[duckman1911]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

This is the link MG showed and if you actually look into it, there is some merit to it because it is a FOR profit organization and not a religious institution. IF it was a church, it would be different. The court is just upholding the law put in place for discrimination.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/...-weddings.html

From the link:
According to the lawsuit, the wedding chapel is registered with the state as a “religious corporation” limited to performing “one-man-one-woman marriages as defined by the Holy Bible.”

But the chapel is also registered as a for-profit business – not as a church or place of worship – and city officials said that means the owners must comply with a local nondiscrimination ordinance.

That ordinance, passed last year, prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, and it applies to housing, employment and public accommodation.

If you are a business owner (which this chapel is and the bakery in Oregon), you have to adhere to the laws of discrimination.

That doesn't mean you can't refuse service to someone who has no shoes, shirt, sagging pants, or drunk, or talking on cellphone, etc. You can tell them to get out.

It is what it is

Couldn't find the link on my phone. If I have no shoes, shirt, clothes on period and I'm on my phone and you ask me to leave aren't you at that point discrimating against me and my lifestyle? As long as I'm not threatening anyone it should be ok. If I'm minding my own business and grocery shopping naked I should be left alone right? If you say no because that's offense just ask a nudist if they feel the same way.