Points for the theme photo.

I don't know if I agree or not. I feel like if the church rents the space for cash then they cannot discriminate against who the renters are as long as they don't break any laws. For me it depends on what is meant by the word "locale". If it's part of the church property then I think the church should be able to discriminate. But if it is a separate establishment used to generate income for the church... then I probably agree with the court decision.

I ,for one, am glad you spelled it out. Good point.

I can totally understand your point, but that is like saying it is ok for the KKK to not rent to people because of their race (I know, why would another race want to? But all that aside..)

And I am totally not comparing any religion to the KKK. I just think that being gay is the same thing as being black, white, Chinese, or Indian.

Although it isn't honorable to reject someone based soley on race for renting an apartment, do you think that a landlord should be forced to rent to anyone that applies?

I think I agree with you...

... but IMO, if the church "rents" it, whether it's church property or not, they should face the discrimination charges. It would be different it the land was lent to parishoners, instead of rented out - but IMO even if it is church property, if it's rented, it should be subject to the same rules that apply to everyone.

And taxes. Religious organisations should not be tax exempt. If it's generating revenue, it should be taxed. All or nothing, baby!

I think this ruling is crap.

I'm one of the first people to say gay people should be able to be married.

However, if the church owns the land, then the church should have the right to rent it out to whomever they choose.

I can't see them being required to allow a ceremony for polygamists or for other reasons they disagree with.

Private property is private property. Even if it's discriminatory.

Religion becomes a slippery slope when it comes to rights. In order to ensure rights for one group you end up possibly infringing upon the rights of another. As the definition of homosexuality appears to be changing into the equivalent of how we define race so will the laws change to match that of racial descrimination. Whether you agree with it or not.
If someone is offering a service to the public for money, then they must offer it to everyone given equal rights under the law. If homosexuals are equal under the law... then the church would have to allow this service to all opposing beliefs.
If the church operated off of donations with no formal sale... then they should be able descriminate.


So that being said. The kkk is offering a service for money as a business as a landlord. Therefore they cannot descriminate either.

I agree with you somewhat.

I can agree with that.

I believe that they shouldn't be renting to anyone if they are going to discriminate. It's like being in class when you're a kid and you give everyone a Valentine's Day card except for the mentally challenged kid because they are different and not up to your standards.


Sorry, I have so much more to say, but I really don't want to get into it because the whole religion and anti gay issue just makes me sad. I shouldn't have even said anything, sorry.

You have to discriminate between people if you're a landlord, but I think that you simply aren't articulating to your sentences enough to make your point, and I understand what your trying to say.

You're confusing two senses of the word "discriminate." This case is about illegal discrimination in the sense of prejudice based on sexual orientation. You can refuse housing to someone with bad credit, but not because of their sexuality.

In my opinion, if your church owns beachfront rental property made available to the general public, its administrators need to agree to the same rules as the general public. If renting to someone whose rights are protected by law offends the congregation, then they need to get out of the rental business.

Does anybody else see this post as terrifying? I'm sorry if I sound like a "discriminator," but if you are breaking the law by doing or supporting something you find morally wrong, are you liable?

The issue, I think, drogue, is that it is privately owned property... We may not agree with the beliefs of the group that own that property, but at the same time... Your house is private property... Should people you don't agree with be allowed carte-blanche in your house?

I mean, there are alot of things that are legal and I don't agree with. Does that mean that the government can now find me at fault if I don't agree with any other number of things?

The KKK is a big bomb to drop, but if the KKK doesn't want to allow a minority-couple to be married in their "living room" shouldn't they be allowed to say "No?"

What we're looking at here is two people's (the homosexual" couple's) right to infringe on the beliefs of an individual (or group) that doesn't agree with the belief of said individual (or group)...

Doesn't that strike anyone as a terrifying violation of an individual (or group)'s right to self-identity?

When you offer up your property to public use, in terms of a rental or lease, you must obey the rules agreed upon in the municipal and civil codes of your city, state, or commonwealth, which are informed by federal law. See title VIII of the Civil Rights Act. The idea that the homosexual couple is infringing on anyone's rights by renting publicly-advertised property to celebrate a civil union is ridiculous. No one in America has the right to live a life free from exposure to homosexuals, which is what this is really about. The law is very clear on this.

If the church never offered the use of the property to the general public, they wouldn't have a problem. But they do offer it to the public.

They have the right to prohibit smoking, for safety concerns, and the throwing of rice (for a misguided reason--birds do not explode from eating uncooked rice). They do not have the right to prohibit gay people, the elderly, the handicapped, the mentally disabled, Jews, black people, white people, Democrats, Republicans, or Non Star-Bellied Sneetches from using a facility offered to the general public for a perfectly legal purpose. How is that not clear?

If they find it morally wrong to provide service to the gay community in exchange for payment, then they either need to suck it up, stop offering the rental, or find a country whose policies agree more with their prejudices.

