Here is the site, check it yourself, ' http://www.allthingscrimeblog.com/2...n-the-same-states-that-ban-same-sex-marriage/ AND it's on more than one site. PLUS this wasn't about Alabama, . OH and Alabama passed the bill in 2014, NOT 1975.. And that's from Alabama's own LAW website. Senate bill 151, passed JAN 15TH 2014 and signed into LAW March 20th, 2014. And that's a fact. Source: http://openstates.org/al/bills/2014rs/SB151/. So you know...
So the store owners where actually Buddhists carefully masquerading as Christians and they ran off with their own money, even though they're still giving interviews. Got it. Also, they're up to $770,000.
So it isn't actually against anybody's religion to serve food to people celebrating a same sex union.
"here's a link to something on the internet that proves I'm right and you arent" ennit These shit stirrers are as obnoxious as the faux-christians, but it kind of goes to show there's no such thing as bad publicity.
Not that I find anything wrong with that, but I don't believe that's legal yet, even in Massachusetts. Besides, @Elwood would truly have his hands full
First of all, neither of those sites are the official sites of the Alabama State Legislature. Secondly, I'm looking at the actual law. It was first enacted when the code was adopted and then modified by amendment in 1977, 2010, and then as I mentioned, in 2013. Here's a photograph of the amendments: I've provided actual code and section. You can look it up yourself on the official code website. I've only been enforcing the laws of this state for nearly two decades and have seen successful prosecutions under the code. What do I know?
Buddhists for the most part don't run scams like this, so I don't really know where you're going with that. I get that you're angry though, after the people you've just written thousands of words in favor of turned out to be frauds and are probably buying some Pabst Blue Ribbon with your donated money as we speak. I get it.
Your link goes to a page that says NOTHING about what you just said. My link Data on Open States is automatically collected nightly from the official website of the Alabama Legislature. http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/acas/ACTIONSponsorsResultsMac.asp?OID=83068&LABEL=SB151 http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/acas/ACTIONHistoryResultsMac.asp?OID=83068&LABEL=SB1 AND AGAIN. this topic was NOT about ALABAMA. If you looked at the original link it was dated 2013. Before 2014.
Wow. It would be easy to insult your stubbornness and dishonesty, but I think I'll just let it go. Again, I have been a police officer in this state for almost two decades. I have seen people sent to jail for this. Your desire to be right at all costs, even the truth, says more about you than I ever could.
Dishonest?? No I posted the link.. AND AS I SAID I DON'T LIVE IN ALABAMA!! We were talking about Kentucky. No I am not a cop or a lawyer.
If bestiality was already covered under animal cruelty laws, why did Alabama pass an anti-bestiality law last year?
I can't speak for this case, but passing new laws against something that's already illegal in an effort to pander and/or get attention is a favorite of D-list state legislators everywhere.
I just read the text of the anti-bestiality law passed in 2014 -- looks like it's defining a new illegal act. Anyway, have to wonder who the one legislator was that voted nay. Really not the sort of thing you want on your voting record.
Penalties. The amendment, and addition, of the .1 section of the Code in 2013 made doing it intentionally a Felony rather than the Misdemeanor it had been. The legislature realized that while unsavory to our morals and cruel to the animal in question, it probably should not be a Felony and thus ruining someone's life. So, steps were taken to rectify that. If I had to guess, I'd say it was someone that wanted it to remain a Felony. Context is everything.
No, it's not, but it might be against their religion to participate in the ceremony by serving them food at the reception. There are a lot of people on the left who would refuse to participate in a marriage ceremony between a 15-year old Muslim girl who was offered as an arranged bride to a 60-year old Muslim man who'd had his two previous wives put to death. But under the left's new moral standards, they wouldn't be allowed to refuse to participate in the ceremony because then they'd be am intolerant religious bigot.
With parental consent girls can get married at 15 and younger in almost all states, including California. In Massachusetts girls can marry at age 12. And of course parental consent isn't an issue when its the parents who are arranging the marriage, as is common throughout the Muslim world. So yes, you apparently do have to attend such a wedding if the parents ask you to cater it and you're in the catering business. I'm sure it will be fabulous and then all the local Muslims will demand you cater their underage forced weddings. What will your friends think? And remember, you are no longer allowed to refuse because that would be bigotry, violate all sorts of laws, and be punishable by ruinous fines.
I've never heard of a caterer participating in a wedding ceremony. Most often, in my experience, the ceremony and the reception are held at seperate locations. So what difference could there be in serving food in a restaurant or a banquet hall that violates someone's religious beliefs?
Playing devil's advocate for a moment: If a devout Jew owns a burger joint, do I have grounds to sue if he refuses to serve me a bacon cheeseburger? Can a muslim sue because he won't serve halal certified beef?
A banquet hall filled with alcohol, for one. Some religions don't tolerate that, at all. And of course all this also applies to wedding photographers and other such specialists.
That's a flawed analogy, though, unless you are prepared to argue that any restaurant can be sued for menu omissions. A Chinese restaurant without pizza? Sue!
I would tend to agree, except we're talking about motivations behind certain behavior. A Chinese restaurant doesn't serve pizza because it is a Chinese restaurant. A burger joint owned by a devout Jew doesn't serve bacon or halal certified meat for religious reasons alone. Motive, motive, motive.
Agreed. For me, this whole issue is a twist on the debate from 1st Corinthians 8, that being eating of meat that had been offered to idols. I don't see anything wrong with being the florist, caterer, or photographer at any wedding. But, I understand that there are those that do see something wrong with it and I'm trying to be sensitive to that. That said, I do draw the line at the responsibility of the clergy and the use of facilities. To steal from the worst of sources, Chris Rock said something years ago that has, sadly, stuck with me. He said, and I paraphrase, that we're all a little bit bigoted or discriminatory. For instance, he doesn't want his kids hanging out with drug dealers, so by definition, he's bigoted and discriminatory against drug dealers. The key is to find as harmonious a balance as possible and I question if that can be accomplished by legislation alone. The church I attend is discriminatory in that we would not hire a female pastor. Our ministers, myself included, will not officiate a homosexual marriage ceremony. Now, I'm not saying that no one should ever hire a female pastor. One of my co-chaplains is female and I simply choose not to fight on that issue because she is a truly wonderful human being. I'm not saying that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. They should be allowed because we are not, and I don't want to live in, an earthly theocracy regardless of religion. So, there are always going to be certain levels or acts of discrimination. It's part of the right of free association. We just have to find a balance while still respecting certain boundaries. This is one of those times where people can rationally disagree.
The banquet hall won't be filled with gays if they force certain Muslims to intend. It will just be a banquet hall with some Muslims and lots of dead bodies. The Muslims can't refuse to attend anymore, and you'd think the gays would be smart enough not to force them to, but sadly, this doesn't seem to be the case. All most of them wanted was some breathing room and to be left alone, but some people have to force their issues on everyone else. We've already had a recent Muslim serial killer who used gay dating aps to find his victims as he traveled around. There will be more of that. Interestingly, the strongest supporters of Marine Le Pen's National Front are French gays who become fearful because gays were getting murdered by Muslims who were obeying religious commandments.
