Connecticut religous groups want same sex exemptions

[Bustaballs]

We just has this debate.

I am now physically ill that there is something we apparently share an opinion on, though I phrase mine better.

Pardon me while I go be violently ill somewhere, and scrub my brain with something.

Probably lye.

I suppose I did phase it poorly. I'm terrible when I just type stuff as I think it. And am I really that bad, sir?

 

[Skaw]

You could not be more wrong. Gays have the same rights as everyone else under the constitution. They can vote. They have freedom of speech. They can bare arms in case the British ever try to take back America, etc. etc. The fact is marriage is NOT a constitutional right for gays or straights hence why it is up to the individual states to decide how they wish to recognize their citizenry's consensual relationships. Another reason why it is NOTHING like civil rights which are constitutionally protected.

And here I thought "liberty" meant not being a victim of wrongful or unfair government restrictions.

If you jumped on a time machine and asked the entire 1903 legislature who drafted the law, "Hey, that law your writing includes gays too right?" They'd probably tar and feather you.

You're right. And if you go back to 1803, and asked if privileges were to include blacks, you'd get tarred and feathered as well.

 

[Raesvelg]

You could not be more wrong.

It's not that simple.

The 14th amendment guarantees us equal protection under the law. So long as there are legal ramifications for marriage, then there is sufficient ground to argue the issue.

By your logic, the states could pass a law forbidding redheads from getting married.

And am I really that bad, sir?

Just... gullible, in the worst possible way.

 

[Tomasello]

And here I thought "liberty" meant not being a victim of wrongful or unfair government restrictions.

I don't really agree with it either. I'm just giving you THE FACTS. Something many gay marriage advocates completely lack.

You're right. And if you go back to 1803, and asked if privileges were to include blacks, you'd get tarred and feathered as well.

Well the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments solved that problem so if gays want to get an amendment passed, that would pretty much solve their problems in all 50 states.

By your logic, the states could pass a law forbidding redheads from getting married.

Well 25 states forbid you from marrying your cousin, and I think all of them from marrying your sister so obviously states can set restrictions on who marries who.

 

[Tagrineth]

Well 25 states forbid you from marrying your cousin, and I think all of them from marrying your sister so obviously states can set restrictions on who marries who.

Except there's actually a clear-cut biological basis for this one. Inbreeding is potentially very hazardous to the gene pool.

 

[Khajit]

well.. actually.. there was a study done in Australia i think. It turns out marrying your first cousin doesn't give creepy mutant babies. So really that law has more to do with it being disgusting that you're having sex with your cousin than anything.

 

[Dejavu]

Except there's actually a clear-cut biological basis for this one. Inbreeding is potentially very hazardous to the gene pool.

Also if you want to make disgusting mutant babies... who is the government to stop you.

 

[Skaw]

Also if you want to make disgusting mutant babies... who is the government to stop you.

It's the same reason you can't make disgusting mutant adults. Theres a whole lot of human rights being played with. I don't agree that an early developmental fetus fits the bill for human rights protections, but the moment that kid is born it sure as fuck does. Burdening that life with complications because you want to doink your sister is pretty fucked up.

 

[Dejavu]

It's the same reason you can't make disgusting mutant adults. Theres a whole lot of human rights being played with. I don't agree that an early developmental fetus fits the bill for human rights protections, but the moment that kid is born it sure as fuck does. Burdening that life with complications because you want to doink your sister is pretty fucked up.

Hmm but this is a slippery slope. People who have hereditary diseases are more likely to have kids with complications are you saying that we should not allow them to have kids either. And if you think that what about fat people... or Mexicans or trailer trash why not make it illegal for people in financially bad situations to have kids. As soon as the government gets involved you have to decide where to draw the line instead of letting the common sense of the individual involved handle the situation.

I personally dont think its right to boink your sister and create mutants but if someone else wants to do that.. who am i to stop them.

