Then they've got the Religious Right wrong; we (and I do include myself in that group, as I am a Christian and of the Right) do not believe in persecution for persecution's sake. We Love the Sinner in Christ, but do not love the sin.
Though I'm a bit leery of anything the left-coast slimes puts out through their jaundiced lens, if the particulars of the case are correctly stated as in the article, that people could be excluded from employment or housing because of their sexual preferences, then that initiative was just plain wrong.
And I reiterate; the slimes can't resist painting Justice Scalia in a negative light with that quote - would like to see the context in which the Justice offered this, and would not be in the least bit surprised to find that Justice Scalia did say this but in a completely unrelated discussion.
I suspect there's more to this story, but based on the face value from this post, I say Bravo for Judge (soon to be Justice!!!) Roberts.
Of course the Referendum in Romer was mischaracterized. The Romer case arose out of a Referendum passed in CO. The Referendum very clearly stated that homosexuals got no special rights because they were homosexuals. In other words, this Referendum prevented homosexuals from having any special victim status. It did not discriminate against them in any way.
I think a property owner has the right to decide (based on his religious and moral) whom he will and will not rent too...employment may be a different case....If Robert's worked to benefit the power of government to once again, tramble on property and personal rights...then we have a right to be concerned...If he turns into another Souter, you can kiss the base of the GOP goodbye....
I think a property owner has the right to decide (based on his religious and moral) whom he will and will not rent too...employment may be a different case....If Robert's worked to benefit the power of government to once again, tramble on property and personal rights...then we have a right to be concerned...If he turns into another Souter, you can kiss the base of the GOP goodbye....
I think a property owner has the right to decide (based on his religious and moral) whom he will and will not rent too...employment may be a different case....If Robert's worked to benefit the power of government to once again, tramble on property and personal rights...then we have a right to be concerned...If he turns into another Souter, you can kiss the base of the GOP goodbye....
You bought into some unstated, but glaring and false assumptions; that "sexual preference" is a special, new, previously unheard of "right", that homosexuals should be treated a special, protected class in the law having the protection of government power over/against property owners' and employers' God-given property rights, and that it is proper for the National government by edict of the Supreme Politburo to enforce acceptance of this particular kind of wickedness.
The notion that it is 'persecution' for the government to protect rights against licentitious behavior is perverse itself. It is the antithetical to the purpose of government. All that is required to illustrate how absurd the notion that homosexuals should be a protected class is to ask one question; How do you know who is a member of the purported class?
Cordially,