Ministers threatened with arrest

[Ethel mermania]

still seems like the government is picking and choosing whose rights they value more.

There is no inherent right to discriminate based upon sexual orientation. As I have already stated countless times in this thread, if they want a religious exemption, then they need to incorporate as a church rather than a quickie wedding chapel.

There currently is no federal law prohibiting discrimination by orientation, only state or local laws. If the local law did not exist, the discrimination would be legal.

[The Black Forrest]

still seems like the government is picking and choosing whose rights they value more.

Business laws are about rights.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

There is no inherent right to discriminate based upon sexual orientation. As I have already stated countless times in this thread, if they want a religious exemption, then they need to incorporate as a church rather than a quickie wedding chapel.

There currently is no federal law prohibiting discrimination by orientation, only state or local laws. If the local law did not exist, the discrimination would be legal.

Correct. However, as such local ordinances have traditionally been upheld by the Supreme Court, that shows that discrimination based upon sexual orientation is not considered a right when it comes to private businesses.

[Ethel mermania]

There currently is no federal law prohibiting discrimination by orientation, only state or local laws. If the local law did not exist, the discrimination would be legal.

Correct. However, as such local ordinances have traditionally been upheld by the Supreme Court, that shows that discrimination based upon sexual orientation is not considered a right when it comes to private businesses.

And protection from discrimination based on orientation is not a right, yet.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Correct. However, as such local ordinances have traditionally been upheld by the Supreme Court, that shows that discrimination based upon sexual orientation is not considered a right when it comes to private businesses.

And protection from discrimination based on orientation is not a right, yet.

Actually, I believe that it is an inherent right, even if it's not yet recognized as such by the Supreme Court. However, that's neither here nor there. The point is that even if the right is not yet recognized on a federal level, laws prohibiting discrimination against people based upon sexual identity are not seen as being a violation of rights.

[Ethel mermania]

And protection from discrimination based on orientation is not a right, yet.

Actually, I believe that it is an inherent right, even if it's not yet recognized as such by the Supreme Court. However, that's neither here nor there. The point is that even if the right is not yet recognized on a federal level, laws prohibiting discrimination against people based upon sexual identity are not seen as being a violation of rights.

They are of a religion. If the ministers had a church and not a private corp., They would not have to sue for a declatory udgement.

Which is why I believe according to the law, they personally do not have to marry same sex couples, but their business has to offer the service.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Actually, I believe that it is an inherent right, even if it's not yet recognized as such by the Supreme Court. However, that's neither here nor there. The point is that even if the right is not yet recognized on a federal level, laws prohibiting discrimination against people based upon sexual identity are not seen as being a violation of rights.

They are of a religion. If the ministers had a church and not a private corp., They would not have to sue for a declatory udgement.

Which is why I believe according to the law, they personally do not have to marry same sex couples, but their business has to offer the service.

Yes, that's pretty much what I've been saying for the entire thread.

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

They are of a religion. If the ministers had a church and not a private corp., They would not have to sue for a declatory udgement.

Which is why I believe according to the law, they personally do not have to marry same sex couples, but their business has to offer the service.

Yes, that's pretty much what I've been saying for the entire thread.

Hmm, I wonder how many pages that took.

Though I agree with you, How about accommodation for regular churches?(Most likely Yes since this is most likely a stupid question )

[Ethel mermania]

They are of a religion. If the ministers had a church and not a private corp., They would not have to sue for a declatory udgement.

Which is why I believe according to the law, they personally do not have to marry same sex couples, but their business has to offer the service.

Yes, that's pretty much what I've been saying for the entire thread.

Oh sure, now you tell me.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Yes, that's pretty much what I've been saying for the entire thread.

Hmm, I wonder how many pages that took.

Though I agree with you, How about accommodation for regular churches?(Most likely Yes since this is most likely a stupid question )

Churches are an entirely different matter, and I support their rights to be as bigoted towards anyone as they want to be.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Hmm, I wonder how many pages that took.

