Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Store
Latest reviews
Search products
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New listings
New products
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Cart
Cart
Loading…
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Change style
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Road Side Pub
This stuff really bothers me
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="RDJ" data-source="post: 5547135" data-attributes="member: 5905"><p>While I agree with you to a certain point, in the case of religion it is not quite so cut and dry. </p><p></p><p>If the property is as you say (and I have no reason do doubt that it is).. and they signed a lease stating they were going to hold it for the good of the public I am 100% in agreement with you on this. </p><p></p><p>In a case where the Church owns the property without the restrictions the I would be of the opinion that it is none of the government's business in how they practice their religion and the government can't force them to allow something on their property that is against their religious convictions. </p><p></p><p>EDITED TO ADD: altho after a second reading of the article this line would give me pause in your analysis of the status of the land: <strong>which the Methodist group has owned since 1870, according to The Associated Press.</strong> If they truely own the land and have since 1870 then I would say the city council is out of line on this.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="RDJ, post: 5547135, member: 5905"] While I agree with you to a certain point, in the case of religion it is not quite so cut and dry. If the property is as you say (and I have no reason do doubt that it is).. and they signed a lease stating they were going to hold it for the good of the public I am 100% in agreement with you on this. In a case where the Church owns the property without the restrictions the I would be of the opinion that it is none of the government's business in how they practice their religion and the government can't force them to allow something on their property that is against their religious convictions. EDITED TO ADD: altho after a second reading of the article this line would give me pause in your analysis of the status of the land: [B]which the Methodist group has owned since 1870, according to The Associated Press.[/B] If they truely own the land and have since 1870 then I would say the city council is out of line on this. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Road Side Pub
This stuff really bothers me
Top