(April 3, 2015 at 6:56 pm)Heywood Wrote: Court asks the plaintiff, "Did you ask if this was a gay wedding? If it was really that important to you, why didn't you ask?" I don't believe this laws allows you to breach a contract. It allows you to not enter a contract.
The reason this law exists is because people were being forced to service gay weddings against their morality. Now it would be one thing if gays were shut out of the market and denied these services. But there was no desperate impact and thus no need for the courts to compel individuals to do things against their will.
Again, you progressives just want to force people to behave the way you think they should behave. Your not any different than slave owners as far as I am concerned.
You and I are agreed that any Christian who backs out of a contract at the 11th hour to cater to a wedding should be sued for breach of contract and damages to the couple on their special day. Citing religious objections should not be a good reason for the last minute reneging on the contract.
And that's what prompted this legislation.
Rest assured, no one in their right mind wants unwilling labor servicing critical functions on their wedding day. I don't know if you've ever been married but if you have, you know what I'm talking about.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
