Proposed Law Would Force Churches to Host Gay Weddings

[junk]

That really makes little sense. Sexual preference isn't a class of people. There is no unique trait prevalent but for their habits. It's like saying smokers are somehow to be classed because despite that anyone can do so they are really unique. Below you're saying that pimps and pornographers can be any race, gender, etc, yet so can homo's. You want to talk slippery slopes, think of the one where people are classed by their sexual preferences and where that's already heading.

I think you are confusing sexual preference with sexual orientation. That is a completely different debate and not one I care to get into. For argument's sake though, let's proceed with your stance that is a preference.

So, I'll come back to the same example I continue to use. Choice of religion isn't a class of people either. Catholics can be any race, gender or national origin, correct?

So, I assume, based upon this argument that you'd be OK excluding religious preference from discrimination?

As far as pedophiles, that is just a poor attempt at muddying the waters. Comparing homosexuals and pedophiles isn't really applicable. One is a legal situation between consenting adults while one is an illegal act. Stay on topic.

But if sexual preference leads to being a protected class then being heterosexual should be a protected class and the DOMA should not have been repealed. If a sexual preference lifestyle becomes such a thing, then all things being equal, it must apply to heterosexuals, their social practices of marriage and the obvious exclusivity of propagating the species.

What, exactly, are you not allowed to do that is unique to being a heterosexual?

It would be almost as ridiculous to think it's anything but logical to ban satan worship in a church.

Technically, I think you could have issues if anyone pushed it. However, as I've asked numerous times, is anyone actually renting out their church? Like I said, this article is simply incendiary and low brow journalism. Simply meant be sensationalism....and apparently working.

Reporting a proposed law in progress isn't incendiary, pretending to need to have a meeting in a place that's opposed to your behavior is. Are you sure this Unruh business includes churches? In fact a quick search turns up this: Thus, while private religious schools' admissions and disciplinary practices may not be subject to the Unruh Act, schools should be aware that other business transactions may still be.

So I'm not really sure why it's relevant.

The way the article frames the law is incendiary. Again, is anyone actually renting out their church? I think the only way this law would be an issue is if a church advertised to rent their church (or church grounds) to certain groups, but explicitly said "Whoa, wait a minute, we're not renting to this group because they are homosexual"

If the church isn't renting out the actual church, I don't think it'd even be an issue. My interpretation of this law isn't that it is going to force churches to open their doors to homosexuals (and, if it was, I'd argue against it). I think the intent is that if the church is renting out its facilities to the general public and then decides they want to exclude certain classes, it'd be in violation of the law.

As far as Unruh, you hit the exact issue on the head in your bolded statement "should be aware that other business transactions may still be"......such as renting out your facilities to the general public.

 

[VTA]

You are citing examples from another country that has nothing to do with what is happening in on our country and you are presuming an accusation is fact, when you have no idea if the situation is accurate, so it fits your argument.

Yes, when you make a claim you cite examples to back it up. Is this weird?
The example from England is in fact accurate and why you think because it's from another country it's invalid, I can't tell. We don't live in a vacuum and religion and all ideological movements are global.

Conversely, you have no idea if the info is inaccurate, which if it were would fit your view which is really sort of unclear. What's the difference except that you don't wish to concede that I may have a point? So at this point I do have to ask, aside from what you may think of me, what is your point or counter-argument?

 

[VTA]

I think you are confusing sexual preference with sexual orientation. That is a completely different debate and not one I care to get into. For argument's sake though, let's proceed with your stance that is a preference.

So, I'll come back to the same example I continue to use. Choice of religion isn't a class of people either. Catholics can be any race, gender or national origin, correct?

So, I assume, based upon this argument that you'd be OK excluding religious preference from discrimination?

As far as pedophiles, that is just a poor attempt at muddying the waters. Comparing homosexuals and pedophiles isn't really applicable. One is a legal situation between consenting adults while one is an illegal act. Stay on topic.


What, exactly, are you not allowed to do that is unique to being a heterosexual?


Technically, I think you could have issues if anyone pushed it. However, as I've asked numerous times, is anyone actually renting out their church? Like I said, this article is simply incendiary and low brow journalism. Simply meant be sensationalism....and apparently working.



The way the article frames the law is incendiary. Again, is anyone actually renting out their church? I think the only way this law would be an issue is if a church advertised to rent their church (or church grounds) to certain groups, but explicitly said "Whoa, wait a minute, we're not renting to this group because they are homosexual"

If the church isn't renting out the actual church, I don't think it'd even be an issue. My interpretation of this law isn't that it is going to force churches to open their doors to homosexuals (and, if it was, I'd argue against it). I think the intent is that if the church is renting out its facilities to the general public and then decides they want to exclude certain classes, it'd be in violation of the law.

