Search results

Utter twaddle. Apart from the fact they violated a legal agreement which is reason enough for the Court to find they broke the law, a church performing weddings is not offering a private service per se. It is being permitted to perform a legal undertaking on behalf of the public and of...

Doesn't matter if you're with it or not. Free market or not. It's not ok for businesses religious or not, to break the law. It's just GAY to think it's ok.

Religious bigotry is religious bigotry. You must mean the same way a Christian church considered marrying black people would be a wedding of abomination.

Any church performing a wedding does so as agent of the state in as much as they are conducting both a formal civil legal duty in the signing of the register as recognized in law, and a superstitious religious performance to satisfy, shall I say, a less practical component. The legal element...

A church was found by the state Judge to have violated state law by offering without preconditions, religious or otherwise, a public pavilion area for weddings, and then illegally discriminated against people. They got let off without penalty. Playing the christian persecution card when...

Takes one to know one.

The freedom to choose does not automatically imply any respect is due for the choice itself or for those who chose it. Choosing and believing what they want is every persons right. It is not a free pass to respect. Many very nasty things are done within the name of 'positive peaceful religion'...

Respect their right yes, not their choice or their religion.

Tolerate, not respect.

As mayor he is certainly speaking as part of the people. The part you obviously don't agree with. As mayor he is certainly entitled and expected to voice his opinion on any subject no matter, which he perceives to be in the interests of the city and the people in general. He does not as a...

He is saying the spirit of the city is against discrimination and so does not condone the comments of owners or businesses declaring opinions which discriminate against particular groups of people. As a philosophical business model there's nothing in that which would go against generally...

He's a politician. Of course he can and will use his opinion as a political weapon. That's what politicians are supposed to do. Push an opinion for those who agree with it. He clearly sees the duties of his office to support or frustrate business that does or doesn't fit with the city's...

What power? The people who think he's right will agree with him those who don't won't. Sure if he thinks a specific business does not reflect what he sees as meeting his city's standards , in this case social inclusiveness, he has every right to say so. Whether he has any legal power to do...

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to your death your right to say it.:p

Of course Romney should be free to air his personal prejudices should he so wish, and then anyone should be free to speak in vilification or support of what he says. The consequences follow. You're mixing up the right for anyone to freely voice their opinion, with the soundness or...

Free speech, but only when it agrees with your own prejudices, isn't free speech. Any mayor has every right to publically or privately voice what he thinks is in the interests of his own city just as a business owner does.

"They can offer whatever opinions they want to, but they can't apply the laws in a biased manner." So how is that in conflict with everyone from a mayor to a business owner having free speech? You guys are so hung up on "leftists" and "liberals", missing the whole point is what you do...

His statement was that CF A's business values were not those of Chicago. So he should be denied free speech to say as much? You're advocating limiting free speech!? Politicians should not be free to speak their mind when in office? Are you serious?

Free speech is an abuse of authority?

So from that you support Dan Cathy's freedom to make the statement he did, but not Rahm's freedom to make the statement he did?