|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 11/26/2008 3:03:37 AM
|
|
|
Marcus.
Posts: 1335
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Judge strikes down Florida law banning gay adoption
Curt Anderson - Associated Press Writer - 11/25/2008 1:05:00 PM
MIAMI - A judge on Tuesday overturned a strict Florida law that blocks homosexuals from adopting children, declaring there was no legal or scientific reason for sexual orientation alone to prohibit anyone from adopting.
Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman said the 31-year-old law violates equal protection rights for the children and their prospective gay parents, rejecting the state's arguments that there is "a supposed dark cloud hovering over homes of homosexuals and their children."
She noted that gay people are allowed to be foster parents in Florida. "There is no rational basis to prohibit gay parents from adopting," she wrote in a 53-page ruling.
Story Continues
_____________________________
Blessed is He who comes in the Name of the Lord.
Hosea Project
Care Net
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 11/26/2008 3:11:05 AM
|
|
|
tacitus
Posts: 392
Joined: 5/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Judge strikes down Florida law banning gay adoption
It does seem weird that Florida law allowed gay people to foster children (for years in some cases) and yet are not allowed to adopt. Either they are unfit to rear children or they are not. But then, if they were banned from fostering too, there is still no law against rearing your own natural offspring (and never will be), no matter what your sexual preference.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 11/26/2008 3:15:01 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7595
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Just look at the number of gays who work for Republicans in Congress -- closeted and openly -- many of them on the staffs of staunch social conservatives who advocate against the homosexual agenda.
How do you know this? Is there some weird survey I don't know about?
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 11/26/2008 4:01:36 AM
|
|
|
tacitus
Posts: 392
Joined: 5/12/2005
Status: offline
|
No, but there have been plenty of examples of "out" and "outed" Republican staff members over the years. I believe John McCain's own chief of staff is openly gay. Given that there was at least one gay Republican senator and one gay Republican Congressman in the last few years, what are the odds that there aren't more of them working behind the scenes.
I'm not saying there's an epidemic of them (not that there would be anything wrong with that  ), but they are there, both open and closeted. If you remember, during the Foley scandal (which also peripherally involved two more gay Republican staffers), some people were calling for a purge. Well, that purge never happened, so they must be still there. Just ask the Log Cabin Republicans. I'm sure they would be able to supply you with some names.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 11/26/2008 5:18:45 AM
|
|
|
TheosCentric
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2/26/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Marcus.
Judge strikes down Florida law banning gay adoption
Curt Anderson - Associated Press Writer - 11/25/2008 1:05:00 PM
MIAMI - A judge on Tuesday overturned a strict Florida law that blocks homosexuals from adopting children, declaring there was no legal or scientific reason for sexual orientation alone to prohibit anyone from adopting.
Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman said the 31-year-old law violates equal protection rights for the children and their prospective gay parents, rejecting the state's arguments that there is "a supposed dark cloud hovering over homes of homosexuals and their children."
She noted that gay people are allowed to be foster parents in Florida. "There is no rational basis to prohibit gay parents from adopting," she wrote in a 53-page ruling.
Story Continues
The argument should have been that children thrive best with a mother and a father.
I've seen crime spike among kids from single parent homes, particularly those raised by only their mothers or grandmothers. That's not to say that kids from seemingly stable homes with a mother and father won't do some sort of crime, but I do believe that if a study was done, crime would be higher among those from single-parent homes. What would it be like among those with gay parents? I would say the same as that of single parents, but that's guessing.
_____________________________
"Missions exists because worship doesn't." -- John Piper, Let the Nations be Glad
God at the Center
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 11/26/2008 7:07:47 AM
|
|
|
huangshan
Posts: 869
Joined: 8/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
They've already forced a photographer to pay a fine in New Mexico for refusal to go against his beliefs. And they successfully sued a Methodist church in New Jersey for not allowing a gay ceremony.
There will be something to end up in the Supreme Court, I'm sure. Be aware that as a minister, you're probably be a target if it comes down to gay marriage being allowed nationwide. As an agent of the state in performing marriages, you would be forced to comply. A friend of mine who is licensed has said that he would sooner give up his license to marry than perform a gay marriage.
I think this is a very important and pertinent point that needs to be highlighted.
It is often argued by homosexuals and their allies that homosexual marriage will have 'no effect' on the lives outside those of homosexuals themselves; that it will not impinge on heterosexual marriage - and yet here, immediately, before gay marriage has even become the law of the land, we see how advocates for homosexual marriage will specifically modify organizations and intitutions devoted to supporting heterosexual marriage.
