Stude, please tell me all of the easily provable flaws and inaccuracies in the Bible.
 December 9, 2014 at 12:27am
It makes me sad to be apart of this “community” sometimes.
 December 3, 2014 at 8:29pm
Since when is it unlawful to ask questions? Why is it unlawful to peacefully, which this guy was, try to find out why he was being arrested? Why would that many cops worry about a guy selling loose cigarettes?
Do you even imagine a cop became a cop to arrest someone for selling a cig?
Because the progressives want the tax money so they have made this a crime and instructed the cops to follow the rabbit hole! How simple can it be the state and city has created a black market and wants their pound of flesh!
Just what do you not understand? They made this a crime that they want to pursue, spend millions of dollars in courts and police. Welcome to social engineering of the progressive mind, conform you idiot!
I’m not against people selling cigarettes, but if the leftwingers want to micro-manage people to that detail, somebody’s gotta arrest violators.
Oh, and the street isn't the place to complain about false arrests.
There are reports that these officers were order by a supervisor, to arrest this man. Initial orders from the Mayor to crack down on the sale of "loosies". Comrade DeBlasio thinks it's okay if you openly smoke reefer though.
Obey first. You can ask later w/an lawyer.
 October 21, 2014 at 12:20am
When did a private business become a public right? Legally speaking a business owned and operated by its private owner/s and not incorporated is looked at by the federal and state governments as one in the same as the owner/s themselves. If the government looks at me and my business as the same entity then does it not have the same rights I do?
 October 21, 2014 at 12:11am
1. You said a for profit business does not have the right to the protections of the 1st Admendment. Explain how a “private” business does not have those rights when the govenment by its own rules looks at that business as one in the same as it’s owners.
2. You said that Idaho looks as heterosexual and homosexual marriage as the same but yet there is a specific court ruling that does not say that they are the same but says they will be treated the same. It looks as if the court looks at them as two different things too. If so, then services for one can and are different than services for the other and therefore one can offer only one of those services.
3. You said wrongly, see #2, that since they were the same in the eyes of the court and there was no difference between them legally, then no one can offer services for or of one without the other. Well since your case is based on the legal interpretation of the two items, hetero and homosexual marriage in this case, then it would stand to reason that any and all other items would need to be defined by the courts to have the same clarification. And since there is no such law to define what is and is not a deli meat or that there are different deli meats then I should be able to demand that Jews and Muslims serve me what I feel is a right. Their religious beliefs have to stop when it infringes on me.
 October 20, 2014 at 3:21pm
I’m sorry but you can’t have it both ways. You say there is no legal difference between heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage according to state law. First I disagree. If there wasn’t then there would be no court case that specifies homosexual marriage. Secondly, showme the state law that differentiates between pork and beef.
It seems silly for me to ask for such a law but since your new argument hinges on a legal difference between two things before one can be denied then without said legal ruling then a Jewish or Muslim business refusing me a pork product infringes on my rights.
Furthermore, food is more important than a tax status or binding personal contract so I would say that I would have more of an argument than this couple.
Lastly, I wonder if this is a private business or a incorporated one? If it is private it is taxed as if it is one with the owner/s. If that is the case then the US gov looks at this business as the individuals who own it so it should be covered by the 1st. If it is incorporated in any form then it is taxed as it’s own entity. Well, if it is it’s own entity according to the US gov then it has it’s own 1st rights .
Either way they should be protected.
 October 20, 2014 at 12:24pm
I would like you to point to the state law that differentiates between the two sandwiches. If their is no state law then a sandwich is a sandwich.
Furthermore, your argument was that a for profit business cannot be protected under the 1st amendment because once it is for profit it is in the public domain. Well, a deli is for profit and public under your original argument.
The bottom line is that if one business is not protected from religious persecution then no business is safe.
 October 20, 2014 at 11:29am
These pastors do not offer the service/product that this couple wants. Same sex weddings are the same as heterosexual weddings as much as a roast beef sandwich is the same as a ham sandwich. They have different ingredients but all else is the same. So under your argument I could sue a Jewish deli for not offering a service to me that they do not offer for religious reasons.
 October 20, 2014 at 10:59am
No it’s the same thing. This chapel does not offer same sex weddings. It’s a product just like food is.
Here’s another question. Should a black Jewish caterer be made to cater a KKK event?
 October 20, 2014 at 10:24am
Honest question. Do you think a Jewish or Muslim deli should be forced to serve ham?
After all, eating ham is not illegal and is mentioned in the Constitution as many times as marriage is and since the deli in question is run on religious beliefs for profit they have to abandon their protection under the 1st Amendment.
Especially the Muslim deli. Need to report their refusal to serve ham and pork to the appropriate fed agency that is so in to forcing christian businesses to do things against their religions. Perhaps folks need to call the muslim restaurants and if they refuse to serve ham, report them.