 

[Morcheeba]

The ability to get married should not be stopped by the government… but that is as far as the protection goes. Pastors should have the right to refuse to do the ceremony in their church. Businesses have the right to refuse to service the wedding if they feel like it. Public officials who are acting on behalf of the government should be the only people who are forced to do marry someone because they are no longer a private entity.

Businesses that offer services to the public are not public companies... they are still private.

This is going to be shocking but there will be pastors who are willing to marry gay people… There will be photographers willing to take their pictures… I guarantee the hair stylists will be willing… well almost all. And you know what the businesses who don’t cater to gay people will lose business and overtime as they become less and less competitive they will either start to or they will fail. That to me is the biggest problem I see with people who consider themselves to be progressives is that they are against inequality and they believe the way to fix things is to force it to go the other direction… But you don’t fix things with force… you fix them with choice.

The funny thing about rights and freedoms is everyone thinks that they are a good thing until someone uses their rights and freedoms against them.

Edit... i never thought i would come down on the bible thumpers side on this issue... ever.

I rather enjoyed reading this post. I'm pretty late with this.

Right to the bare naked simplicity with it.

About you siding with bible thumpers, I do as well.

You're quite right in saying pastors should have the choice.

The Church is a place of belief structure, a sanctuary to many of it's believes. If gay relations are unwelcome and nearly unforgiving in any belief, then why would it ever be alright to wed two people involved in a gay relationship in that sanctuary? It's quite simple.

This isn't the first discussion regarding gay marriage I've participated in, I strongly feel the Church and Government have no say in whether it's an allowable 'act', it's none of their business. They don't have to like it, the only exception being the government is here to provide structure to it's people, and if those people love another of the same sex and want to celebrate it they should have faith that it will be supported.

That being said, it doesn't give any couple the right to force the support of others.

 

[Linhjah]

Gay rights activists say they wouldn't expect a Catholic priest to solemnize a gay union. But they say businesses and individuals that offer goods and services to the public must abide by anti-discrimination laws and face legal consequences if they do not.

"The United States constitution absolutely protects religious liberties and no one can force any religious organization to recognize any marriage they don't want to recognize," said Chris Edelson, state legislative director for the Human Rights Campaign, a national gay rights group.

But, he added, "if you run a business that's open to the public you cannot discriminate."

It doesn't sound to me that the gay community is interested in forcing a priest/pastor/preacher to perform same-sex marriages when its against their religious belief. What they are after is making sure businesses don't desciminate in who they sell flowers to or take pictures of based on their sexual orientation.

Do they refuse service to women because they're women? Do they refuse service to African-Americans because they're African-American? Do they refuse service to Jewish people because they're Jewish? If they do, they risk legal ramifications. Why should it be any different for refusing service to homosexuals?

 

[Lukas]

OP: The great irony is that the bridal industry has a large number of gays, who have been planning ceremonies, catering, dressing brides, and photographing shitty straight marriages for decades. I would like to see some Knights of Columbus bitch arrange a bouquet, or bake a wedding cake - nasty!

In response to the related dialogue evolving in this thread: fuck what the majority think! As it has already been pointed out in this thread and in [Gay Marriage 2.0] - the majority cannot waiver equal protection and right to due process in targetting a suspect class. These are INALIENABLE. Judges are well within reason to overturn majority decisions with respect to minority rights. In fact it is one of the roles they play in upholding your constitution!

I honestly do not understand why anyone cares is the guys down the road get married. How does it deeply affect you in any way or form? Will the gayness waft across the street and open up a portal to hell in your yard? Will your children catch the gay? Will some angry gay storm come and... kill your cat or something?
The only thing you should care about is having an iota of compassion for your fellow human being.

 

[Firestreak]

Personally I want as many dudes as possible banging each other. It leaves more ladies for me. Plus I hear if you go to the bar with a gay dude you'll somehow meet lots of chicks. I don't know how that works but if I ever have a gay friend I'll have to try that out. Now lesbians I don't mind either. I mean... "mind" isn't the best word here, but as a guy I don't go around wishing they were all straight. It's not like the L-word where they're all hot chicks sitting around making out in coffee shops. Many of them are butt-ugly anyway. The hotties tend to be bi-sexual and damnit... dating a bi-chick is the American dream.

