There's a difference between private enterprise and public/psudo-public organizations. That's the "place of public accommodation" that the court ruling seems to be focused on. If you owned the beach cabin then you'd be perfectly within your rights to not rent it to anyone for any reason without bothering to explain. But a church is government subsidized and their facilities have a history of public accomodation. If the church didn't apply for tax-free status and kept their property private this wouldn't be an issue.
I think this is an excellent argument for further separation of church and state. Let religions be private institutions with no special perks from the government and let them do as they please within the normal sphere of private institutional rights. Judah On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 8:29 PM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry, but labeling it discrimination does not convince me that its not OK > for a person or group to disallow someone to use their property. I'd feel > the same way, regardless of what group it was, and what reason was given for > disallowing the property's use. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:283486 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