Though I agree with you, How about accommodation for regular churches?(Most likely Yes since this is most likely a stupid question )

Churches are an entirely different matter, and I support their rights to be as bigoted towards anyone as they want to be.

I agree. But since this is a business, I'm hesitant to say they're in the right. I don't think that what they did as correct.

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

Churches are an entirely different matter, and I support their rights to be as bigoted towards anyone as they want to be.

I agree. But since this is a business, I'm hesitant to say they're in the right. I don't think that what they did as correct.

The punishment though of jailtime is way past necessary.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I agree. But since this is a business, I'm hesitant to say they're in the right. I don't think that what they did as correct.

The punishment though of jailtime is way past necessary.

Iirc, they were threatened with it but, unless there's been another development I'm unaware of, they haven't been arrested.

[Ethel mermania]

I agree. But since this is a business, I'm hesitant to say they're in the right. I don't think that what they did as correct.

The punishment though of jailtime is way past necessary.

the law calls for jailtime if its ignored. The ministers were not threatened with jailtime.

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

The punishment though of jailtime is way past necessary.

Iirc, they were threatened with it but, unless there's been another development I'm unaware of, they haven't been arrested.

They were threatened as per the OP, but then again...
The OP doesn't have the greatest sources
*cough cough fox news cough cough*

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Iirc, they were threatened with it but, unless there's been another development I'm unaware of, they haven't been arrested.

They were threatened as per the OP, but then again...
The OP doesn't have the greatest sources
*cough cough fox news cough cough*

Anyway. They're not under arrest anyway.

[Lenciland]

Obviously I think that this is great and this should happen more often. But that's not the main question that I had. Why do you, and most conservatives, lord the Constitution as the end all be all of laws, it was made to be changed. That is the beauty of the Constitution, if the Foundig Fathers(which conservatives also love to lord over people with) saw the way that you revered their thoughts they'd be disgusted. They wanted it to change.

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

They were threatened as per the OP, but then again...
The OP doesn't have the greatest sources
*cough cough fox news cough cough*

Anyway. They're not under arrest anyway.

The statement of the sentence is confusing.
That I know, though the threat that was issue may or may not have been issued, though it's more likely that it was.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Anyway. They're not under arrest anyway.

The statement of the sentence is confusing.
That I know, though the threat that was issue may or may not have been issued, though it's more likely that it was.

I have no idea how to be clearer in that, if there was a threat of arrest and jail time, these ministers haven't been arrested. Not as far as I'm aware.

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

The statement of the sentence is confusing.
That I know, though the threat that was issue may or may not have been issued, though it's more likely that it was.

I have no idea how to be clearer in that, if there was a threat of arrest and jail time, these ministers haven't been arrested. Not as far as I'm aware.

That's what I'm saying Nana. The threat may or may not have been issued, but under the assumption it has, they haven't been.

[Ethel mermania]

Anyway. They're not under arrest anyway.

The statement of the sentence is confusing.
That I know, though the threat that was issue may or may not have been issued, though it's more likely that it was.

They asked the city, the city said if you don't do the marriages we will come after you for violating the law. They are suing the city in federal court for a declaritory jidgement saying the discrimination is legal.

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

The statement of the sentence is confusing.
That I know, though the threat that was issue may or may not have been issued, though it's more likely that it was.

They asked the city, the city said if you don't do the marriages we will come after you for violating the law. They are suing the city in federal court for a declaritory jidgement saying the discrimination is legal.

In the business side of the case, it should be legal as they are forced to accommodate all without discrimination. Church wise, they can be without a worry about that, though their decision to stick with being a business drained a bit of their argument down.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Churches are an entirely different matter, and I support their rights to be as bigoted towards anyone as they want to be.

I agree. But since this is a business, I'm hesitant to say they're in the right. I don't think that what they did as correct.

It wasn't correct.

[Dyakovo]

And what of the freedom to practice heir religion? It's no different then someone trying to force you to believe in a god you don't believe in in my opinion, just the reverse.

They aren't being prevented from practicing their religion.

[Olthar]

Businesses should not be allowed to discriminate. If one opens up to the public, one must serve the entire public.