 

[Rips]

I honestly do not understand why anyone cares is the guys down the road get married. How does it deeply affect you in any way or form? Will the gayness waft across the street and open up a portal to hell in your yard? Will your children catch the gay? Will some angry gay storm come and... kill your cat or something?
The only thing you should care about is having an iota of compassion for your fellow human being.

A lot of people against it think it's redefining a 5,000 year old tradition or they believe bring gay is wrong and this promotes it. Really, they're not re-defining the bible tradition, just having the government recognize they're relationship.

They way I will always see it is that there is two types of marriage. Marriage between the government and marriage under the eyes of God. Same-Sex Marriage doesn't touch God.

 

[Miros]

It doesn't sound to me that the gay community is interested in forcing a priest/pastor/preacher to perform same-sex marriages when its against their religious belief. What they are after is making sure businesses don't desciminate in who they sell flowers to or take pictures of based on their sexual orientation.

Do they refuse service to women because they're women? Do they refuse service to African-Americans because they're African-American? Do they refuse service to Jewish people because they're Jewish? If they do, they risk legal ramifications. Why should it be any different for refusing service to homosexuals?

Thanks for pointing that out Linh. I think people need to re-read the article. I, nor any other gay person, should have any qualms with a church not wanting to perform a gay marriage or anything of the likes. That's wrong of us to force our lifestyle on them. However, for those who do sell the flowers, take the pictures/videos and the likes I think it's a bit much to say they want to be able to not cater to them. Next thing you know we'll be seeing those fancy written signs with "No queers" on the front of a wedding place. That is what is upsetting me.

 

[Amerie]

I don't think they realize that, just because we're saying its LEGALLY allowable it doesn't mean it has to become a church edict as well. As those have said before me, they're not recognizing the separation of Church and State.

This is something I ask myself all the time when I hear stuff on the news about this sensitive subject.

The church seems to have a very misunderstood idea of allowing same sex couples the same legal rights as opposite sex couples.

In all honestly, allowing same sex couples to "marry" wouldn't really effect the church at all or the Church's definition of what the word "marriage" means. Because the definition of marriage to the state is very different from the Church's.

I am from new york and I am a huge supporter of gays and lesbians. My niece is also a lesbian. The church has this divine/holy/sacred look on marriage, while the state just recognizes it for legal purposes among other things.

As a christian, I believe "marriage" was recognized by the church as a ceremony for a man and a woman to come together under god and vow to spend the rest of their lives together, etc. So I guess the Christian part of me believes "marriage" was intended to be for a man and a woman by the church and God.

It is my understanding, from a more human perspective, that for one, you cant really help being gay anymore than you can help being straight. Denying people certain things for being who they are, is not fair or right. Love is love, people should do what makes them happy and be with someone who they are in love with. Who is this hurting or bothering? Not really anyones business anyway tbh.

From a legal perspective, couples, gay or straight, should be allowed to be protected by the state and law and be recognized as such. Some of these couples have been together their entire lives. They have earned the right, to be protected and respected by their home country and state as well as feel secure. Not alienated by religion or the church. Religious people can feel whatever they wanna feel or believe. Hell, I'm religious. But the fact of the matter is, when someones beliefs get in the way of another's rights, we have a fucking problem.


The really sad thing is, this is just pathetic because this really shouldn't even be a topic of debate. Gays and lesbians shouldn't have to fight to earn their rights as law biding, good willed citizens of this country. Like wtf?

 

[Dejavu]

It doesn't sound to me that the gay community is interested in forcing a priest/pastor/preacher to perform same-sex marriages when its against their religious belief. What they are after is making sure businesses don't desciminate in who they sell flowers to or take pictures of based on their sexual orientation.

