Toggle sidebar

Ellen slams Mississippi over Religious Freedom law

She wasn't fired for being gay. Everyone knew that before she took her show into the gay realm. She was fired because the show lost its humor and became an agenda platform and no one was interested any more.

Besides, "the show" was a grand ripoff of Seinfeld any way.

A little revisionist history going on, Ellen?
 
92tide said:
not that there's anything wrong with that.
Click to expand...

:). Definitely not. "Friends" was a ripoff of Seinfeld too. I tried but couldn't stomach that one. "Ellen" was actually pretty good as a sitcom. Her hottie neurotic friend - can't recall her name but I think it started with a P - I don't know it's been 20 years and I'm too lazy to Google it- was fun to watch and reminded me of people in real life. And Joe the coffee guy in the bookstore had good character development.

When Ellen outted herself the humor died and it became more of a preachy show on acceptance and tolerance. Whatever - she lost her audience.

Now that she has plenty of money she says she can buy the governor's mansion and flip it for a $7 million profit. Good for her that she has found success and a comfortable gig. She seemingly can't define herself as a comedian because that lesbian thing just keeps getting in the way.

I'm not sure if she understands the Religious Freedom Law isn't really going to impact her in any way whatsoever.
 
If a religious person (in a private capacity) or religious organization like a church or synagogue declines to endorse same sex marriage by declining to participate in a same-sex marriage, I have no problem with that. And I would not want my state government involved in forcing them to participate.

My read of the Mississippi law is that it is too broad.

That said, I believe portions of the gay-rights community have gone too far and leaped over tolerance of homosexuals (which I have no problem with) and proceeded to wanting to force others to endorse same-sex marriage.
Should a church/synagogue/mosque be taken to court for declining to host a same-sex marriage? I think not.
Should a bakery or photographer be taken to court for declining to participate in a same-sex marriage? I think not.
If the same baker/photographer declined to bake a birthday cake or photograph a birthday party for a gay customer, should he or she be taken to court? That is more problematical. I would ask the baker/photographer, "How does baking a birthday cake for a gay customer endorse same-sex marriage?
Should an public office-holder be allowed to refuse to issue a same-sex marriage license if the state has decided to issue such licenses? Probably not, because of holding a public office.

I just draw a distinction between tolerance of gay people and endorsement of same-sex marriage.
 
Tidewater said:
If a religious person (in a private capacity) or religious organization like a church or synagogue declines to endorse same sex marriage by declining to participate in a same-sex marriage, I have no problem with that. And I would not want my state government involved in forcing them to participate.

My read of the Mississippi law is that it is too broad.

That said, I believe portions of the gay-rights community have gone too far and leaped over tolerance of homosexuals (which I have no problem with) and proceeded to wanting to force others to endorse same-sex marriage.
Should a church/synagogue/mosque be taken to court for declining to host a same-sex marriage? I think not.
Should a bakery or photographer be taken to court for declining to participate in a same-sex marriage? I think not.
If the same baker/photographer declined to bake a birthday cake or photograph a birthday party for a gay customer, should he or she be taken to court? That is more problematical. I would ask the baker/photographer, "How does baking a birthday cake for a gay customer endorse same-sex marriage?
Should an public office-holder be allowed to refuse to issue a same-sex marriage license if the state has decided to issue such licenses? Probably not, because of holding a public office.

I just draw a distinction between tolerance of gay people and endorsement of same-sex marriage.
Click to expand...

I agree. I just think some of these bills aren't specific enough. I think if they stuck to allowing churches the right to refuse marriages then it would be a lesser issue. The North Carolina situation is the only one that I can't lean one way or the other on with these "religious" bills.
 
81usaf92 said:
I agree. I just think some of these bills aren't specific enough. I think if they stuck to allowing churches the right to refuse marriages then it would be a lesser issue. The North Carolina situation is the only one that I can't lean one way or the other on with these "religious" bills.
Click to expand...

churches already have the right to do this, it's known as the first amendment these laws are useless and simply designed to feed into Christians persecution complex.
 
Jon said:
churches already have the right to do this, it's known as the first amendment these laws are useless and simply designed to feed into Christians persecution complex.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that is true.

The Iowa Civil Rights Commission has declared that prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity “sometimes” apply to churches and has stated that a “church service open to the public” is not a “bona fide religious purpose” that would limit application of the law. In 2012 a New Jersey administrative-law judge ruled that a religious organization “closely associated with the United Methodist Church” wrongly denied access to its facilities for a same-sex wedding.
Click to expand...

Given the penchant I described above, (endorsement of same-sex marriage versus tolerance of homosexuals), I believe lawsuits are approaching by the bushel.
 
Tidewater said:
I'm not sure that is true.



Given the penchant I described above, (endorsement of same-sex marriage versus tolerance of homosexuals), I believe lawsuits are approaching by the bushel.
Click to expand...

i think this is the ruling for that case link

In July 1989 respondent applied for a Green Acres real-estate tax exemption for Lot 1, Block 1.01, which includes the Pavilion and the adjacent boardwalk and beach area. The application describes the area as public in nature. The Green Acres program is designed to preserve open space and the statutory scheme authorizes a tax exemption for non-profit corporations utilizing property for conservation or recreational purposes. One condition of the exemption is that the property be “open for public use on an equal basis,” N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.66; N.J.A.C. 7:35-1.4(a)(2).
Click to expand...
 
Tidewater said:
I'm not sure that is true.



Given the penchant I described above, (endorsement of same-sex marriage versus tolerance of homosexuals), I believe lawsuits are approaching by the bushel.
Click to expand...

your article that said this "While there are — so far — no meaningful judicial precedents that would permit such dramatic interference with churches’ core First Amendment rights, lawsuits challenging church liberties are inevitable." which backs my claim. I am confident that the supreme court would stand on the side of the church in such a case.

whether a private insurer takes the risk of protecting that church against liability in such a case is irrelevant as far as I am concerned. There are plenty of christian hate groups fighting against gays they can form up and self insure if they choose
 
Jon said:
your article that said this "While there are — so far — no meaningful judicial precedents that would permit such dramatic interference with churches’ core First Amendment rights, lawsuits challenging church liberties are inevitable." which backs my claim. I am confident that the supreme court would stand on the side of the church in such a case.

whether a private insurer takes the risk of protecting that church against liability in such a case is irrelevant as far as I am concerned. There are plenty of christian hate groups fighting against gays they can form up and self insure if they choose
Click to expand...

as is so often the case with these cases "proving" or suggesting christian persecution, the devil is in the details, and the details are left out.
 
92tide said:
as is so often the case with these cases "proving" or suggesting christian persecution, the devil is in the details, and the details are left out.
Click to expand...

christians_oppressed.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Posts

Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads

Top Bottom
Back