I am no fan of eHarmony, but as these sort of organizations go, it was particularly devoted to bringing people together into strong ongoing marriages, not simply hooking them up. And now they have to devote time, resources, and modify their focus to accomadate the radical facist homosexual agenda.
Let me be clear - homosexual advocates are lying to us, they will say anything, do anything, disregard every democratic and traditional institution to advance their beliefs and lifestyle - and next to abortion, anyone who cares about our culture and preserving our system of government should oppose at every opportunity any attempt by these folks to undermine our civilization.
Eh, the radical fascists who shoved interracial marriage down society's throat didn't undermine any civilization but the racist one. I don't think gay marriage is going to do anything outside an analogous undermining.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 11/26/2008 11:18:24 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7595
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Eh, the radical fascists who shoved interracial marriage down society's throat didn't undermine any civilization but the racist one. I don't think gay marriage is going to do anything outside an analogous undermining.
Actually, interacial marriage was ultimately a bi-product of the 14th amendment to the constitution, which was adopted by customary means.
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 11/26/2008 11:20:22 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7595
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
No, but there have been plenty of examples of "out" and "outed" Republican staff members over the years. I believe John McCain's own chief of staff is openly gay. Given that there was at least one gay Republican senator and one gay Republican Congressman in the last few years, what are the odds that there aren't more of them working behind the scenes.
I'm not saying there's an epidemic of them (not that there would be anything wrong with that ), but they are there, both open and closeted. If you remember, during the Foley scandal (which also peripherally involved two more gay Republican staffers), some people were calling for a purge. Well, that purge never happened, so they must be still there. Just ask the Log Cabin Republicans. I'm sure they would be able to supply you with some names.
Well there is no doubt they exist (indeed, Washington, being a power center, tends to attract odd ratios of people who are politically active because of their own agendas) I just am not sure why it matters.
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 11/26/2008 11:29:38 AM
|
|
|
Marcus.
Posts: 1335
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Cardinal on Biblical Condemnation of Homosexuality: We're Not Allowed the Cowardice of "Politically Correct" Silence
"A page of the inspired book that no human authority can force us to censor"
By John-Henry Westen
BOLOGNA, November 25, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Italian Cardinal Giacomo Biffi, the former Archbishop of Bologna who last year was selected by Pope Benedict XVI to preach the papal Lenten retreat, has authored a new book in which he addresses, among other things, the question of homosexuality. In 'Sheep and Shepherds', Cardinal Biffi notes that the Biblical condemnation of homosexuality is explicit and Christians are not "allowed, if we want to be faithful to the word of God, the pusillanimity of passing over it in silence out of concern of appearing 'politically incorrect.'"
The Cardinal's book is replete with references to the Sacred Scriptures, with which he makes his case that the societal acceptance of and spread of homosexuality is both "the proof and the result of the exclusion of God from collective attention and social life, and of the refusal to give him due praise."
Story Continues
This is a nice straight forward defense of the Biblical teaching on homosexuality.
_____________________________
Blessed is He who comes in the Name of the Lord.
Hosea Project
Care Net
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 11/26/2008 1:32:08 PM
|
|
|
zamdad
Posts: 1755
Joined: 4/8/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
hangshuan
Eh, the radical fascists who shoved interracial marriage down society's throat didn't undermine any civilization but the racist one. I don't think gay marriage is going to do anything outside an analogous undermining.
Interracial marriage was shoved down the throat of society? Linking homosexuality to racial reconciliation is a farce. Redefining marriage is going to change the fabric of our society forever. It will open the door to all sorts of perversions being legitimized.
quote:
Tacitus
It does seem weird that Florida law allowed gay people to foster children (for years in some cases) and yet are not allowed to adopt. Either they are unfit to rear children or they are not. But then, if they were banned from fostering too, there is still no law against rearing your own natural offspring (and never will be), no matter what your sexual preference.
But homosexual couples cannot have their own natural offspring if they are truly homosexual.
_____________________________
The two hardest things to handle: failure and success.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 11/26/2008 2:35:20 PM
|
|
|
ta_mosquito
Posts: 11451
Joined: 3/31/2005
From: from MN, now in Ontario :D
Status: offline
|
MODERATOR'S NOTE :: ATTENTION PLEASE
Matt Smith - please email community@salemwebnetwork.com before posting further.
Please allow time for a response. Do not set up any new accounts or post under another handle.
