Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: marktwain

Actually there is a good body of state laws that draw an equivalence between this and the refusal to serve Blacks in your restaurant. Or let them stay in your motel.

I’m not sure if there is precedent in the Federal courts on the matter, but it’s certain the gay lobby and their political supporters intend to act as if it’s decided law.

And I don’t believe the Federal courts have ever made such a decision.


14 posted on 12/06/2016 2:55:56 PM PST by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: Mariner

Except “gay marriage” is a choice. Being black is not.

The equivalence would be if you refused to allow a gay person to sleep at your bed and breakfast. Because it is now “law” that being “gay” is not a choice. (I simply argue that acting as a gay person is a choice, and avoid the problem).


18 posted on 12/06/2016 3:00:41 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: Mariner

Actually there is a good body of state laws that draw an equivalence between this and the refusal to serve Blacks in your restaurant. Or let them stay in your motel


Exactly. And those state laws all come from anti-discrimination laws at the federal level. I believe it is title VII of the civil rights act of 1964, which simple does away with the right of free association. It should have been ruled unconstitutional under the ninth amendment 50 years ago.

Governments can be forced not to discriminate, because there is no free association in the government. But private businesses and individuals should not. It is the height of tyranny.


20 posted on 12/06/2016 3:02:08 PM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: Mariner

I hope someone would find a difference between serving someone in a restaurant vs refusing to rent your property out for religious rites that contradict your own beliefs

There are many accommodations available to homosexual ceremonies not like the plaintiffs were denied their rights

” emotional distress” now means stompy feet


24 posted on 12/06/2016 3:05:42 PM PST by silverleaf (Age takes a toll: Please have exact change)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson