Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
Posted on 06/30/2005 6:26:17 PM PDT by wagglebee
"Forget tolerance"
You can say that again.
The guy agreed to perform the ceremony! Can a business owner actually be held legally liable for lacking enthusiasm?
The government won't go after "Churches" but only the ones that hold to the Bible as truly inerrant and as God's message to man. The apostate churches, that condone legalized baby shredding, welcome impenitant homosexuals into full fellowship and vomit from the pulpit that, "You don't have rights!" will not be harmed and will be held by government spokesmen as the example of true Christianity.
We wouldn't easily win, most people are programmed now into thinking that when there is an ugly confrontation it is the uncompromising Bible thumper that is the problem.
Well, gays are minorities now, so I guess you moralist authoritarians are shit out of luck. I don't care if you don't like it--the law is what you made it. Few folks here would deride the oh-so-holy 1964 Civil Rights Act forcing "public accommodations" that were privately owned to serve minorities. It was a bad, bad idea then, but you got those durn racist Southerners, didn't you? Now, you get to enjoy the fruits of your labors (pun intended). Enjoy having the queers marry in your church.
Some of us knew back when this started it was going to end this way. But you had to make life fair. You had to end racism and sexism NOW! You had to force it and make government your moral sword. Watch this sword swing both ways, just like your church's brides and grooms will now.
Wow...I know these people! Nice family, and very active in the church locally. I hadn't heard about this suit. I hope they're able to come through this and stand firm.
The inn has been there for a very long time and has a reputation and history at this point. It's also in the most conservative part of the state, which is still mostly old school Vermonters. It's a beautiful place, and it's not that easy to just pull up roots and start over. Besides...some things are worth fighting for.
Yes and that is probably the intention. You can bet that this is no "random" lawsuit but that the inn was specifically targeted as a test case. I wonder where the money for filing the lawsuit is coming from.
Taxpayer money, of course.
What is the "human rights tribunal"? Who is issuing and enforcing these fines? I haven't heard much about what's happening in Maine, but as the old saying about elections says, if Maine goes the nation will be next.
Racial minorities are different from the majority primiarily only in appearance, which is determined by heredity. The situation with gays is different, because being gay is a form of behavior and is not completely determined by heredity. So if gays become legally-protected minorities then so also could duck hunters, hockey players, landscape painters, and classical musicians, who constitute groups of people that engage in particular kinds of behavior. The problem we're having is that politicians and judges are pandering to the agressive gay lobby and giving special legal protections to people who are not a racial minority but merely engage in a particular kind of behavior and lifestyle. As Churchill once said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest."
Totalitarian regimes almost always go after the churches first, from the French Revolution to the Russian Revolution. This is because the Church stands in the way of state power. The Catholic Church in particular is the biggest threat to the state, much more so than the Protestants, because it is a unified hierarchical worldwide organization unlike any other and it has proven itself capable over time of handling crises.
Politicians and judges have been pandering to groups that engage in particular behavior for years. This is simply being the moral authoritarian crowd forced to deal with the obscenities that will be imposed on the country because the interventionists who wanted to solve the Southern racial divide couldn't do so without involving government. Horrors, we can't let social change come through societal means--it must come through government, or it's not legitimate or fast enough. /sarc
Good reasoning. The same all-powerful government that can give legal protection to one group and also give special legal protections to any other group. These protections can then allow that group to engage in behavior that is destructive to society, but behavior that we can't stop because it is protected by the state. This issue makes me realize the critical importance of judicial nominations and confirmations. One can only imagine the depths to which the gay lobby and abortion lobby will sink during the confirmation hearings for Bush's SCOTUS nominees in the next few years. That's going to be a long and ugly fight.
The importance of the SCOTUS is the second reason of only two reasons I voted for Bush last time. The first was national defense.
If we don't get conservative appointments through, there won't be much left to really defend after this term, and no reason for me to vote GOP again.
Not THIS citizen...
(sound of slide rackin
Glad to hear it, but there are few of you and many of them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.