As far as Unruh, you hit the exact issue on the head in your bolded statement "should be aware that other business transactions may still be"......such as renting out your facilities to the general public.

If I'm not mistaken, you yourself have said homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. If so, how is it an orientation if not biologically innate? What has made it a part of specific code which can then make it part of a unique class? Can political orientation then become a protected class?

People from any class, race, gender can be homosexual, so there exists nothing biologically unique to set them apart as a class that can be discriminated against. It's habitual lifestyle not appropriate for all places.

If I'm reading your question correctly, of course religious preference should be excluded from discrimination. So should sexual preference, for that matter. Everyone should be free to pursue their own prosperity and fulfillment, without oppression. But I think the definition of discrimination should be clear. Is it discriminatory to not allow men in women's showers or dressing rooms? Is it discriminatory to disallow personal matters on the job? Everyone has protocol and the church is no different. What's not appropriate to church should not be forced on the church.

And the pedophilia angle is very relevant. We're not talking about their action, we're taking theirs and the homosexuals claims of the source of their sexual habits. Homo's claim it's biologically innate and therefore an unavoidable part of their self. If a sexual habit is innate and unavoidable, then no manner of sexual preference can be discriminated against. Sure we can say it's a crime against a child, but is the person with those predilections a criminal or just a victim to his own genetic code? If a kid can't give consent, then how can a kid be identified as a homosexual or transgender as we see happening now? With the current pop-culture sexing up of kid's, at what point does the foundation of a child's ability to give consent start shifting, due to perceived changes in social understanding? I'm not sure why it would even be odd to question it, when there are breaches already.

The question of heterosexual marriage was rhetorical. But when it becomes 'discriminatory' to not want to allow your child to be adopted by gays'. you'll see where it fits in. So far I haven't seen it, so it still remains rhetorical.

Yes any issue can be pushed and this should be a general understanding before we start validating issues, simply because someone had the ambition to keep pushing. Making a claim that because you're not allowed to bring your habits into a place anathema to those habits doesn't mean you're discriminated against. Again it goes back to protocol in specific places.

Your opinion of the article makes no real difference. What's important to one is not important to another. I'm not sure how reporting on a law proposal, relevant to current issues is low-brow. If it were made up it would be low brow. As it stands it is confirmed to be happening with the ramifications cited being clearly stated by someone in the know, which answers your question:

Meryl Dye, a spokesperson for the Human Relations Commission confirmed to Fox News that churches would be subjected to portions of the proposed law.

“They would not be able to discriminate against gay and lesbian or transgender individuals,” Dye said. “That type of protection parallels to what you find in race discrimination. If a church provides lodging or rents a facility they could not discriminate based on race. It’s along that kind of thinking.”

If your ability to see the point is clouded because you're unsure about the church structure itself, how can it matter? Not all churches are the same, and aside from the monster catholic churches, I don't know of too many that have anything but their sitting structure used to worship and rented out occasionally to raise funds. An average church has no ancillary structures.

But if the church is renting the church itself is the law then effecting them? Of course it is. They don't and rightly so wish to have gay marriages or receptions performed in their temple.

The first part of the sentence concerning Unruh states religious schools, the second part doesn't leading me to believe they are referencing public - tax payer funded - schools, while religious institutions are exempt. If you know otherwise, I'll leave it to you.

 

[lons]

mmmm Naughty Lesbian Book Club, that would be a good porn title.

 

[Bluenoser]

So, who won?

 

[VTA]

So, who won?

Read the book.


(***SPOILER ALERT!! God always wins***)

 

[junk]

If I'm not mistaken, you yourself have said homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. If so, how is it an orientation if not biologically innate? What has made it a part of specific code which can then make it part of a unique class? Can political orientation then become a protected class?

I only classified homosexuality as a lifestyle choice for purposes of this discussion. Maybe a poor classification on my part, but I was trying to demonstrate parallels in this discussion which you've either missed or ignored.

So, by your argument, does something have to be biologically innate to be a protected class? There is still another protected class that is not biologically innate, correct? Religion isn't biologically innate. What has made it a part of specific code which can then make it part of a unique class?

People from any class, race, gender can be homosexual, so there exists nothing biologically unique to set them apart as a class that can be discriminated against. It's habitual lifestyle not appropriate for all places.

