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.

A sole proprietorship is not capable of having beliefs. The person running might, but not the proprietorship itself. That's about as stupid as saying that my car is capable of having beliefs, because I'm its sole owner and I'm capable of having beliefs.

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....

No, they shouldn't. "Muh religion" doesn't excuse you breaking any other law, so why should it excuse discrimination?

Aahmerica wrote:1. In my opinion marriage rights should have never been the government's business.
2. Marriage is a religious construct right? Seperation of church and state and all that.
3. I think they should be allowed to practice what they want, not be forced by the government.

I could be wrong.

You are wrong. Totally and completely.

1. Except, they should be, since marriage is a CIVIL institution, and provides various rights and privileges that committed couples need. Rights and privileges that are cheaply and solidly assured, and which cannot be as well protected by letting "teh private sector" handle it.

2. Civil institution.

3. Sure, if you're a church. But if you're making a profit, you're a business, and shouldn't be exempted from the law.

Grenartia wrote:

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

A sole proprietorship is not capable of having beliefs. The person running might, but not the proprietorship itself. That's about as stupid as saying that my car is capable of having beliefs, because I'm its sole owner and I'm capable of having beliefs.

My understanding is that a sole proprietorship is identical to the person owning it (not a separate entity).

The Rich Port 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.

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.

Mafia comparisons... stay classy.

It was in preparation for the new law, I see nothing wrong with it, it's not illegal to change your business entity.

It depends; as far as I'm concerned the Church has said nothing about its ministers not being able to marry same-sex couples; if they do then I'd say they can't arrest them their Church outlawed it. But if they didn't then yes they should be arrested.

Amacia wrote:

The Rich Port wrote:
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.

Mafia comparisons... stay classy.

It was in preparation for the new law, I see nothing wrong with it, it's not illegal to change your business entity.

It's pretty damn accurate actually.
The Catholic Church in my eyes is an international criminal organization.

Genivaria wrote:

Amacia wrote:Mafia comparisons... stay classy.

It was in preparation for the new law, I see nothing wrong with it, it's not illegal to change your business entity.

It's pretty damn accurate actually.
The Catholic Church in my eyes is an international criminal organization.

I don't want to marry you = Pay me protection and or I'll cut your fucking nuts off!
Because that's totally the same thing.

Amacia wrote:

Grenartia wrote:
A sole proprietorship is not capable of having beliefs. The person running might, but not the proprietorship itself. That's about as stupid as saying that my car is capable of having beliefs, because I'm its sole owner and I'm capable of having beliefs.

My understanding is that a sole proprietorship is identical to the person owning it (not a separate entity).

Your understanding is wrong.

Amacia wrote:

Genivaria wrote:It's pretty damn accurate actually.
The Catholic Church in my eyes is an international criminal organization.

I don't want to marry you = Pay me protection and or I'll cut your fucking nuts off!
Because that's totally the same thing.

Nice strawman. You build it yourself, or did you get help?

Dyakovo wrote:

Amacia wrote:My understanding is that a sole proprietorship is identical to the person owning it (not a separate entity).

Your understanding is wrong.

No U!
I hate these posts, care to explain why that's wrong?

Amacia wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:Your understanding is wrong.

No U!
I hate these posts, care to explain why that's wrong?

Because it simply is.
When I had my windshield repair business, it wasn't me and I wasn't it. I was legally responsible for any debts incurred or damage caused by the business, but that in no way means that I and the business were the same thing.

Dyakovo wrote:

Amacia wrote:No U!
I hate these posts, care to explain why that's wrong?

Because it simply is.
When I had my windshield repair business, it wasn't me and I wasn't it. I was legally responsible for any debts incurred or damage caused by the business, but that in no way means that I and the business were the same thing.

I should clarify, I meant that you and the business are "legally" the same.

Amacia wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:Because it simply is.
When I had my windshield repair business, it wasn't me and I wasn't it. I was legally responsible for any debts incurred or damage caused by the business, but that in no way means that I and the business were the same thing.

I should clarify, I meant that you and the business are "legally" the same.

No, that Also is not true.
In specific circumstances, the sole proprietor and his business are legally considered to be the same entity, but not in all instances.
Just like in specific circumstances, a married couple is legally considered to be one entity.

Dyakovo wrote:

Amacia wrote:I should clarify, I meant that you and the business are "legally" the same.

No, that Also is not true.
In specific circumstances, the sole proprietor and his business are legally considered to be the same entity, but not in all instances.
Just like in specific circumstances, a married couple is legally considered to be one entity.

Oh, I guess that makes sense. I'm sorry.

Amacia wrote:

Genivaria wrote:It's pretty damn accurate actually.
The Catholic Church in my eyes is an international criminal organization.

I don't want to marry you = Pay me protection and or I'll cut your fucking nuts off!
Because that's totally the same thing.

You do realize this is an institution that has been prosecuted for harbouring child rapists, right?

The Rich Port wrote:

Amacia wrote:I don't want to marry you = Pay me protection and or I'll cut your fucking nuts off!
Because that's totally the same thing.

You do realize this is an institution that has been prosecuted for harbouring child rapists, right?

I'm not talking about the Catholic Church.

Amacia wrote:

The Rich Port wrote:
You do realize this is an institution that has been prosecuted for harbouring child rapists, right?

I'm not talking about the Catholic Church.

He was.

Dyakovo wrote:

Amacia wrote:I'm not talking about the Catholic Church.

He was.

Look, I'm Catholic, and I think what many Priests did (and many Bishops covered up) is a disgrace. But this is threadjacking at this point, and I'm officially done with this thread.

Amacia wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:He was.

Look, I'm Catholic, and I think what many Priests did (and many Bishops covered up) is a disgrace. But this is threadjacking at this point, and I'm officially done with this thread.

But is the thread done with you?

Amacia wrote:

The Rich Port wrote:
You do realize this is an institution that has been prosecuted for harbouring child rapists, right?

I'm not talking about the Catholic Church.

Then why did you respond to me when I WAS talking about the Catholic Church.

Question: Is it legal for the ministers to refuse to marry people on any other basis?

Merizoc wrote:Question: Is it legal for the ministers to refuse to marry people on any other basis?

I would assume race is also out.

They got what they deserved.

Westerplatte wrote:They got what they deserved.

Just so we're clear, you're saying that what they deserved is for absolutely nothing to be done to them?