Thank you!
Tricia
Forums Moderator
Please do not reply to this message within the Community.
Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns.
Please do not send me PMs regarding this message.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 11/26/2008 3:39:21 PM
|
|
|
SlipperyWhenWet
Posts: 57
Joined: 11/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheosCentric
The argument should have been that children thrive best with a mother and a father.
My thoughts exactly. They could've just looked a little further north to see what effects not having a mother and a father is having on society:
Supreme Court of Georgia: GetMarriedStayMarried.org
_____________________________
Sincerely,
Todd
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 11/27/2008 5:32:15 PM
|
|
|
Marcus.
Posts: 1335
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Gay Rights Advocates to Create New Hollywood Blacklist
Fox News Report
_____________________________
Blessed is He who comes in the Name of the Lord.
Hosea Project
Care Net
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 11/28/2008 4:47:43 AM
|
|
|
henny
Posts: 1167
Joined: 4/15/2005
From: MN
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheosCentric
And they successfully sued a Methodist church in New Jersey for not allowing a gay ceremony.
They didn't make them perform the ceremony, however. It was a suit over the renting of property, not the churches refusal to perform a ceremony (if it's the case I'm thinking of, the association that governed the property's rental was not the Methodist church itself, but a Methodist run organization that accepts public funds to maintain the property, and the like -so it never shared the same exemption status that churches do). Had the church itself refused, as a private religious institution, to perform the ceremony -then they would be perfectly in the right and the gay couple would not have had a case. That's not what they were doing, however. They were renting a section of their property for profit, as well as accepting public funds for its maintenance. If the church is going to rent property to make money and accept public funds to maintain this property, they will have to comply with non-discrimination laws, and all other state laws that govern such transactions. They shouldn't be surprised at that.
I've yet to hear a single case in the USA were a private religious institution was forced to marry homosexuals. As long as they are acting within their bounds, I don't think they have anything to worry about.
< Message edited by henny -- 11/28/2008 5:04:48 AM >
_____________________________
Hell is other Christians.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 11/28/2008 10:43:45 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7595
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
I've yet to hear a single case in the USA were a private religious institution was forced to marry homosexuals. As long as they are acting within their bounds, I don't think they have anything to worry about.
It wasn't that long ago we were hearing (especially during the DOMA debates) 'I haven't heard a single case where a state was forced to marry homosexuals, I don't think we have anything to worry about'.
That is usally the phrase that tells us that in very short order we will have a lot to worry about.
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 11/28/2008 10:50:13 PM
|
|
|
backrowbaptist
Posts: 441
Joined: 6/7/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
I've yet to hear a single case in the USA were a private religious institution was forced to marry homosexuals. As long as they are acting within their bounds, I don't think they have anything to worry about.
It wasn't that long ago we were hearing (especially during the DOMA debates) 'I haven't heard a single case where a state was forced to marry homosexuals, I don't think we have anything to worry about'.
That is usally the phrase that tells us that in very short order we will have a lot to worry about.
And years ago we heard things like "Don't worry, we just want to be free to live our lifestyles. We don't want to force society to accept us or do anything radical like changing the definition of marriage."
We already have a lot to worry about, including hear-no-evil, see-no-evil, speak-no-evil christians.
_____________________________
Any of this gettin' through to you, son?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 11/29/2008 2:12:40 PM
|
|
|
Marcus.
Posts: 1335
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Divorce case challenges Oklahoma marriage law
Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 11/29/2008 6:45:00 AM
A challenge against Oklahoma marriage laws has been stopped.
Two lesbians married legally in Canada and then moved to Tulsa, Oklahoma where Alliance Defense fund attorney Austin Nimocks says the women filed for divorce.
Story Continues
_____________________________
Blessed is He who comes in the Name of the Lord.
Hosea Project
Care Net
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 11/29/2008 5:57:33 PM
|
|
|
rcjames
Posts: 5781
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Marcus.
Divorce case challenges Oklahoma marriage law
Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 11/29/2008 6:45:00 AM
A challenge against Oklahoma marriage laws has been stopped.
Two lesbians married legally in Canada and then moved to Tulsa, Oklahoma where Alliance Defense fund attorney Austin Nimocks says the women filed for divorce.
Story Continues
I knew I moved to Oklahoma for a good reason. Now if the rest of the States will just respect the will of the people.