Again very similar to another protected class........

If I'm reading your question correctly, of course religious preference should be excluded from discrimination. So should sexual preference, for that matter. Everyone should be free to pursue their own prosperity and fulfillment, without oppression. But I think the definition of discrimination should be clear. Is it discriminatory to not allow men in women's showers or dressing rooms? Is it discriminatory to disallow personal matters on the job? Everyone has protocol and the church is no different. What's not appropriate to church should not be forced on the church.

Discrimination - "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things"

Not allowing personal matters on the job? How is that discriminatory? How is that treating a certain group of people unjustly? That would apply to anyone regardless of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

The question of heterosexual marriage was rhetorical. But when it becomes 'discriminatory' to not want to allow your child to be adopted by gays'. you'll see where it fits in. So far I haven't seen it, so it still remains rhetorical.

Allow your child to be adopted by gays? :confused

Your opinion of the article makes no real difference. What's important to one is not important to another. I'm not sure how reporting on a law proposal, relevant to current issues is low-brow. If it were made up it would be low brow. As it stands it is confirmed to be happening with the ramifications cited being clearly stated by someone in the know, which answers your question:

The article title is inflammatory and the entire article is meant to simply stir up people that are already stirred up. Know what else is funny? This article is from April 2012. Nice troll job by JBond.

Want an update?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...proves-amended-anti-discrimination-ordinance/

As it stands, churches that don't make their facilities available to the public would not be affected by the new measures, and it would not cover same-sex marriages, which are illegal in Kansas.

Seems familiar.

“What we’re trying to do is for people to keep their jobs if their employers find out if they’re gay or to stop them from getting evicted if their landlords find out they’re gay,” Witt said.

Witt dismissed concerns from critics that the measure would force churches in the city to rent facilities for gay weddings.

“Same-sex marriage is banned in the Kansas Constitution, so let’s clear that up right away,” he said. “You’re not going to see gay marriage in the anti-gay churches of Hutchinson, it’s a ludicrous notion. People are not bothering to educate themselves on what the law actually says or are outright lying.”

Also seems familiar.

Furthermore, the whole thing was voted down.

http://www.kansas.com/2012/11/07/2558845/opposition-leads-in-early-returns.html

But Waggoner and others argued that people already have all the protections they need under current state and local laws. And with Hutchinson’s long history of people being good to each other, including people who are different, many wondered why it was necessary to put the community through a wrenching, divisive campaign, Waggoner said.

It has made sense in the past to enact government laws to protect the disabled, Waggoner said, and to protect people from discrimination because of race or ethnic origin. But those are classes of people, he said. “But sexual behavior is a personal characteristic, not a class,” he said. “It would be terrible public policy to treat it as such.”

I'd also be very interested in hearing Mr. Waggoner's stance on where religion fits in under current discrimination law. I mean, it is included, right? But it isn't a class either? Must be terrible public policy, right? Seems to echo similar sentiment I've seen in this thread.

If your ability to see the point is clouded because you're unsure about the church structure itself, how can it matter? Not all churches are the same, and aside from the monster catholic churches, I don't know of too many that have anything but their sitting structure used to worship and rented out occasionally to raise funds. An average church has no ancillary structures.

I've been around my fair share of churches and none of them fall into the "monster catholic church" category. Most were in very rural settings and I'd say the large majority had separate buildings associated with the property. However, I also don't know of any that rented out the actual church structure. Hey, come to Timmy's 10th birthday party....cake's on the altar.

I have no problem with classifying homosexuals as a protected class......exactly the same as religion is currently classified. Do I think that means homosexuals should be able to force churches to allow them to marry them/use their facilities for marriage? Nope, but that wasn't the intent of the law anyway.

 

[junk]

So, who won?

Me. Brought up a lesbian book club. Taught VTA a thing or two about discrimination. Exposed JBond as a fraudulent troll. Showed the hypocrisy of protecting religion in discrimination legislation but opposing homosexuality.:whistle

 

[Bluenoser]

Nice

 

[VTA]

I only classified homosexuality as a lifestyle choice for purposes of this discussion. Maybe a poor classification on my part, but I was trying to demonstrate parallels in this discussion which you've either missed or ignored.

So, by your argument, does something have to be biologically innate to be a protected class? There is still another protected class that is not biologically innate, correct? Religion isn't biologically innate. What has made it a part of specific code which can then make it part of a unique class?


Again very similar to another protected class........

