Yes, but you are expecting **GEEPERS **to reply with sense and sensibility.
Geepers, you are aware that there is a law in New Mexico forbidding businesses from discriminating against gay people, right? Who do you think is passing these laws? I can’t find any information on the makeup of the New Mexico legislature–is it being overrun by gay people? Somehow I’m guessing it’s not. I can never understand the viewpoint of Geepers or Tony Perkins when they talk about how the “liberals” or the “gays” are taking away the rights of christians. Do you think gay people make laws? Or non-christians, or even liberals, for that matter? In Congress there are three non-christians that I know of. A Muslim from Minnesota, one from Indiana, and I think one atheist in there somewhere. As far as I know, there is one gay congressman. There may be more I don’t know about, but I guarantee it’s less than ten. The Senate is completely straight and christian, at least in public.
I would bet every penny I have that the legislative body in New Mexico that passed this law was at least 90% christian, and 95% straight. They represent the will of the people that elected them; if New Mexico can be compared to the rest of the country that’s what, 80% christian and 90% straight? Who exactly do you think is oppressing you?
It’s interesting that you’ve said this to a Christian while arguing with an assortment of people ranging from atheist to agnotic to neopagan to Christian. Me, I eat sugar on my porridge. 
Couldn’t resist, could you? 
Two peenies. You see if there was just one penis up there, all would be jake. But with two of them swinging around … hell, that’s just too much to think about.
Well, yes, but Florida doesn’t have a similar constitutional provision to the one that’s at issue here. As NotreDame05 correctly noted, even a sincerely held religious belief may be infringed by laws which are neutral as to content and of general applicability. It’s the same reason you can’t get around your state’s marijuana prohibition by starting a Church of Marley and getting high on Sundays.
In the wake of Employment Division v. Smith, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which would have compelled a different result in this case, but the provisions which applied to the states were struck down as unconstitutional. To cut a long story short, the law was passed under §5 of the 14th Amendment, and Congress may impose only remedial restrictions on the states under that section. They didn’t actually look for examples of infringement on religious liberty before passing the law, so they couldn’t claim to be remedying something; instead, they were preventing future violations, which was beyond their authority.
Sucks for you then that we don’t live in a theocracy.
Instead of pride and prejudice? 
A better question is why you don’t listen to simple directions. I specifically told you to stop making these kinds of off-topic remarks. I’ve also told you before that complaints about moderating belong in private messages to the staff or in ATMB threads because we don’t want them to clog up the threads. This is a formal warning: don’t do it again.
No more of this, thanks. As noted, this is not Atheists vs. Christians, Round 1 Million.
Now take out the word Christian, and replace it with business owner and yes he is being persecuted (at least according to the OP)
The reality of things is business can refuse to take on business for just about any reason they want, as it is their business.
It may not be directly expressing support, but you are forcing people of faith to witness an act that is morally offensive to the person. It’s the same principle if you forced the animal activist to witness the slaughtering of cattle or a taxidermist at work. You can’t deny that Christian’s rights have been taken away here, plain and simple. Gay rights trump religious rights according to the court.
The judge ruled that Religious Freedom Restoration Act didn’t apply here because no religious activity took place in the ceremony. So what? Elane Photography would still have to accept the job even if it involved religious rituals. Otherwise, it is discrimination.
Yeah…we should repeal the Civil Rights Act, too, since some people are religiously opposed to serving black people. Since YOUR religious beliefs trump anyone else’s civil rights.
You know me better than that.
Should a county clerk who is a Christian Identity believer be forced to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple? The marriage violates their sincerely held religious belief, doesn’t it?
Alternatively, should a country club which holds itself out as available for weddings be allowed to refuse to host interracial weddings?
Where are you getting that from? It’s a state matter; the RFRA doesn’t apply.
You win. That was beautiful.
A government employee is required to perform job duties as defined by the job description. They don’t get a say in the matter. A business owner should have the right to deny service to customers. Furthermore, there really isn’t any evidence that the Bible is against inter-racial marriage.
[/QUOTE]
In the case of racial discrimination, no.
I call that point, it was a rebound off a whoosh, but don’t want to get all John McEnroe about it. [hijack over, back to the quarrel]
Uh? The sequence was more like:
tom: [straight line]
Eve: [punchline]
Polycarp: [repeat of straight line]
Ivory: [congratulations to Poly]
Besides, if anyone wins the thread, it’s me for post #78.
If people claim to interpret the Bible as being against interracial marriage (or if they publish their own translation that emphasises it), how is the law to distinguish between their cherished belief and yours?
Your comparison only holds up if you can prove without a shadow of a doubt that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice. You can’t choose your race, but I could certainly suddenly call myself gay and receive special rights over religious people.