(July 31, 2015 at 9:51 am)Drich Wrote:(July 28, 2015 at 4:58 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: Take another look at the article at your link. It is regarding "wedding chapels," not churches. Wedding chapels are basically businesses which marry people. Businesses are not allowed to discriminate. Churches are.
Also, as is often the case, Fox News is lying:
http://www.advocate.com/politics/marriag...ing-chapel
http://boisestatepublicradio.org/post/co...rights-law
Next time, try looking for a reputable news source.
silly atheist, you cant refute a tertiary source with another tertiary source, unless you want to look like a fool sitting in his own 'confirmation bias.'
You need a secondary source or primary source material to refute a tertiary source like a new agency or new blog.
Lucky for you the fox news article provides a primary source to not only support everything reported it goes much further is detailing not only the fines, and jail time threatened it out lines how this threat was not constitutional. On the link I provided it provided a link to the actual 63 page legal brief filed with the city, along with Donald knapps signature on the document. Which not only verifies the complain it shows your liberal blog/rags for what they are.
http://www.adfmedia.org/files/KnappComplaint.pdf
A good secondary source is the summation of the situation on the actual website of the ADF. (The attorneys defending Donald Knapp and the hitching post.)
http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/9364
This summation is valid because it comes from the actual lawyers defending knapp.
Then a valid tertiary (third part/non affiliated source) is the boise public radio source that not only confirms the confrontation but spells out the final resolution.
http://boisestatepublicradio.org/post/co...rights-law
Bottom line... Next time you want to challenge me don't let the other fool you into thinking I am not well researched. I rarly have less the three points of verified reference material before I make a stand like this. Several more when a subject like this is contested.
Your own sources say that they do not have to marry gay people. So YOUR sources prove that your original post was bullshit. Your claim again:
(July 28, 2015 at 4:38 pm)Drich Wrote: ... The US is currently jailing pastors for not marrying gay couples.
...
From your third link:
Quote:“After we've looked at this some more, we have come to the conclusion they would be exempt from our ordinance because they are a religious corporation,” Gridley explained.
http://boisestatepublicradio.org/post/co...rights-law
No one was jailed. Your claim was just bullshit from the start.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