Not the same thing. If a Jewish or Muslim deli refused to allow a customer to purchase anything in their store because of their religious beliefs, then yes, they would be discriminating. Refusing to serve someone a product that the deli does not carry, however, is not discriminating any more than a bakery refusing to provide oil changes is discriminating. In the case of the wedding chapel, the product they provide is wedding ceremonies, which means they can't refuse to serve customers who want to a wedding ceremony. They can't refuse to marry an interfaith or interracial couple, or a divorced couple, even if they believed their religion told them to, either. That's the way the law works, whether you like it or not.
No it's the same thing. This chapel does not offer same sex weddings. It's a product just like food is.
Here's another question. Should a black Jewish caterer be made to cater a KKK event?
It IS the same thing. The pastors are not saying “If you are gay, we won’t marry you.” (i.e. refusal to service a type of person). They are saying “If you want to be married to someone of the same sex, we won’t marry you” (refusal to offer a particular item, service, or product to ANYONE, regardless of who they are).
They aren’t limiting WHO they service. They are limiting WHAT they provide. In the same way that a deli that limits WHAT they provide (i.e. HAM) would do.
Your argument is invalid.
@handcuff: They ARE limiting WHO they service - they are refusing to service couples who are legally allowed to marry because of WHO THEY ARE. Their product is wedding ceremonies. They cannot refuse to sell their product to people who are legally allowed to purchase it. You could just as easily say they could refuse to marry couple because of race with that argument, i.e. We only offer one product: wedding ceremonies for white people.
klcjan nailed it. This couple can get a religious exemption if they convert their business into a religious nonprofit, but they are not entitled to that exemption as as long as they remain for-profit
No, it is not the same thing. A church can refuse to sell anything they feel goes against their value/belief system. They can refuse to sell guns, drug paraphernalia, or alcohol. And guess what, they can refuse this against anyone of any race. Thus, they can refuse to sell a variation or twisted form of marriage (a religious practice) to gays of any color or race. So the analogy used fails in this instance. The two examples are comparing apples to oranges. The product will not be sold to anyone of any race, even for those who feel they deserve it based on their personal beliefs and/or desires. That's really the bottom line here.
@Heyjoojoo: The problem with your argument is that this chapel is not a church. They are a for-profit business that is refusing to sell their product to a certain segment of the population based on the personal religious beliefs of the owners. They are not holding Sunday worship services; they don't do baptisms, Christenings, or communion services. They just host weddings. As a for-profit business, they are required to follow the same laws as all the other for-profit businesses in Idaho: they cannot refuse to sell their product to someone that is legally allowed to buy it.
The church (whether it does baptisms, seances, or whatever..) are not refusing to sell something to a specific “group”. They’re being asked to do something that is not perhaps realistic or not a service they provide. So they cannot be forced to sell guns or alcohol to any kinds if it contradicts with their organization mission, goal, purpose or value system. My point was that the church was refusing service to a group any more than not refusing to sell alcohol to to anyone. They just do not provide such a service. That’s the argument. So the so called “discrimination” accusation does not stand since that is not occurring here. They are a church that hosts weddings. They would never marry two brothers or sisters whereas there is no law that forbids that in that state. So it is legal. This is an example of a government bullying its constituents and tax payers.
@Heyjoojoo: Again, your argument is based on the assumption that this wedding chapel is a church. The business in question is NOT A CHURCH. It is FOR-PROFIT BUSINESS that happens to sell wedding ceremonies. As a FOR-PROFIT BUSINESS, they are not legally allowed to refuse to sell their services (weddings) to certain segments of the population solely because of the personal religious beliefs of the business owners. They also cannot refuse to allow divorced couples, interracial couples, interfaith couples, etc. to marry in their FOR-PROFIT NOT A CHURCH business just because the bible says so.
They are not being asked to sell alcohol, or guns, or anything that they don't already provide to the public. They are being told that they cannot provide a product to one segment of the population (i.e. heterosexuals) but refuse it to another (i.e. homosexuals). This is not a difficult concept. All you have to do is remember that this is a FOR-PROFIT BUSINESS and NOT A CHURCH.
The "menu" of this deli in question is one item: Male - Female marriage. They don't have the happy slappy meal on their menu because it is against their religion.
Again, you either refused to see the point I’m making or choose to dismiss it. That’s where you fail to see a very reasonable decision that was made by the church. To continue using the guns/alcohol example, it really doesn’t matter that these services are “already provided” and that argument is really not substantial at all. The issue has nothing to do with whether the service is provided or not but more on what product the church chooses to sell. If the church refuses to sell alcohol to alcoholics or guns don’t you think those customers are a segment of the population who will be left out as well? Of course. So, the church can refuse and will not twist one of its religious practices for anyone. They cannot because of their organization’s belief system and/or values. The couple can and should find another place to have their alternative marriage conducted. Your only viable argument is that the organization considers itself a “church”. And one can spend ions amount of time evaluating definitions of churches. I believe CHAPEL is a church not because of the building, not because of variations of 501c statuses but because of more than that.
