Re: Arizona discrimination
By: EARL CROASMUN to TIM RICHARDSON on Fri Mar 14 2014 11:29 am
EC> As the judge in the Colorado case wrote: "Because RespondentsÆ objection
EC> goes beyond just the act of ômarriage,ö and extends to any union of a
EC> same-sex couple, it is apparent that RespondentsÆ real objection is to the
EC> coupleÆs sexual orientation and not simply their marriage. Of course,
EC> nothing in º 24-34-601(2) compels Respondents to recognize the legality of
EC> a same-sex wedding or to endorse such weddings. The law simply requires
EC> that Respondents and other actors in the marketplace serve same-sex couples
EC> in exactly the same way they would serve heterosexual ones."
By this logic a Christian couple can hire a Muslim caterer and force them to
serve ham, pork chops and liqour at their wedding and the Muslim has to agree.
While it's none of my business what someone believes, in this land we are free
to beleive whatever we choose... no matter how foward or backward thinking it
is. A person should have the right to RESPECTFULLY object due to their
religious convictions ANYTHING they choose... the key word is RESPECTFULLY not
judgementally.
Allen
... Those who stand for nothing fall for anything.
--- SBBSecho 3.00-Win32
* Origin: LiveWire - Derby City USA - livewirebbs.ddns.net (1:2320/100)
|
