Ministers threatened with arrest

[Forzona]

Right...

Yes, I know I am.
I've been arrested a couple of times and have never served jailtime.

Considering I'm roommates with a Criminal Lawyer (and talk frequently with them), I do, too.
You were probably bailed out by someone, or by a bail company (Forgot the real name for it)

[Neutraligon]

There are government classifications of religious organizations. The Hitching Post was not on the government registry of religious organizations.
No, it's not inherently religious. Marriage is not religious, it's a legal act that happens to be commonly performed in a religious setting.

The type of marriage they perform is inherently religious.

Not relevant.

[Nasal Bondage]

Yes, I know I am.
I've been arrested a couple of times and have never served jailtime.

Considering I'm roommates with a Criminal Lawyer (and talk frequently with them), I do, too.
You were probably bailed out by someone, or by a bail company (Forgot the real name for it)

You must not talk about anything related to law, or I'd imagine that you would know what jailtime is.
My mom has been arrested. She's never served jailtime. She was never bailed out.
And even if she was, that doesn't count as jailtime.

[Grenartia]

That isn't at all what is being suggested.

They are being arrested for not supporting same-sex marriages, which is against what it says in their Bible. By forcing them to do this, you are making them commit an action that is against what their religion says.

Except, this entire thing is a hoax. A false-flag by anti-freedom advocates to get reasonable people on their side.

[Forzona]

Considering I'm roommates with a Criminal Lawyer (and talk frequently with them), I do, too.
You were probably bailed out by someone, or by a bail company (Forgot the real name for it)

You must not talk about anything related to law, or I'd imagine that you would know what jailtime is.
My mom has been arrested. She's never served jailtime. She was never bailed out.
And even if she was, that doesn't count as jailtime.

Did you not read my earlier posts? I said I got mixed up, jailtime is different, but you still serve in jail UNTIL THE TRIAL unless someone bails you out.

[Neutraligon]

You must not talk about anything related to law, or I'd imagine that you would know what jailtime is.
My mom has been arrested. She's never served jailtime. She was never bailed out.
And even if she was, that doesn't count as jailtime.

Did you not read my earlier posts? I said I got mixed up, jailtime is different, but you still serve in jail UNTIL THE TRIAL unless someone bails you out.

No actually you are detained, there is a difference, and that is what happens for every case.

[Grenartia]

Again read the thread, they are not being threatened with jail time.

"Ministers threatened with arrest"
“Right now they are at risk of being prosecuted,”

Yeah, the OP's an intellectually dishonest liar.

[Nasal Bondage]

You must not talk about anything related to law, or I'd imagine that you would know what jailtime is.
My mom has been arrested. She's never served jailtime. She was never bailed out.
And even if she was, that doesn't count as jailtime.

Did you not read my earlier posts? I said I got mixed up, jailtime is different, but you still serve in jail UNTIL THE TRIAL unless someone bails you out.

No, you don't serve in jail. Serving in jail is spending time in jail that you have been sentenced to by the judge after the trial.

[Forzona]

Did you not read my earlier posts? I said I got mixed up, jailtime is different, but you still serve in jail UNTIL THE TRIAL unless someone bails you out.

No actually you are detained, there is a difference, and that is what happens for every case.

You still are confined in a cell, albeit in an entirely different building. They both convey the point I'm trying to get across.

[Forzona]

Did you not read my earlier posts? I said I got mixed up, jailtime is different, but you still serve in jail UNTIL THE TRIAL unless someone bails you out.

No, you don't serve in jail. Serving in jail is spending time in jail that you have been sentenced to by the judge after the trial.

As I said, you are still confined in a cell, which has the same experience as jail, though the legal standards around it are very different.

[Grenartia]

It's their choice to close it. When it comes to the public good in the matters of a public business; there are rules to follow. Your Religious beliefs don't give you the ability to ignore them.

Whether it's for-profit or non-profit is irrelevant. It's a religious organization, and falls within its exemption.

"Muh religion" doesn't work as an excuse to be exempt from other laws, so why should it apply to discrimination?

Also, whether or not its for-profit is totally relevant.

[Amacia]

The type of marriage they perform is inherently religious.

Not relevant.

FOUND THE ORDINANCE!
9.56.040: EXCEPTIONS:
A. Notwithstanding any other provision herein, nothing in this Chapter is intended to alter or
abridge other rights, protections, or privileges secured under state and/or federal law. This
ordinance shall be construed and applied in a manner consistent with First Amendment
jurisprudence regarding the freedom of speech and exercise of religion.
B. This chapter does not apply to:
1. Religious corporations, associations, educational institutions, or societies.
2. An expressive association whose employment of a person protected by this chapter
would significantly burden the association’s rights of expressive association under Boy
Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000).
3. The United States government, any of its departments or agencies, or any corporation
wholly owned by it; or the state of Idaho or any of its departments, agencies, or political
subdivisions, other than the City of Coeur d’Alene.

[Amacia]

Whether it's for-profit or non-profit is irrelevant. It's a religious organization, and falls within its exemption.

"Muh religion" doesn't work as an excuse to be exempt from other laws, so why should it apply to discrimination?

Also, whether or not its for-profit is totally relevant.

They are providing a religious service. Why would gay people want to be married by these people in the first place?

[Mavorpen]

Not relevant.