Religion isn't a protected class. Freedom of religion is the right to practice it and the right not practice it and the freedom from theocracy and instituted religion. No one can force a school to allow services, or any other facility, am I right? The NYDOE instituted a policy banning it's spaces from being rented for worship services.

Isn't that then discrimination against religion? How does this qualify it as a protected class? Hell, even a public community center was deemed off-limits by the Bronx housing authority… Link due to the result of this policy, which clearly excluded any form of religious services from it's renters. How is this different?

If buildings can be designated off limits to religion, then religious buildings should be exclusive as well. Religion, gun ownership, freedom of speech aren't 'classes' of people. They are protected personal rights, limited to individuals who cannot force their choices to own and practice on others. You do know there are gun-free zones? Is this discrimination against the right to bear arms? It certainly seems so by your definition.

Discrimination - "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things"

Not allowing personal matters on the job? How is that discriminatory? How is that treating a certain group of people unjustly? That would apply to anyone regardless of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

Exactly. Protocols do exist and they are not forms of discrimination. Your work place has a protocol, schools have a protocol and churches have a protocol.

Allow your child to be adopted by gays? :confused

LEt's not worry about rhetorical questions right now.

The article title is inflammatory and the entire article is meant to simply stir up people that are already stirred up. Know what else is funny? This article is from April 2012. Nice troll job by JBond.

Want an update?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...proves-amended-anti-discrimination-ordinance/


Seems familiar.


Also seems familiar.

Furthermore, the whole thing was voted down.

http://www.kansas.com/2012/11/07/2558845/opposition-leads-in-early-returns.html



I'd also be very interested in hearing Mr. Waggoner's stance on where religion fits in under current discrimination law. I mean, it is included, right? But it isn't a class either? Must be terrible public policy, right? Seems to echo similar sentiment I've seen in this thread.

I'm not sure posting a news article in a news section of public forum is considered trolling. Is this gauged by the fact people have differing views? That's the point of a discuss forum; no need to denigrate a guy for participating.

Your bolded part does little to prop up your argument. The whole premise is churches that do rent space. And Meryl Dye gave the title absolute legitimacy, stating that rented church space can not be made off-limits in these cases.

And you example of a guy being fired for being gay isn't even in the same universe as telling a church who and who it' can't rent to. Is disallowing school buildings being used on off-hours for services the same as firing a guy for his religion?

I've been around my fair share of churches and none of them fall into the "monster catholic church" category. Most were in very rural settings and I'd say the large majority had separate buildings associated with the property. However, I also don't know of any that rented out the actual church structure. Hey, come to Timmy's 10th birthday party....cake's on the altar.

I have no problem with classifying homosexuals as a protected class......exactly the same as religion is currently classified. Do I think that means homosexuals should be able to force churches to allow them to marry them/use their facilities for marriage? Nope, but that wasn't the intent of the law anyway.

Either way, would such a law be parsed on how many buildings the church has? If renting church facilities were as rare as you've experienced, this wouldn't be an issue. Your not being aware of it doesn't effect it's existence.

As for protecting classes of people based on behavior, it's senseless. Men and women enjoy equal human rights, we can't start parsing them based on personal behaviors. The long and short of it all is this: homosexuality is, like all sexual activity a personal matter. Its right to do with it what you wish. It's not your right to force others to accept beyond respecting your right to it personally, engage in the lifestyle of and allow your propagation of it in any setting, much like church services are disallowed in certain places.

 

[junk]

Religion isn't a protected class. Freedom of religion is the right to practice it and the right not practice it and the freedom from theocracy and instituted religion.

Religion is a protected class under federal civil rights legislation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

No one can force a school to allow services, or any other facility, am I right? The NYDOE instituted a policy banning it's spaces from being rented for worship services.

Isn't that then discrimination against religion? How does this qualify it as a protected class? Hell, even a public community center was deemed off-limits by the Bronx housing authority… Link due to the result of this policy, which clearly excluded any form of religious services from it's renters. How is this different?

I don't think you are right. I think things have changed. This is still winding through the courts, however, from what I can gather, the church is still allowed to use the facilities.

The original ruling was based upon the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment which is intended to prevent the appearance of preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another (which I agree with).

However, I believe your information is out of date and the church is now allowed to rent the facilities.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-29/churches-can-use-n-y-schools-for-worship-judge-says.html

Preska today made that permission permanent, saying the regulation that allows community groups to use public schools for activities outside normal school hours, while banning their use for religious services, violates the clauses of the First Amendment concerning religion.

