Christian Business Shut Down

A few comments. The lesbian couple didn't sue them, they registered a complaint and the state might fine them, I don't think they have yet. They got a crap load of money from donations, and they didn't shut down their business, they're still running it out of their home.

semi,

The Kleins did not claim to be "perfect people" and no one else is claiming that these women  are "perfect people" so that part of your post is totally irrelevant. Nor did they claim never to have done anything to violate their consciences or religious freedom.  Again, your shallow and presumptuous preconceptions go down the porcelain throne.

The Oregon Labor Commissioner, Brad Avakian, stated the following concerning this case:

""The goal is never to shut down a business. The goal is to rehabilitate," Avakian said. "For those who do violate the law, we want them to learn from that experience and have a good, successful business in Oregon."

http://www.oregonlive.com/gres...refused_wedding.html

What can "rehabilitate" mean as it applies to this case?  It sounds as though Mr. Avakian finds the beliefs of the Kleins to be so much out of step with society that they need to be changed to accept lesbianism as a normal and acceptable thing.  My dictionary lists  four definitions for "rehabilitation, and all of them have to do with RESTORING something. Someone please tell me what there is about this couple's past or present beliefs or actions that needs to be RESTORED.  Since the Kleins apparently have long and consistently held their religious views concerning homosexuality, there is nothing here that needs to be RESTORED, there having been no prior period in which the Kleins held views different from those they now hold.  Commissioner Avakian is trying not to overtly contend that the Kleins need to overhaul their beliefs, but that appears to be what he actually has in mind and that is what evidently prompted him to blither his nonsense about rehabilitation.

My analysis of this matter might seem a stretch to some of you, but consider this.  Those who hold religious scruples against homosexuality  often are accused of having a mindset analogous to that of racist segregationists. Thus, to follow the analogy to its illogical conclusion, since racists need, and would benefit by such counseling and education as would reform their racist prejudices, likewise those who sincerely believe that homosexuality is immoral would profit, along with society, if they could be persuaded to accept homosexuality as normal and natural.

All of that is a part of the allegedly nonexistent GAY AGENDA, which in reality is every bit as existent as the solar system  or the Eurasian land mass.

semi, when you say---

"It was MY opinion that the Kleins must be perfect people. " YOUR WORDS, VERBATIM---

I have a hard time taking you literally.  That statement of yours was intended as nothing but  sarcastic criticism of the Kleins. It was not your actual opinion, and you know that.  If you disagree, then tell us why you actually, factually DO consider them to be perfect.  YOU said it; YOU explain it.

Both sides should have the right to express their rights without the government telling them what they have to express.

Contendah, you don't know me or what my opinion is or isn't. Yes, it was my actual opinion, nothing sarcastic about it at all. You sound just like Bill Gray claiming to know someone's mind better than they do. I won't explain it again because my explanation is clear enough that a 5 year old could understand it. Be a good boy & take a chill pill.  

The real issue here is: Where do we draw the line between "the free exercise (of religion)" and discrimination couched in religious freedom.  Can an individual discriminate against a person of a different religion?  Is it okay for an individual to discriminate against a person of a different race, claiming religious freedom? 

I know, lets have all businesses hand out questionnaires to all customers asking their religion and lifestyle preference.

____

Then permit me to offer my congratulations to you, for you have achieved (or claim to have achieved) something that I would never have thought possible, namely finding not ONE, but TWO PERFECT PEOPLE.  Having categorically declared the Kleins to be "perfect people", it follows that you would steadfastly defend their right to deny service to the lesbian couple planning  a so-called

"same sex wedding." Thus, we are indeed, at least in part, on the same page.

Contendah, I will not keep debating this with you but will try once more to help you understand. I said they must be perfect people if they’ve never done anything to violate their conscience or religious freedom. We all have, at least once in our life, went against our conscience and/or religious freedom for some reason or another.

Does anyone else get what I'm putting down, or is it really that hard to understand what I'm saying?

The Mighty Condendah at bat ...

___________

I erred.  The conclusion I refer to is not yours, but is that of the irrational writer of the article, Howard Portnoy ("Portnoy's Complaint?").

STEEEEEEERIKE ONE

___

My apology; you are correct.  It was the Craptain's post.

STEEEEEEERIKE TWO

____

Then permit me to offer my congratulations to you, for you have achieved (or claim to have achieved) something that I would never have thought possible, namely finding not ONE, but TWO PERFECT PEOPLE.  Having categorically declared the Kleins to be "perfect people", it follows that you would steadfastly defend their right to deny service to the lesbian couple planning  a so-called

"same sex wedding." Thus, we are indeed, at least in part, on the same page

STEEEEEEERIKE THREE

The Mighty Contendah has struck out.

___

That "strike three  would be a home run if a reputable unpire had been calling it. Your credentials obviously fall well short of that standard.

____

You are playing a little dishonest word game here, semi.

You prepresent your original post as saying this:

"I said they must be perfect people if they’ve never done anything to violate their conscience or religious freedom."

but what you actually posted was this:

"They must be perfect people.  I guess they’ve never done anything to violate their conscience or religious freedom."

That critical little word "if" does not appear in your second version. Your initial comment was indeed sarcastic, notwithstanding your later disclaimer to this effect:

"Yes, it was my actual opinion, nothing sarcastic about it at all. "  

Your alleged "actual opinion" that the Kleins are "perfect"is what I referred to in my sarcastically congratulatory reply--a reply that your evasive equivocation deserved!.

===========

BAck in the '50 it wasn't religion but race . The question, was "do I have the right to not serve Black people in my resturant, (or other place of business)

In the '60 the question was answered "if you are open to the public, then yes you are reuired to serve whomever walks in the door. " You cannot discriminate on the basis of race , creed, or color.

I would suspect the same thing applies to religion (creed), maybe especially religion as the Constitution gives us the right to worship in whatever religion we see fit, so in the eyes of the law, whatever religion one is, should not have anything to do with whether or not they are served by a business.

PS: And yes, I have played pool in a LOT of places that had the words "private club" printed on the window, but the only membership requirementn was my white skin.

I like to go around shoeless and shirtless and I have several  male friends who share this preference.  I also have female friends who prefer to go shoeless, though not shirtless--at least not in public.

Often we encounter places of business with signs at their entrances specifying the intolerant demand:  "Shoes and Shirts Required."

Just who are these people who assert such demands?  Who do they think they are, levying upon me and my friends a requirement to dress in a way that suits them?   Wearing clothes of a given type or wearing or not wearing shoes are means of EXPRESSION of my personality and my own well-developed standards of appearance.  The Supreme Court recognizes this right (freedom of expression), having held that vocal "speech" is not the sole form of "speech" protected by the Constitution.  

Rise up, shoeless and shirtless Americans!   Demand that your rights must be protected. Put to shame those prissy dictatorial business owners who think their dress standards are superior to yours.  Do not allow yourselves to be flung upon their Prucrustean bed of dress style demands.

Let us put these CLOTHESISTS to flight!!

I like cake.

Referring to the shirt and shoes required, a lot of people should be required to have a full length mirror near their exit door at home.