FOUND THE ORDINANCE!
9.56.040: EXCEPTIONS:
A. Notwithstanding any other provision herein, nothing in this Chapter is intended to alter or
abridge other rights, protections, or privileges secured under state and/or federal law. This
ordinance shall be construed and applied in a manner consistent with First Amendment
jurisprudence regarding the freedom of speech and exercise of religion.
B. This chapter does not apply to:
1. Religious corporations, associations, educational institutions, or societies.
2. An expressive association whose employment of a person protected by this chapter
would significantly burden the association’s rights of expressive association under Boy
Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000).
3. The United States government, any of its departments or agencies, or any corporation
wholly owned by it; or the state of Idaho or any of its departments, agencies, or political
subdivisions, other than the City of Coeur d’Alene.

Was your goal to prove that he's right that it's irrelevant?

[Neutraligon]

Not relevant.

FOUND THE ORDINANCE!
9.56.040: EXCEPTIONS:
A. Notwithstanding any other provision herein, nothing in this Chapter is intended to alter or
abridge other rights, protections, or privileges secured under state and/or federal law. This
ordinance shall be construed and applied in a manner consistent with First Amendment
jurisprudence regarding the freedom of speech and exercise of religion.
B. This chapter does not apply to:
1. Religious corporations, associations, educational institutions, or societies.
2. An expressive association whose employment of a person protected by this chapter
would significantly burden the association’s rights of expressive association under Boy
Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000).
3. The United States government, any of its departments or agencies, or any corporation
wholly owned by it; or the state of Idaho or any of its departments, agencies, or political
subdivisions, other than the City of Coeur d’Alene.

And if they had been registered as any of section B1, they would have been exempt...which by the way they changed when the ban on gay marriage was lifted. The registered themselves as a religious corporation, and then made a big stink. there was literally not one homosexual couple suing them. Nor was there any arrest or threatening of jail time.

[Mavorpen]

"Muh religion" doesn't work as an excuse to be exempt from other laws, so why should it apply to discrimination?

Also, whether or not its for-profit is totally relevant.

They are providing a religious service. Why would gay people want to be married by these people in the first place?

Considering no gay people actually existed in this case, this question makes no sense.

[Neutraligon]

"Muh religion" doesn't work as an excuse to be exempt from other laws, so why should it apply to discrimination?

Also, whether or not its for-profit is totally relevant.

They are providing a religious service. Why would gay people want to be married by these people in the first place?

Since no one is suing these minsters apparently no on was.

[Grenartia]

"Muh religion" doesn't work as an excuse to be exempt from other laws, so why should it apply to discrimination?

Also, whether or not its for-profit is totally relevant.

They are providing a religious service. Why would gay people want to be married by these people in the first place?

For profit.

Also, same-sex couples (like LGBT individuals, such as myself) can be, and often are, religious.

[Grenartia]

They are providing a religious service. Why would gay people want to be married by these people in the first place?

Since no one is suing these minsters apparently no on was.

This, too, but I decided that actually answering the question, even if its based on false facts, would be a good way to go. That way, their point is doubly invalid.

[Neutraligon]

Since no one is suing these minsters apparently no on was.

This, too, but I decided that actually answering the question, even if its based on false facts, would be a good way to go. That way, their point is doubly invalid.

Go ahead. The other option is maybe they like the location.

[Amacia]

FOUND THE ORDINANCE!
9.56.040: EXCEPTIONS:
A. Notwithstanding any other provision herein, nothing in this Chapter is intended to alter or
abridge other rights, protections, or privileges secured under state and/or federal law. This
ordinance shall be construed and applied in a manner consistent with First Amendment
jurisprudence regarding the freedom of speech and exercise of religion.
B. This chapter does not apply to:
1. Religious corporations, associations, educational institutions, or societies.
2. An expressive association whose employment of a person protected by this chapter
would significantly burden the association’s rights of expressive association under Boy
Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000).
3. The United States government, any of its departments or agencies, or any corporation
wholly owned by it; or the state of Idaho or any of its departments, agencies, or political
subdivisions, other than the City of Coeur d’Alene.

And if they had been registered as any of section B1, they would have been exempt...which by the way they changed when the ban on gay marriage was lifted. The registered themselves as a religious corporation, and then made a big stink. there was literally not one homosexual couple suing them. Nor was there any arrest or threatening of jail time.

Yet you still they should face punishment?

[Mavorpen]

And if they had been registered as any of section B1, they would have been exempt...which by the way they changed when the ban on gay marriage was lifted. The registered themselves as a religious corporation, and then made a big stink. there was literally not one homosexual couple suing them. Nor was there any arrest or threatening of jail time.

Yet you still they should face punishment?

Leave Charlie alone.

[Amacia]

Yet you still they should face punishment?

Leave Charlie alone.

That's what most people are arguing, that they should be punished.

[Neutraligon]

And if they had been registered as any of section B1, they would have been exempt...which by the way they changed when the ban on gay marriage was lifted. The registered themselves as a religious corporation, and then made a big stink. there was literally not one homosexual couple suing them. Nor was there any arrest or threatening of jail time.

Yet you still they should face punishment?

Since they are now registered as a religious organization, no. As a business yes.

[Mavorpen]

Leave Charlie alone.

That's what most people are arguing, that they should be punished.

No, we aren't. We're arguing under the theoretical premise that the OP isn't full of shit. If you don't understand that blatantly obvious fact, that's your own problem.