The argument is very similar to what was stated earlier regarding a Muslim deli being forced to sell ham. Sure, there are segments (all groups) of the populous that will buy ham just like there are groups (homosexuals) who will want to be married….
...but because the religious values, they reserve the right to not sell ham products to any customer. It's one thing if they sold it to some of the customers and not all. Why would that be different? Because we're talking about one product - ham or in this instance marriage. And since marriage is a single product defined for male and female, that product WILL be sold to anyone. However the other product known as same-sex marriage will NOT be sold to ANYONE because it is not a product they carry. I can't expect to go to a Ford Dealership expecting to buy a Nissan. Now, will there be customers who might have their feelings hurt because they couldn't buy something they wanted from this one dealership? Of course not. They will go where they can find the product they're looking for. I suggest this couple does the same thing. Or perhaps a new business may want to be created to serve those of the alternative marriage desires. It would be a great way to improve the economy. More jobs. I advise against it but for those who desire as such, it would serve them.
@heyjoojoo: YOU seem to be lacking in comprehension here - they may call themselves a "chapel," but they are NOT A CHURCH. They are NOT ORGANIZED AS A 501 (C)(3) COMPANY. They are organized as a FOR-PROFIT BUSINESS. Jeezopete, dude, you don't even know what you're arguing for. If you can't even understand the difference between a church and this business, then there's no point even bothering with a conversation.
Try to internalize the following statements before you make another post:
THE HITCHING POST WEDDING CHAPEL IS NOT A CHURCH.
THE HITCHING POST WEDDING CHAPEL IS A FOR-PROFIT BUSINESS.
NOT A CHURCH. AS IN, NOTNOTNOT A CHURCH.
MEANING - THEY ARE NOT A CHURCH.
Aw.... LOL... I see that's where your hangup is. You are stuck on the whole church definition. I invite you to research the term "church". While believers understand that "church" represents the body of Christ, the building in which such services are conducted is a church. There is an ordained pastor or pastoral team. You cannot affect change in their value systems irrespective of your belief.
"Marriage in the CHURCH, also called matrimony or HOLY matrimony, is the "covenant by which a MAN and a WOMAN establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring"...."
Church is not precisely spelled out in the tax code, but generally refers to temples, mosques, synagogues and CHAPELS; conventions and associations of churches, and integrated auxiliaries of a church. The church will prevail in this matter too.
@heyjoojoo: Sigh. Well, apparently you're determined to ignore the relevant legal issues here, and the fact that, despite the owner's personal religious beliefs, the business is not legally organized as an entity that would be exempt from the non-discrimination laws. I can't really explain the point any better without crayons. I guess that means that every wedding chapel in Vegas is a church, then. I'm sure they'll all be happy that they can get their taxes back, and don't have to abide by the laws any more. Peace out, dude.
@handcuff horrible argument, yours is the invalid one. You're saying the chapel will marry gay people...as long as they're marrying men to women and vice versa, which is the same ridiculous argument as saying that gays have the same rights as straights do...to marry someone of the opposite sex. It's intentionally obtuse, ridiculous on its face, and other than pointing out the absurdity...no more time needs to be spent on it.
 October 20, 2014 at 10:18am
Homes question here. Do you think a Jewish or Muslim run deli should be forced to serve ham?
You could *have....
A simple case of spelling things how we hear them. Carry on.
 October 17, 2014 at 5:24pm
And of course Savage knows. And no one else does so that’s why it hasn’t hit any other media.
 October 14, 2014 at 8:02pm
I’m disappointed that Glenn did not take a bite out of a chicken leg at the end of his response.
 October 12, 2014 at 10:27pm
Everything Sars said and wasn’t it Obama that said Ebola would not come to America?
 October 12, 2014 at 6:30pm
My wife is 4’10″. This has happened more times than we would like. I won’t say that she always handles it perfectly but she has never caused a scene. Most of the time she looks at the kidde menu and will order off of it. A lot of the time a kids steak is just the same as a regular one just cheaper.
 October 1, 2014 at 3:58pm
No, it means they believe it to be true. Same here, the apostles believed Christ was the Son of God. If they knew he wasn’t then you would be hard pressed to find 11 who claimed to know someone who did not exist to die a torturous death for that lie.
 September 24, 2014 at 3:44pm
He did gun it. He gunned it to force the car left. These Sprint cars have larger wheels on the right side of the car than on the left. This causes the car to want to turn left at all times. Most of the steering is done in the way of speeding up or slowing down. When Tony gunned it, it was to get the car to quickly turn left away from the guy on the track. This is proper procedure. The only one who did anything wrong was the guy who got out of his car during a race on a low lit dirt track.