Huh...Religious Conservatives were right...

[eynon81]

[eynon81]

70 pages btw.

[The Tooth]

No kidding. 70 pages. Galt and Battleaxe are doing yeoman's work.

Not well, mind you. But yeoman's work nonetheless.

Nevertheless, after 70 pages I'm still pretty puzzled as to what, if not the sexual orientation of the participants, the basis is for this woman's discriminatory practices. "She's against gay marriage!" I've been told repeatedly. I'm not even convinced that's a distinction, much less a distinction without a difference. What is it about gay marriage that warrants her refusal when heterosexual weddings don't? Hmmm. Maybe in another 70 pages I'll be convinced that it's not the sexual orientation of the grooms, but I doubt it. Arguments along the line of "she'd do the same thing if two straight men were getting married, so it can't be their sexual orientation" or "she never did it before so she can't be doing it now" do not convince.

It will take more than 70 pages to convince me that her religion is a valid excuse for such discrimination, that much is certain.

[battleax86]

[lil bit]

[eynon81]

[lil bit]

That concerned a school. Consumer rights laws don't affect schools.

[eynon81]

[exploited]

Come on now. We all know that religious organizations are exempt. If the lemon test doesn't apply, neither does ministerial exemption. It undermines their explicit message.

[eynon81]