Thanks
RC
< Message edited by rcjames -- 11/29/2008 6:06:11 PM >
_____________________________
Just a country Preacher's humble opinion
Read the first chapter of my latest book here;
http://www.deliveranceofsara.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 11/29/2008 8:40:55 PM
|
|
|
henny
Posts: 1167
Joined: 4/15/2005
From: MN
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
I've yet to hear a single case in the USA were a private religious institution was forced to marry homosexuals. As long as they are acting within their bounds, I don't think they have anything to worry about.
It wasn't that long ago we were hearing (especially during the DOMA debates) 'I haven't heard a single case where a state was forced to marry homosexuals, I don't think we have anything to worry about'.
That is usally the phrase that tells us that in very short order we will have a lot to worry about.
State sanctioned marriage and forcing churches to marry gays are entirely different issues, though. If the church is stretching out beyond it's bounds in various ways, the state might have some justification in regulating discrimination depending on a context, but I don't think they will hold much sway over a church that is properly acting as a church. I know you all hate to compare homosexuality to race, but I do think that it's telling that since the law suit that resulted in anti-interracial marriage laws being overturned, there has yet to be any successful lawsuits in which an interracial couple have been able to force a church to marry them (or at least none that I've heard of). Same thing with women and whether or not they should be able to serve in positions of authority in the church. As long as a church is acting as a church, I don't think gays would have any more justification for such a thing than an interracial couple, just as a woman wouldn't have justification for suing the Catholic church because she wants to be pope.
And for the record, I support gay marriage, but I'll also be the first to say that I value religious freedom in this country. If a court ever were to force a church to marry homosexuals, I'd be just as upset about it as all of you, and I'd be protesting it along side all of you. None of the gay people I know personally want anything like that.
_____________________________
Hell is other Christians.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 11/30/2008 7:18:31 AM
|
|
|
TheosCentric
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2/26/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: henny
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheosCentric
And they successfully sued a Methodist church in New Jersey for not allowing a gay ceremony.
They didn't make them perform the ceremony, however. It was a suit over the renting of property, not the churches refusal to perform a ceremony (if it's the case I'm thinking of, the association that governed the property's rental was not the Methodist church itself, but a Methodist run organization that accepts public funds to maintain the property, and the like -so it never shared the same exemption status that churches do). Had the church itself refused, as a private religious institution, to perform the ceremony -then they would be perfectly in the right and the gay couple would not have had a case. That's not what they were doing, however. They were renting a section of their property for profit, as well as accepting public funds for its maintenance. If the church is going to rent property to make money and accept public funds to maintain this property, they will have to comply with non-discrimination laws, and all other state laws that govern such transactions. They shouldn't be surprised at that.
I've yet to hear a single case in the USA were a private religious institution was forced to marry homosexuals. As long as they are acting within their bounds, I don't think they have anything to worry about.
Regardless of whatever the case with the Methodist church was, what about the photographer? Was the court right in issuing a fine against the photographer for refusing service to the lesbian couple?
_____________________________
"Missions exists because worship doesn't." -- John Piper, Let the Nations be Glad
God at the Center
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 11/30/2008 10:16:32 PM
|
|
|
henny
Posts: 1167
Joined: 4/15/2005
From: MN
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheosCentric
Regardless of whatever the case with the Methodist church was, what about the photographer? Was the court right in issuing a fine against the photographer for refusing service to the lesbian couple?
Honestly?
I don't know.
That's a gray one to me.
I see both sides, and I think it all depends on how you frame the issue. On the one hand, it's a business, so I think anti-discrimination laws would be in effect in the same way that they were when, for example, a Deny's tried refusing a black choir service a few years ago. However, I do see validity in the religious argument in that I think it would be wrong, for example, to force a Jewish person to ingest pork on the job. But on the other hand, I also think anti-discrimination laws should be in effect, regardless of religion, when it comes to issues in which certain groups or people are denied access.
I think the key distinction might be that it is the business, not the individual photographers, who must comply. It's perfectly fine for individuals to refuse to do something on the job for religious purposes, but this does not mean that the business as a whole does not have to comply with anti-discrimination laws. The state could not force any individual member of the business to photograph the wedding, but they could fine the business for not photographing the wedding. It would be up to its proprietors to ensure that they have enough staff to make sure that they do not have to refuse people service in a way that breaks anti-discrimination laws. So, for example, if one person refuses to photograph an interracial marriage on religious grounds, that's all well and good, but it would be up to the business to ensure that they do have someone on staff who's willing to do this.
