Connecticut religous groups want same sex exemptions

[Dejavu]

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.

I also agree that it is morally wrong to deny services to a minority and as a business owner I would not do so… but it is not the role of the government to enforce morals. Discrimination and racism can only survive if the customers in the system allow it to because I do not know one person who would rather be homeless than sell flowers to gays. I do not blindly believe in capitalism as you say I wholeheartedly believe that people will disregard their beliefs and wish to make money if their livelihood is jeopardy.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0508-25.pdf
If you want the libertarian perspective on the great depression read this article. The free market is fair… just not equal… every will be judged on merit.

As a libertarian I disagree with the existence of the IMF what makes you think that I would agree with their policies. The IMF is loans given out to struggling countries that only put said countries into severe debt so that they are forced to sell off their resources cheaply to pay off the debts… The IMF is a managed trade organization that uses economic hardship to get their way and in no way should they do what they do. The IMF is what happens when bureaucrats get involved and call it free market capitalism.

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 shouldn’t all companies should be allowed to discriminate if they so choose for any reason and it is not the governments place to get involved.

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.

Both sell something, one sells flowers and the other sells salvation although one is tangible and the other is a service industry. You seem to think that it is not a business because it is non profit but that is not the case. So lets see what it means to be a successful business.

http://www.truetruths.com/BUSINESS.htm
INGREDIENTS OF A SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS
1. Find an existing demand and/or create a demand
2. Be one of the major suppliers of a product in demand (limit or eliminate competition)
3. Convince people they need your product – something good will happen if they have it
4. Convince people that if they do not have your product that something bad will happen
5. Insure a healthy profit margin - revenue exceeds expenses
6. Create a product that produces a continuous stream of profits with numerous repeat customers
7. Have a marketing plan to increase sales
8. Employ an effective sales force that is effective and has responses prepared for anticipated objections
9. Limit overhead costs
10. Build an infrastructure that will continue the business far into the future
11. Have powerful, persuasive, enthusiastic, credible, dynamic leadership
“Some examples of effective businesses that at one time or another fit most of these criteria include: Wal-Mart, Exxon Oil, General Motors, Microsoft, Oracle and America Online. Oh, ya. We’d be negligent if we forgot to mention organized religions, with the Catholics, Muslims, Baptists and Mormons being a few great examples.”
“So we have these basic ingredients of successful businesses,” said Zimmer. “Not every business has all these ingredients, but to be successful you have to have some of them. The more you have, the better your business will be. Now, through the centuries, religious leaders, kings and queens and conquerors have been striving to gain power and control over other people. In effect, they have been building their businesses. So how do they get their slice of the pie, and then some?”
“Let’s take each one of these and talk about how religion has, or has not, been successful in each area. Now, I’m going to be using Christianity for most of my examples since I was raised Baptist and know more about Baptists and Christianity than other religions. But most of the examples would fit any organized religion. And being somewhat of a history buff, I’ll throw in some historical references where they seem to fit.
1. Find an existing demand and/or create a demand
Bingo! Religion gets an A+ for this one. First of all, many people seem to have an internal need for believing in some sort of supernatural, all knowing, all-powerful being. I don't know if people are born with this need or if it just becomes part of them from their life experiences, but regardless of how the need got there, it's there. That’s the existing demand. But where religion has really succeeded is the corollary – creating a demand. Look what they’ve done. They’ve taken old writings, written some new ones, and have crafted a compilation of “inspired” writings - the Bible, the Koran, the Bhagavad-Gita, and many others. In these books people are told how they should act, how they should believe, and what they should do with their money and belongings. In Christianity, they have created a scenario where the demand for the product - forgiveness, eternal salvation, and the love of God - is both an internal demand and an externally created demand.
2. Be one of the major suppliers of a product in demand
Microsoft is a great example of becoming a major - almost the exclusive - supplier of a product in demand. For all practical purposes, Microsoft is the only supplier of operating systems for personal computers. Religion has also done a good job here. A large percentage of people in the world are believers in some faith, and for many their religion is the exclusive supplier for their faith-based demand. To be sure, there are some atheists, agnostics, and other non-believers, but there certainly is a large market of ‘believers’. What religions must do is figure out how to attract a sufficient portion of the ‘believers’ to support their cause. Almost every religion will try to convince its followers and the masses that its religion is the one and only true religion, that only by believing in their god, and practicing their faith, can one be saved. One example in religion is Christianity’s claim that only by accepting Jesus Christ as their savior can people be saved. If in fact this is true, then Christianity is the exclusive supplier for those who want to go to heaven and escape the fiery flames of hell. Other religions make the same claim.
3. Convince people they need your product – something good will happen if they have it
Obviously, religion has done a great job here as well. Many people believe that they need religion, they need to be saved, they need forgiveness, they need the guidance of their religious faith and leaders, and they need eternal salvation. Many are convinced if they get baptized, if they go to church, if they follow the teachings of the Bible, and if they tithe to their church, they will receive forgiveness from God and entry into the gates of heaven where they will enjoy eternal bliss with other believers.
4. Convince people that if they do not have your product that something bad will happen
This is the opposite of number 3. If you do not have the product - in this case Christianity and all that goes with it - you will go to hell and burn for eternity. God also may make you suffer or do bad things to you while you are here on earth. Christianity’s done a great job here - either you believe as they tell you, or you will burn in hell forever - not a pleasant thought.