If buildings can be designated off limits to religion, then religious buildings should be exclusive as well. Religion, gun ownership, freedom of speech aren't 'classes' of people. They are protected personal rights, limited to individuals who cannot force their choices to own and practice on others. You do know there are gun-free zones? Is this discrimination against the right to bear arms? It certainly seems so by your definition.

Government buildings can be made off limits due to the Establishment Clause.

Again, religion is a "class" as designated by U.S. Federal Civil Rights legislation.

Personally, I don't think the churches would have anything to worry about if they said "We only rent our facilities to church members" or cease renting to the public in general. If they only rent to church members, they aren't excluding a particular class, they are excluding everyone. If they aren't renting to the general public, it isn't an issue at all. However, if they rent to the general public, except for homosexuals, it is discrimination. Exactly if someone refused to rent a facility to anyone except Christians.

Exactly. Protocols do exist and they are not forms of discrimination. Your work place has a protocol, schools have a protocol and churches have a protocol.

Not exactly. Saying you can't do personal business on work hours isn't discriminatory. Saying you can't do personal business on work hours if you are gay or if you are Christian is discriminatory. It targets a particular class of people.

I'm not sure posting a news article in a news section of public forum is considered trolling. Is this gauged by the fact people have differing views? That's the point of a discuss forum; no need to denigrate a guy for participating.

It is gauged by the fact that it is no longer relevant as the legislation was shut down in election and isn't even current or accurate information (much like your information cited above) Not to mention his commentary leading off the post.

Your bolded part does little to prop up your argument. The whole premise is churches that do rent space. And Meryl Dye gave the title absolute legitimacy, stating that rented church space can not be made off-limits in these cases.

Well, that is exactly my point. If a church rents out their facilities to the general public, but denies homosexuals simply for being homosexuals.....that is discriminatory. Much in the same way that a school, which rents to the general public after hours, prevents a church from renting the facilities, is discriminatory. Quite a few parallels between the two, don't you think?

And you example of a guy being fired for being gay isn't even in the same universe as telling a church who and who it' can't rent to. Is disallowing school buildings being used on off-hours for services the same as firing a guy for his religion?

Yes, actually.

As for protecting classes of people based on behavior, it's senseless. Men and women enjoy equal human rights, we can't start parsing them based on personal behaviors. The long and short of it all is this: homosexuality is, like all sexual activity a personal matter. Its right to do with it what you wish. It's not your right to force others to accept beyond respecting your right to it personally, engage in the lifestyle of and allow your propagation of it in any setting, much like church services are disallowed in certain places.

It isn't about forcing other. It is about having the same rights as everyone else. The church fought for that and appear to be winning that battle. They're now allowed to hold services in a school that is rented out to other after hours. No discrimination. Actually, it was a great example and I'm glad you brought it up. Really drives home my point.

 

[buckup]

I'd say if you can master a cover 2 that can stop the run and pass rush you're set.

 

[Jon88]

Let's just ban religion and call it a day.

Who's with me?

 

[JBond]

Let's just ban religion and call it a day.

Who's with me?

Just shut up Jon. I like many of your posts but this topic is not for you. I mean this in a kind way. Between your conspiracy stuff and other posts... Sigh....

 

[Jon88]

Just shut up Jon. I like many of your posts but this topic is not for you. I mean this in a kind way. Between your conspiracy stuff and other posts... Sigh....

Rude!

 

[JBond]

The article title is inflammatory and the entire article is meant to simply stir up people that are already stirred up. Know what else is funny? This article is from April 2012. Nice troll job by JBond.

Inflammatory? Trolling? Whatever....

The reason I posted it is because I am currently part of a committee working on rewriting the bylaws of my church. We are not very concerned about the government forcing our church to host homo sham weddings, but we are concerned about employment issues and contracts with venders.

Pretending that poor personal lifestyle choices are on par with race and gender discrimination is asinine. We would not hire heroin addicts as security guards or pedophiles to manage our youth services; does that mean we are discriminating against drug addicts and child rapists?

The fact is the government, be it local, state, or federal have in many instances decided to protect poor lifestyle choices and are attempting to impose their lack or morality upon others.

We care for and pray for those that have lost their way, but it is not the role of the government to force us to hire, work with, or perform services for those that are actively engaged in deviant behavior.

As pep mentioned, should he be forced to defend child rapists when he finds their behavior abhorrent?

 

[Midswat]

The reason I posted it is because I am currently part of a committee working on rewriting the bylaws of my church. We are not very concerned about the government forcing our church to host homo sham weddings, but we are concerned about employment issues and contracts with venders.

