’s personal religious views the law of the government for which they work, at the expense of the obligation of all governments to treat their citizens equally. But some states have sought to overcome this problem through what they’ve called ‘religious freedom’-related legislation.




https://www.elon.edu/e-net/Article/119145
 
Maybe he thinks issuing a marriage license is performing a ceremony.

County clerks can and do perform civil marriages in many jurisdictions. They may have a constitutional right to refuse to perform those duties of their jobs based on religious belief if an alternative is available.



State law generally requires city or county clerks or registers of deeds to issue marriage licenses to qualified individuals—‘qualified’ here meaning those couples that are legally entitled to marriage, have completed an application, and are able to pay a license fee. Though a particular local government official may have religious-based objections to same-sex marriage, a government should be exceedingly careful in letting such an objection be the basis for the non-issuance of a license for or the refusal to perform a particular marriage, because doing so effectively makes the official’s personal religious views the law of the government for which they work, at the expense of the obligation of all governments to treat their citizens equally. But some states have sought to overcome this problem through what they’ve called ‘religious freedom’-related legislation.




https://www.elon.edu/e-net/Article/119145

The courts have slapped them down every time.
 
You run a secular business, you play by the secular business rules. And one of those rules is public accommodation. You can't refuse service to a specific group of people based on their membership in that group. Especially if it is in a protected class.

The courts have ruled on this time and again. Have you not paid attention?

Protected class? I guess someone that is a 2nd rate faggot has to have something done on their behalf to make them feel better about being sub human.
 
Do believe people should not be forced to make cakes for a wedding they don't believe in. IE religious freedom.

Of course not. But what has this to do with you and others desiring the exclusion of one of the worlds biggest religions and its believers from a country in which its Constitution guarantees religious freedom?

If you truly wish to know my views on providing services for gay weddings, start another thread. I'm not getting derailed from the topic, here; which is how Constitution-hating, anti-Americans pretend to know what it means to be an American or how they wish to destroy the Constitution they pretend to defend.
 
Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pretty much any country that has muslim majorities implements their style of govt.

It isn't a religion, its a form of govt.

As we've already gone over, we're not talking about Saudi Arabia, Iran or any other theocracy. We're talking about the United States of America.

Paying attention to what's being talked about is generally considered important in a debate. Have you tried it?
 
Protected class? I guess someone that is a 2nd rate faggot has to have something done on their behalf to make them feel better about being sub human.

You can eat shit on that one, cunt. The courts have ruled against bigoted pricks like you time and again. What's it like to be on the losing end every time, loser? Sucks, huh?
 
The right is using political violence and terrorist threats in order to intimidate peaceful minorities in the US into submission. They're returning to Jim Crow terrorist KKK tactics. This can't be accepted. We should treat this man like a foreign terrorist, and drone his house. Then suddenly we'll get a dropoff in this sort of violence and intimidation.
 
The irony is that Christians would never be allowed to build a church in most Islamic countries.

Sent from my LG-D631 using Tapatalk

So what? Do we hold ourselves to the standards of third world theocracies? How do you think this is a clever or insightful response?
 
Just pointing out the irony. I'm all for religious freedom, but it is ironic that the very folk who enjoy it here, do not offer the same where, mostly, Islam is the predominant religion. If they spoke up about the disparity, they would have a leg to stand on.

The fools who want to ban, Islamic churches are no better than Muslims who do the same. Do you agree?

Sent from my LG-D631 using Tapatalk

There are plenty of Christian churches in Muslim countries. Christians are a huge minority in Egypt, for instance. Only a few of the more extreme gulf monarchies forbid anything beside Islam.
 
Good. Islam is a cancer once they populate an area. They take it over and demand sharia law.

Please show a single place in the US where they "took over and demanded sharia law"? Go kill yourself, fuck bigoted prick. You have no place in this country. You're a bigot and a fascist. You belong in some third world theocracy, don't destroy my country with your white nationalist bullshit.
 
So they can go around killing people and chopping heads without any consequences?

When has any member of the Muslim community in Newton Georgia killed anyone or chopped anyone's heads off? Should I punish you because a Christian in Africa burned a witch to death?
 
Anyway, Georgia is probably a little bit safer now without that Islamic recruiting centre.

You support this sort of lawless intimidation of our democratic process? These people are terrorists. They threatened violence against other Americans for political ends, the definition of terrorism. They need to be treated like terrorists and wiped out, to the man. No mercy.
 
What is the liberal assumption in your mind? Why do they refuse to denounce Islam and barely denounce radical Islam?

I noticed, while watching Jon Stewart, that when he made fun of ISIS and called them assholes or w/e the liberal audience barely laughed. But when he made fun of say Trump, or Republicans it was HAHAHAHAHA!

I think its because they are brown people that aren't American, automatically on the protected from any criticism list. Plus their main ideology focuses on how evil the West and USA is and must be reformed in a socialist way. ISIS and radical Islam cut into this theory because they appear to create themselves and persecute other not chrstian, non whites.

So what is their solution? Ignore it, and keep bashing capitalism.

I think you hit on it. Islam isn't the religion of white Europeans but of the noble brown skinned; and the former are the source of all ills in the world.

The phenomenon is particularly acute amongst secular progressives who hold the religion they rejected [Christianity] in utter contempt. Even when they say they hate all religions equally, they'll bash Christianity for the slightest misstep [famously, for not baking gay wedding cakes]; and yet, turn a blind eye to Muslims throwing gays off buildings or whatever.
 
So you guys support terrorism as long as it targets Muslims, blacks, and other minorities? Fucking pro-terrorist scum. I hate you people. You aren't Americans. Go fucking kill yourselves, you pieces of trash.
 
Back
Top