5. Insure a healthy profit margin - revenue exceeds expenses
In religion, revenues include contributions from members - mostly tithing and gifts - along with fund raisers such as carnivals, bake sales, flea markets, bingo and so on. Many churches also earn interest on investments and revenues from businesses. Expenses include the cost of the buildings, utilities, staff salaries, books and materials, charitable causes, missionary work, and other miscellaneous expenses. For a church, like any other business, to remain solvent, revenues must exceed expenses. If a church gets their asking price, normally a 10% of income tithe, plus periodic gifts from members, churches get a pretty steady flow of revenues coming in. A religious organization’s revenues are also tax-free, so that’s a big savings churches get that businesses don’t. Also, often volunteers will do much of the church’s work for free, which limits the amount paid out for staff salaries. Therefore, since expenses are low and revenues can be substantial, most successful churches have a healthy profit margin.
6. Create a product that produces a continuous stream of profits with numerous repeat customers
The product of salvation is great from the viewpoint of repeat business from each customer for the rest of their lives. Once a person joins the church, it is expected that they immediately begin paying the 10% tithe, and to help out with other church fund-raising activities. Take an average working member making $50,000 a year. Tithes would amount to $5,000 a year each and every year, so if this new member tithes from the time he is 25 till age 75, around 50 years, the church would be receiving about $250,000 from this one person. Multiply that by several hundred or thousand people, add in interest, and you’ve got a sizable stream of money coming in.
Take a church with 500 tithing families. If the average income for each family is $50,000, tithes would bring in $2,500,000 each year. I’m betting the expenses for the church is not 2 1/2 mil. Of course, this is just one example. There are bigger and smaller churches, and more and less affluent churches than I mention here. There are people who give more than 10% and people who give less. There are also outright gifts, some incredibly large and generous. But the example gives you some idea of the power of repeat customers giving continuously.
7. Have a marketing plan to increase sales
Do churches have a marketing plan? You bet your bottom dollar. Some are very simple and basic, others are very complex and intricate. As one example, a church I once attended had a great marketing plan. Here are just a few of the things they do. First of all, they want to attract new members. So current members are encouraged to bring friends and family, and the pastor personally visits each and every prospective member. When a guest attends, the church gets the names, addresses, phone numbers, and other information so they can be contacted and visited. Deacons voted on by the church are given members they are responsible for - they each have their ‘accounts.’ The deacons are to keep in contact with the accounts, be available to help, pray, and answer questions. They even had a ‘Director of Planned Giving,’ to help with tax strategies and to give advice on how to plan their giving while they are here on earth as well as after they’ve passed away.
Special events such as Fall carnivals, Easter worship services, Christmas plays and musicals, Vacation Bible Schools, various fund raisers and other events are held to educate and entertain current members and attract more. Mailing envelopes are provided for each member to place their offerings in, conveniently labeled and coded for easy giving and recording. And, of course, close tabs are kept are how much and how regularly each member is giving. Deacons may periodically contact members to remind them to be ‘Obedient to God.’ Lessons and sermons on tithing, giving to God, and being obedient regularly make their way into the church. We’ve all heard ‘the Lord loves a cheerful giver.’
Most religions also have a plan for expanding their business. They may add on to existing buildings, replace old churches with newer, often bigger churches, or they may add new churches where none currently exist. Churches are constantly raising money. I recently received some literature from the local Catholic diocese asking for my donation toward their $70 million fundraiser. They were asking me to donate at least $3,000 above my normal tithing - or more if I could afford it. Churches are like Wal-Mart - they want to be anywhere there are people – and money.
8. Employ an effective sales force that is efficient and has responses prepared for anticipated objections
Nothing helps a business grow as much as a dedicated, enthusiastic, zealous sales force. Everyone in a church is part of the sales force. Christians are constantly told about the virtue of evangelizing and saving the world, as in Mark 16: 15 – 16, where Jesus addresses his followers: ‘And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.’ The pastor, the priest, the deacons, the lay people - all assume responsibilities for saving the unsaved, for converting the heathens, for showing the way. For true believers, the blessings of bringing more people into the church are real and powerful. They are prepared with the best lines from the church, which over the years have been tweaked until church members know just what to say to the questions and topics such as, ‘How can I be saved?, Why would God love a sinner like me?, How can I gain entrance into heaven? Why does God let bad things happen? and the power of prayer.’
9. Limit overhead costs
The church can limit costs tremendously because they are not taxed on revenues and because many staff volunteer their time and talents to the church. Not many businesses can be run as inexpensively as the church.
10. Build an infrastructure that will continue the business far into the future
Lastly, you need to build a solid, permanent infrastructure that will continue into the foreseeable future. There must be a means of ensuring leadership continues without creating a break in the functioning of the church. If the pastor, or a deacon, or Sunday School teacher, or other church position is vacated, provisions must be made for that position to be filled. The church needs a steady meeting place, strong church leadership, fiscally responsible leadership, and emotional and financial investments. Think of the church buildings throughout the world as being religious franchises, and the worship services, evangelizing, key passages from the Bible, and ceremonies - baptisms, Christmas and Easter celebrations, Passover, and so on - as the standard operating procedures. Many well-established religions have strong, powerful infrastructures.
11. Have powerful, persuasive, enthusiastic, credible, dynamic leadership
As in business, most, if not all, successful religions and individual churches have great leaders. Whether it is Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, Billy Graham, or the local priest or preacher, a dynamic personality is required to build and sustain a successful church. Just as a successful business must have a dynamic CEO, a church must have dynamic leaders.