Do they refuse service to women because they're women? Do they refuse service to African-Americans because they're African-American? Do they refuse service to Jewish people because they're Jewish? If they do, they risk legal ramifications. Why should it be any different for refusing service to homosexuals?

If they wish to refuse service to any of those groups... let them and we will see what happens to their businesses.

Thanks for pointing that out Linh. I think people need to re-read the article. I, nor any other gay person, should have any qualms with a church not wanting to perform a gay marriage or anything of the likes. That's wrong of us to force our lifestyle on them. However, for those who do sell the flowers, take the pictures/videos and the likes I think it's a bit much to say they want to be able to not cater to them. Next thing you know we'll be seeing those fancy written signs with "No queers" on the front of a wedding place. That is what is upsetting me.

It still boils down to choice. The church and the flower place are both private businesses and should be treated the same. The owner of the store should have the right to refuse service to anyone that he chooses for any reason. Laws that state otherwise are forceful and should be repealed.

Why is it that you see the flower shop owner and the church differently? Why do you acknowledge the right of the church to refuse service but not the flower shop?

 

[Zoolander]

Eh, a Church is not a private business. That is not up for debate, its not the same.

And why the hell should anyone have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason? I'm all for reducing the influence of special interest groups in politics, but you are basically advocating discrimination and racism. (Yea blah blah, I already know your response to that will be your blind faith in capitalism that it will hurt their business and be forced to serve more people if they want to survive, but that's just not how things work out here in reality. Refusing service to a small minority would still allow most businesses to survive and screw over that small population that is being refused service, not to mention its just morally wrong.)

I still haven't heard any of you Libertarians explain how we won't just get another 1920s either. You all claim a free market as some kind of ground breaking, amazing discovery, when in reality we had it before and for a Free Market to work, it must also be fair. That in itself is an oxymoron and is exactly the situation we had almost 100 years ago and it didn't work then and it wouldn't work now.

Hell, you even have case studies going on now with the IMF's stupid ass Neoconservative policies that advocate a free market in Africa that has done incredible amounts of damage and done nothing but keep those countries poor. Devaluing currency, communism, completely free markets and lots of other ideas sound good in theory, but are utter failures in the real world (although I will note no one has actually had a true communist government).

Also, nice post Ame.

 

[Linhjah]

If they wish to refuse service to any of those groups... let them and we will see what happens to their businesses.

If discrimination were allowed for other groups, then maybe. Currently, though, you can get into a significant amount of legal trouble for descrimination based on race, gender, creed, etc. Why should it be different for homosexuals who want to get married?

It still boils down to choice. The church and the flower place are both private businesses and should be treated the same. The owner of the store should have the right to refuse service to anyone that he chooses for any reason. Laws that state otherwise are forceful and should be repealed.

The church and the flower shop are not the same. One (at least the ones that would likely refuse service) is not-for-profit, and the other is definately about the profit. Furthermore, there is no "separation of flower-shop and state" provisioned in any historical document.

Why is it that you see the flower shop owner and the church differently? Why do you acknowledge the right of the church to refuse service but not the flower shop?

Likewise, the government can't force the church to modify their beliefs. They can intervene when those acting on the church's beliefs put others in jeopardy. And maybe acting on those beliefs does cause some sort of emotional distress, but that isn't really the point.

The point is why would you want to force someone to sanctify your marriage when they don't believe in it? Its one thing to get flowers from some homophobe, but it is a completely different thing to have one officiate your ceremony. I just don't think the gay community is interested in having someone with hate and disapproval in their heart help them begin their formal journey with their life-partner.

 

[Morcheeba]

How does a pastor differ from a devout follower? How does a devout follower who owns a flower shop deal with being forced to provide services to support something that goes directly against their beliefs?

It boils down to location really.

Lihn, to be completely honest.. as 'non-profit' as a church is.. when officiating a wedding ceremony... they expect.. yes EXPECT payout.

The pastor to oversaw my cousins wedding very rudely approached them on their wedding day while we were waiting to start walking in and asked when he could expect the payment. They do want payment.