Pretending that poor personal lifestyle choices are on par with race and gender discrimination is asinine. We would not hire heroin addicts as security guards or pedophiles to manage our youth services; does that mean we are discriminating against drug addicts and child rapists?

The fact is the government, be it local, state, or federal have in many instances decided to protect poor lifestyle choices and are attempting to impose their lack or morality upon others.

We care for and pray for those that have lost their way, but it is not the role of the government to force us to hire, work with, or perform services for those that are actively engaged in deviant behavior.

As pep mentioned, should he be forced to defend child rapists when he finds their behavior abhorrent?

I only read this last post because you and junk are too wordy for my liking, but I have to ask:

You think homosexuality is a "poor lifestyle choice?"

 

[VTA]

Religion is a protected class under federal civil rights legislation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964



I don't think you are right. I think things have changed. This is still winding through the courts, however, from what I can gather, the church is still allowed to use the facilities.

The original ruling was based upon the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment which is intended to prevent the appearance of preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another (which I agree with).

However, I believe your information is out of date and the church is now allowed to rent the facilities.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-29/churches-can-use-n-y-schools-for-worship-judge-says.html





Government buildings can be made off limits due to the Establishment Clause.

Again, religion is a "class" as designated by U.S. Federal Civil Rights legislation.

Personally, I don't think the churches would have anything to worry about if they said "We only rent our facilities to church members" or cease renting to the public in general. If they only rent to church members, they aren't excluding a particular class, they are excluding everyone. If they aren't renting to the general public, it isn't an issue at all. However, if they rent to the general public, except for homosexuals, it is discrimination. Exactly if someone refused to rent a facility to anyone except Christians.


Not exactly. Saying you can't do personal business on work hours isn't discriminatory. Saying you can't do personal business on work hours if you are gay or if you are Christian is discriminatory. It targets a particular class of people.


It is gauged by the fact that it is no longer relevant as the legislation was shut down in election and isn't even current or accurate information (much like your information cited above) Not to mention his commentary leading off the post.


Well, that is exactly my point. If a church rents out their facilities to the general public, but denies homosexuals simply for being homosexuals.....that is discriminatory. Much in the same way that a school, which rents to the general public after hours, prevents a church from renting the facilities, is discriminatory. Quite a few parallels between the two, don't you think?


Yes, actually.


It isn't about forcing other. It is about having the same rights as everyone else. The church fought for that and appear to be winning that battle. They're now allowed to hold services in a school that is rented out to other after hours. No discrimination. Actually, it was a great example and I'm glad you brought it up. Really drives home my point.

In sense, ok, but the Establishment Clause (which I see you've given a loose interpretation of below) pretty much established this long before the CRA of '64 and not as a protected 'class' but as an individual's right.

There lies the problems with these definitions of class, etc. It's divisive and forces a broad and mostly inaccurate category to something that can't be simply quantified in groups. The transcendence thing applies.

It's still on-going and there will be appeals, how it falls out will tell.

Again, the entirety of the Establishment Clause in no way shape or form states what you're claiming it does here, with respect to government buildings and their usage.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Interpretating it in such a way is entirely subjective and most likely wrong, considering what follows after the not respecting of an established religion is the prohibition of it's exercise. It isn't claused with 'except in government buildings'. In fact prayers were held in official meetings, etc, throughtout the history of this nation.

Maybe you're misunderstanding my analogy. I know it's not discrimination in the work place, it's protocol. The right to set parameters within the confines of your business, association, group or church.

I really don't know how to address your personal opinion concerning the article and JBond. Suffice it to say you responded no problemo with your own salvo, so why find fault with it now?

Nuh uh ~ sp, circa. 2013

But is your point on target? There's plenty to be questioned about your views on it, as well as you can question mine. If, when there are plenty of options at your disposal and you insist on forcing, yes forcing your lifestyle, events and presence on others in their own sanctuaries, then what else can you can call it? The church has the right to have it's own sanctuary. It's not discrimination, it's like the above stated, protocol.

 

[VTA]

Let's just ban religion and call it a day.

Who's with me?

Oh Jon are you getting tense reading all of this? :wave
We've been respectful and fact-forwarding. Nothing to get upset about.

 

[Jon88]

Oh Jon are you getting tense reading all of this? :wave
We've been respectful and fact-forwarding. Nothing to get upset about.

Hi!!!

No, I'm fine. I'm just trying to come up with solutions to this problem. That's what I do. I fix things.