NationStates

Amacia wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:
It's a business so the same is in play.

It's simple. If there is an open sign, they have to follow the rules.

He said businesses aren't capable of beliefs. A sole proprietorship is. As is a general partnership.

No it isn't.

Amacia wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:
It's a business so the same is in play.

It's simple. If there is an open sign, they have to follow the rules.

He said businesses aren't capable of beliefs. A sole proprietorship is. As is a general partnership.

And as I've said for the umpteenth time, at this point RIGHT NOW, the law no longer applies to them.

Yes it does. If they are open to the public, the laws apply to them.

Dyakovo wrote:

Amacia wrote:He said businesses aren't capable of beliefs. A sole proprietorship is. As is a general partnership.

No it isn't.

If you sell hotdogs, you are a sole proprietorship. Now maybe anti-discrimination should apply in that situation. What I'm saying is that I'm not sure you understand the different types of business entities.

Edit: It's not like a corporation which is a legal fiction.

Ok, here's the thing. They are (currently) a religious corporation. The law exempts religious corporations. Given these facts, should they be punished.

Amacia wrote:Ok, here's the thing. They are (currently) a religious corporation. The law exempts religious corporations. Given these facts, should they be punished.

For the useless lawsuit, yes.

Neutraligon wrote:

Amacia wrote:Ok, here's the thing. They are (currently) a religious corporation. The law exempts religious corporations. Given these facts, should they be punished.

For the useless lawsuit, yes.

YEAH, somewhat mutual understanding!

The Black Forrest wrote:

Amacia wrote:He said businesses aren't capable of beliefs. A sole proprietorship is. As is a general partnership.

And as I've said for the umpteenth time, at this point RIGHT NOW, the law no longer applies to them.

Yes it does. If they are open to the public, the laws apply to them.

As a church it is a non profit entity...

They do NOT have to do anything for anyone they don't support....

Amacia wrote:Ok, here's the thing. They are (currently) a religious corporation. The law exempts religious corporations. Given these facts, should they be punished.

You read my mind!

Master Shake wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:
Yes it does. If they are open to the public, the laws apply to them.

As a church it is a non profit entity...

They do NOT have to do anything for anyone they don't support....

They were a business, not a church; they were for profit, not no-profit.

Master Shake wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:
Yes it does. If they are open to the public, the laws apply to them.

As a church it is a non profit entity...

They do NOT have to do anything for anyone they don't support....

Actually they are a religious corporation and make money...
But I agree with you, the law doesn't apply to them.

Neutraligon wrote:

Master Shake wrote:
As a church it is a non profit entity...

They do NOT have to do anything for anyone they don't support....

They were a business, not a church.

Heh...This reminds me of the christian BAKERY/store that wouldn't make a sex cake....

I think they lost their lawsuit too...

EDIT this brings up an interesting point...

Should religious corporations be exempt from laws that govern other corporations?

I say yes...

I wonder what Idaho state law says on this matter....

Master Shake wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:
They were a business, not a church.

Heh...This reminds me of the christian BAKERY/store that wouldn't make a sex cake....

I think they lost their lawsuit too...

That's a claim that would require a source.

I can see them loosing if they offered sex cakes but didn't want to do a gay sex cake......

Master Shake wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:
They were a business, not a church.

Heh...This reminds me of the christian BAKERY/store that wouldn't make a sex cake....

I think they lost their lawsuit too...

EDIT this brings up an interesting point...

Should religious corporations be exempt from laws that govern other corporations?

I say yes...

I wonder what Idaho state law says on this matter....

I think that if they're profiting, they should most definitely should not be exempt from the laws that govern other corporations.

Master Shake wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:
They were a business, not a church.

Heh...This reminds me of the christian BAKERY/store that wouldn't make a sex cake....

I think they lost their lawsuit too...

EDIT this brings up an interesting point...

Should religious corporations be exempt from laws that govern other corporations?

I say yes...

I wonder what Idaho state law says on this matter....

Which Christian bakery was this? What sort of cake was it? Where was the lawsuit filed?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-28206581

I do recall we had a thread on it at NSG, but I can't find it...

Why would any one be surprised that fux news is crying about this shit... they forgot that Obama's Muslim Putin loving husband was be hind this

Master Shake wrote:http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-28206581

I do recall we had a thread on it at NSG, but I can't find it...

That was a bakery being asked to make a cake with a statement supporting marriage equality. Not a "sex cake". Unless, of course, you have some very odd yet dull misconceptions of exactly what is involved the the sexual act.

In my opinion marriage rights should have never been the government's business.
Marriage is a religious construct right? Seperation of church and state and all that.
I think they should be allowed to practice what they want, not be forced by the government.

I could be wrong.

Aahmerica wrote:In my opinion marriage rights should have never been the government's business.
Marriage is a religious construct right? Seperation of church and state and all that.
I think they should be allowed to practice what they want, not be forced by the government.

I could be wrong.

Nice... I agree 100%...

As for the sex cake thing...ehh its been a long day at work and some times you get things confused....

Amacia wrote:Ok, here's the thing. They are (currently) a religious corporation. The law exempts religious corporations. Given these facts, should they be punished.

Yes, for being a bunch of dirty fuckers.

They changed their corporation type to avoid possible prosecution.

You know who else does that? Mafia fronts.

Master Shake wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:
Yes it does. If they are open to the public, the laws apply to them.

As a church it is a non profit entity...

They do NOT have to do anything for anyone they don't support....

It isn't a church.

Master Shake wrote:Should religious corporations be exempt from laws that govern other corporations?

No, because a religious corporation is a stupid thing. Businesses are not sentient, sapient beings and as such are incapable of having religious beliefs.

Aahmerica wrote:In my opinion marriage rights should have never been the government's business.
Marriage is a religious construct right? Seperation of church and state and all that.
I think they should be allowed to practice what they want, not be forced by the government.

I could be wrong.

No, marriage is not a religious construct.

Aahmerica wrote:In my opinion marriage rights should have never been the government's business.
Marriage is a religious construct right? Seperation of church and state and all that.
I think they should be allowed to practice what they want, not be forced by the government.

I could be wrong.

You are wrong, marriage is a civil institution, holy matrimony is the religious one. Marriage conveys well over 1000 rights.

Aahmerica wrote:In my opinion marriage rights should have never been the government's business.
Marriage is a religious construct right? Seperation of church and state and all that.
I think they should be allowed to practice what they want, not be forced by the government.

I could be wrong.

Yes, you most likely are.

It's quite obvious officially sanctioned monogamous relationships occurred long before they became a part of Christianity in particular and religion in general.

For some people, it isn't religious, it's personal. That's why marriages are officially sanctioned by the government and not delegated to churches: some people aren't Christian, or they do not wish to entangle religion in their personal relationships.