It's hardly different than a grocery store banning black people, no matter the owner. Once you get approval to conduct business on a property, you are bound to observe relevant local laws.

Such spaces become quasi-private. You ultimately own your space, but are bound by laws in its use, whether you be the Pope, the KKK, Wal Mart, or Steve Jobs' dirty uncle.

When my brother was planning to get married, he and his bride-to-be contacted a church that they wanted to get married in. While the church did rent out it's sanctuary and offer catering services, it did so only for members of the church. Not being a member, he was told that he wasn't eligible to get married there.

Is this discrimination? Nope. It's their building, and they can rent it to whomever they please. And call me crazy, but I have this weird feeling that there are all sorts of beachfront properties to get married at. It doesn't have to be this particular one.

Here's the full image



Here's the artist's homepage.

I posted that a while back and it got downvoted into oblivion. :(

So, you're telling me its ok to trample over private property rights because someone happens to be gay, black, or handicapped?

Say for example that you owned a business on a beachfront property. Your business was an all-black business, meaning it catered specifically to black people. You rented out your beachfront property for marriages, parties, ceremonies, etc. It's your private property, you can do what you like with it. Then, you receive an offer from the KKK. It's a group that has publicly denounced your business. But they want to use your beachfront property as a celebration for the person that was the most awful to the black community. Would you be happy to know that you were forced to allow this ceremony, because you open your land to other people?

Here's another example. You own a McDonalds. Someone comes in without a shirt. It can either be a toned, fit, hairless guy, or a hot skinny woman in a bra. Neither are sweaty or dirty or pose a health risk, they just aren't wearing shirts. You clearly state on your doors that you do not give service to anyone not wearing a shirt. But, because of this ruling you're forced to give them service.

Ok, here's one last example. A lot of businesses post on their doors "we have the right to refuse service to any person." Is that illegal?

Now to get down to the nitty-gritty details here that really matter. In actuality, we're arguing two separate points. I'm saying that a private company/organization/church should have the right to do with their property what they please. If they own it, they should be able to deny access to whomever they choose. However, your point is that they are not legally allowed to do so. Both of us are correct. However, the rulings of the Supreme Court (which make the decision of denying a marriage ceremony) go against the intent of the Constitution, and more specifically the Declaration of Independence (which is not law). The inalienable right of the pursuit of happiness is essentially the right to be selfish. This church is being just that. Selfish. And it is their inalienable right that the Supreme Court took away.

All this being said, the church was not legally obliged to deny a ceremony for the lesbian couple. Though, in N.J., gays are not allowed to marry, so I am a little confused as to how the court could rule this way. Nevertheless, I think it's wrong to force the church to do this, an I think our laws need to be changed.

As someone who has worked at a church (I've even "married" some couples) I know of what you speak. Churches reserve the right (for the most part) to refuse rental to people for any reason. We are not talking about a house, office space or anything essential, we are talking about a short term rental that is for "recreational" purposes. This is a gray area when talking discrimination.

As you mentioned the beach is a big place with lots of great places to get married. This just sounds like two big mouths trying to start trouble! If you want a "church" wedding, there are churches that will allow homosexual weddings.

Your property becomes semi-private--or semi-public, whichever--when you offer it to the general public for sale, or rental. This is the reason you can be arrested for public drunkenness in a grocery store parking lot.

The ACLU has, albeit begrudgingly, supported the Klan in several similar cases involving public demonstrations.

Like gay people, everyone is born shirtless, but that is where this analogy breaks down. Local health codes actually demand that a restaurant refuse service to the shirtless, with few exceptions. (An outdoor hot dog stand by the beach, for example.)

No, so long as the reasons for the refusal haven't to do with the person's race, sex, age (depending on the service offered), national origin, or sexual orientation. Refusing service to a gay couple who are engaged in a shoving match, or skipped out on their last meal there is perfectly legal. Doing so on the grounds of their sexual orientation is not.

Marriage laws are administered by the individual states, or commonwealths, not the Supreme Court. The federal government has been loath to become involved in setting rules for marriage for all states except cases where a state's marriage law violates federal law, or other similar conflicts, such as states allowing polygamy, or denying inter-racial marriage.

Also, arguing for the intent of the framers can go both ways. The constitution was built as a compromise between the highly-charged arguments of federalist and republican factions, so it's easy to find evidence for intent on many issues, for either side, so long as the constitution (and the federal courts) haven't left the issue to the states.

The couple were performing a civil union, not a marriage. The plaintiffs could well be a couple of "big mouths," as Interesting has stated. But that doesn't make them wrong on the law.

Remember, they weren't asking for "a church wedding," only to use a beachfront property made available by the church to the general public for a legal activity.

Now you're talking. The law was upheld in this case, and as citizens, we do have the right to elect our lawmakers. Only keep in mind this case only involves citizens of New Jersey in this instance.

Sorry for the long-winded, point-by point rebuttal, you guys. I don't like them either, but Josh's response was...well, pointy.