I realize that in this case, it was a 1 or 2 member operation, so I sympathize that they probably do not have the funds to hire more people (and plus, the distinction between "business" and "person" would be slight for all practical purposes, given that the business is basically these two people). But at the same time complying with anti-discrimination laws is one part of owning a business, so if they want to be legit they'll have to find some way to deal with it. I suspect that's why they lost the case. The photography studio's lawyers tried framing it as a "personal" issue (i.e. the two women were trying to force this individual photographer to photograph a wedding), while the 2 women's lawyers framed it in terms of the business not complying with the state's anti-discrimination laws. When it comes down to it, I think the latter argument has more weight.
But I don't think the state should have the power to force an individual to photograph a gay wedding, or even to fine an individual for not doing so. Although I do think a state should have some of this power when it comes to preventing discrimination amongst businesses. Which is obviously where the gray comes in, given that in this case the "business" is basically just "the individual."
I could go back and forth like that forever on this one -so, short answer is I don't know. I'd have to think about it some more and research laws on such things before I'd come to a conclusion (I think most state laws are slightly different when it comes to such things).
But I don't think this case has any relevance when it comes to forcing churches to marry gays. As a business, the photography studio would not be subject to the same laws and exemptions that churches would be.
_____________________________
Hell is other Christians.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 11/30/2008 10:30:34 PM
|
|
|
henny
Posts: 1167
Joined: 4/15/2005
From: MN
Status: offline
|
Hmm, I just read in the article that while it is a two person business, they often subcontracted out to other photographers in the past. This does give me a great deal less sympathy for them, as they very well could have just subcontracted this out. It weakens their case somewhat as well, as they clearly were a functioning "business" (subject to all the laws that govern businesses) as oppossed to just a 1 woman show.
_____________________________
Hell is other Christians.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 12/1/2008 5:48:41 AM
|
|
|
TheosCentric
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2/26/2006
Status: offline
|
Sorry, but I'll just have to disagree with you. I believe the photography business was well within it's right to deny service as a private business based on moral grounds.
I develop websites. If a homosexual asked me to develop a website for them promoting homosexuality, I would have to say no. However, if they asked me to develop a website for them which promoted their business or something else which had nothing to do with homosexuality I could say yes.
The photographer apparently felt that by shooting the ceremony, he would be going against his morals. Even sub-contracting in that case, would have gone against his morals. It would be the same for me, if a homosexual asked for a recommendation after I refused. I could not recommend someone to develop a website that promoted homosexuality. Sorry, but the government overstepped it's bounds in fining the photographer.
Private businesses have every right to serve anyone they choose. I have refused service to people, in the restaurant business because of drunkedness. In the website business, because of moral convictions (it was an accupuncture service, but in that case I referred because of the gray area).
_____________________________
"Missions exists because worship doesn't." -- John Piper, Let the Nations be Glad
God at the Center
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 12/1/2008 3:12:14 PM
|
|
|
rjd628
Posts: 43
Joined: 10/10/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheosCentric
Sorry, but I'll just have to disagree with you. I believe the photography business was well within it's right to deny service as a private business based on moral grounds.
I develop websites. If a homosexual asked me to develop a website for them promoting homosexuality, I would have to say no. However, if they asked me to develop a website for them which promoted their business or something else which had nothing to do with homosexuality I could say yes.
The photographer apparently felt that by shooting the ceremony, he would be going against his morals. Even sub-contracting in that case, would have gone against his morals. It would be the same for me, if a homosexual asked for a recommendation after I refused. I could not recommend someone to develop a website that promoted homosexuality. Sorry, but the government overstepped it's bounds in fining the photographer.
Private businesses have every right to serve anyone they choose. I have refused service to people, in the restaurant business because of drunkedness. In the website business, because of moral convictions (it was an accupuncture service, but in that case I referred because of the gray area).
The only wrinkle in this is that in New Jersey it is explictly illegal to refuse to do business with an individual because of sexual orientation. So if they ask you to produce (in NJ) a website promoting their sexual orientation & only after agreeing tell you they are homosexual - at which point you refuse to complete the contract - there's a clear violation of NJ discrimination law.
If you ask orientation before agreeing to the contract and then refuse - then the refusal could easily be argued to be because of that individual's sexual orientation and hence also a violation. Outcome would depend on the judge and jury (my guess is you'd lose in NJ - but I'm not a lawyer).
Private business only have the right to serve who they want IF that group is not a protected class. For example, while "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" is allowed (I suspect) it's only because the shirtless &/or shoeless population class is not protected under NJ law.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
