Photographer sued for refusing to provide service...

[gryphonslair99]

Originally Posted by stef@apl

It's higher than that in NM, at least from when I was growing up.

Of course we could be 100% catholic and barely affect the US stats.

Not by much according to USA Today.

USATODAY.com - Topography of religion

[patterfr]

Originally Posted by gryphonslair99

Sorry Fran, but according to statistics Catholics comprise only 24% of the total population.

Sorry gryph, that lumps many denominations, the highest percent of Christians in the country are Catholic.
But that has little to do with the substance of what I'm saying, since as you know, and much like yourself, they're all off-shoots of the Catholic Church anyway, another sign of humans thinking they know better, huh? Ands anyway, the actual percentages have nothing to do with who is "right" or wrong anyway, so it's not worth really debating.....you still having trouble with photographers being fined for not giving their services to gay marriages when the judges themselves would have to refuse to allow their marriage . Haven't heard your explanation on that one...take your nose out of the stats books and give me what you got on that one.....

[dmthompson]

Originally Posted by patterfr

Sorry gryph, that lumps many denominations, the highest percent of Christians in the country are Catholic.
But that has little to do with the substance of what I'm saying, since as you know, and much like yourself, they're all off-shoots of the Catholic Church anyway, another sign of humans thinking they know better, huh? Ands anyway, the actual percentages have nothing to do with who is "right" or wrong anyway, so it's not worth really debating.....you still having trouble with photographers being fined for not giving their services to gay marriages when the judges themselves would have to refuse to allow their marriage . Haven't heard your explanation on that one...take your nose out of the stats books and give me what you got on that one.....

The judges in the state of New Mexico have to follow the laws of the state. I am assuming there is a law prohibiting gay marriage in New Mexico. There is also a law that does not allow people to discrimiate against them for any reason. It is not inconsistant to apply both laws. Just change the wording from marriage to clothing and you will see it is the same. For example would you shoot a clothing line put together by a gay couple assuming of course you were a commerical photographer rather than a wedding photographer. You could refuse but not based upon if they were gay or not.

All off-shoots of the Catholic church just as they are an off-shoot of the Jewish religion and they in turn an off-shoot of an even earlier religion? All this fuss because a group of old men in the third century, of the ruling class, decided to group a bunch of old stories into a book to make ruling the people easier. After all they decided which stories to be included and I'm sure they would not include stories that would make it more difficult to rule.

Dwight

[Kerbouchard]

Originally Posted by dmthompson

The judges in the state of New Mexico have to follow the laws of the state. I am assuming there is a law prohibiting gay marriage in New Mexico. There is also a law that does not allow people to discrimiate against them for any reason. It is not inconsistant to apply both laws.

Just change the wording from marriage to clothing and you will see it is the same. For example would you shoot a clothing line put together by a gay couple assuming of course you were a commerical photographer rather than a wedding photographer. You could refuse but not based upon if they were gay or not.

Of course it is inconsistent to apply both laws. The legal system, the state, and the judge can discriminate against the gay couple, but a photographer cannot? How much more inconsistent can it get?

[Rain Lily]

Originally Posted by dmthompson

All this fuss because a group of old men in the third century, of the ruling class, decided to group a bunch of old stories into a book to make ruling the people easier. After all they decided which stories to be included and I'm sure they would not include stories that would make it more difficult to rule.

You're sure of that? How can you be? You weren't there.....

It's a whole lot bigger than that, Dwight. Your little summary is childish and insubstantial, in my opinion.

[patterfr]

Originally Posted by Rain Lily

You're sure of that? How can you be? You weren't there.....

It's a whole lot bigger than that, Dwight. Your little summary is childish and insubstantial, in my opinion.

And those are its good points........

[dmthompson]

Originally Posted by Rain Lily

You're sure of that? How can you be? You weren't there.....

It's a whole lot bigger than that, Dwight. Your little summary is childish and insubstantial, in my opinion.

Originally Posted by patterfr

And those are its good points........

Without getting into a big shouting match about this lets just say my version (in my opinion) is probably as good or maybe better than yours since you were not there either. History tells us that the head of this group was the ruler of Rome at the time and the group consisted of the religious leaders. During this era very few people other than the ruling class could read or write which means most of the hundreds of stories had been passed down by word of mouth for many years (hundreds or even thousands) before being written down. Human nature being what it is the chances of these stories not being expanded upon is remote. It would also be within reason for the Roman ruler to choose those stories that would not make his rule more difficult. I don't think there is anything childish at all about beliving this most likely happened since historians have found other errors in this book.

Dwight

[Rain Lily]

Originally Posted by dmthompson

Without getting into a big shouting match about this lets just say my version (in my opinion) is probably as good or maybe better than yours since you were not there either. History tells us that the head of this group was the ruler of Rome at the time and the group consisted of the religious leaders. During this era very few people other than the ruling class could read or write which means most of the hundreds of stories had been passed down by word of mouth for many years (hundreds or even thousands) before being written down. Human nature being what it is the chances of these stories not being expanded upon is remote. It would also be within reason for the Roman ruler to choose those stories that would not make his rule more difficult. I don't think there is anything childish at all about beliving this most likely happened since historians have found other errors in this book.

Dwight

I don't want to get into a shouting match either, Dwight. But there is more to it than what you are saying. The only thing is, one has to believe in an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient God to actually get it.

Obviously our views are as far apart as the east is from the west, so we'll both have to just go on believing that the other is childish and simplistic.

Peace, Dwight.

[patterfr]

Religious freedom vs discrimination

What about this one:
Christian church sued and lost the and had to allow same sex marriage on their property......

LifeSiteNews Mobile | Judge Rules Christian facility cannot ban same-sex civil union ceremony on its own premises

Freedom to practice religion as long as it's what the Govt believes is the correct religion.

Or mandating abortion and contraception insurance from the Catholic church:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...year-showdown/

Again, freedom of religion as long as it conforms with what the govt says otherwise you are not free.
It's all starting.......

[Rick Waldroup]

You know, Fran, has it ever crossed your mind that maybe the couple in question are of the Christian faith? That perhaps they saw this as an absolute discriminatory act by those they put their trust in when it comes to their religious beliefs?

I tell you what, when the Christian church or any other freakin' religious organization can cherry pick from their doctrines what they want to practice and how they want to establish their dogma, then fine, let them do so. But only under the establishment that they simply become another fraternal group, another social gathering group, another group that preaches one thing but practices another. And then, my friend, let the government tax the shit out of them. What do you think?