Now can you please list the ways that church is not a business other than the fact that they are non profit organizations.

The separation of church and state is really a two way street which was established in the constitution via two clauses. They are commonly referred to as the establishment and free exercise clause which are both in the following quote. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

The establishment clause is to keep the government from establishing a national religion and to make sure they are run free from support from tax payers. The free exercise clause protects anyone who wishes to practice any religion’s right to do so.

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.

Then why should they want someone who is filled with hate make their flowers either. I admit one of the services is seemingly more important but they are still both services that can be screwed up if the party selling does not do an adequate job.

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 shouldn’t be any different.

What? Are you serious? How the heck does somone in a flower shop selling flowers to some fags getting married go against their beliefs?

The same way that a pastor marrying two gay people goes against his beliefs… By selling them flowers he is acknowledging the union and therefore by this action he is acting against his faith facilitating the “sins” of the couple. The feeling of conspiracy to commit “sin” would be felt by both the pastor and the flower shop owner.

No she is not crossing the line because if you allow for pastors to opt out of officiating religious ceremonies between a gay couple then it is only logical to allow for a different business owner to opt out for the same reason.

You are crossing a line. I hate delivering to Indian people because they tip me a dollar maximum every time, I hate delivering to people who smell because well...they fucking smell. Do I cry about delivering pizza to someone who is a christian? I find a lot of what they preach to go directly against my beliefs, does that mean I whine about it or even honestly give a shit or get to have legal presidence to not serve them because I don't share the same beliefs as them?

Of course not, that's insane. Just like what you said is, because it is essentially the same thing except in reverse.

If you don’t want to serve them for whatever reason you should not be forced to serve them.

I'll tell you what. You call around to a number of churches, catholic, Greek orthodox, Presbyterian and see how many will marry you without payment. If you have to open your wallet to anyone for anything in return.. it's a service.

What about the fact that when a Mormon friend of mine was getting married he wasn’t able to get married at a temple because he wanted to allow his non-Mormon friends to attend.

I agree with the church’s right to do this but I think that every business no matter what they are selling should be allowed to do so.

You are talking about refusing service to people strictly on the basis they are gay as if it was acceptable or even legal, which it is not. And if you discriminate gays, whose to say you dont discriminate against Straight people, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Whites, Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, etc?

Also,

I've met several people of a certain faith that believe blacks actually represented someone who had sinned in a previous life or some bull shit like that. You are saying that it is ok to discriminate on them because they have sinned? Their religion tells them that blacks have sinned, so I guess it must be okay to discriminate against them.

Sorry, but religion isn't an excuse for discrimination.

And how well would a business really do if they had a sign in front of the business that said no muslims allowed. I bet it would have like 3 crazy people who loved it and would otherwise be a complete failure. Not because there were laws on the books preventing the discrimination but because the marketplace is the great equalizer.

A church is a religious body lol, not a business. They can't be under the "separation of church and state" because they ARE a church. They fall under the church part...they are not a business and businesses are not churches. Sure they might have some small similarities from time to time...but they are far from the same.

Exactly what definition of church and state are you using… Church is a term for religion in general not the place that the service takes place and state refers to the government. What makes the place of worship any different than a workplace of a very religious individual.

That florist is not allowed to not refuse to hire homosexual just because he's gay. Why in the hell would he be allowed to refuse service to a gay man?

Why should a pastor be allowed to refuse service to a gay couple?

Service it may be. However, everything the church does revolves around religious beliefs. From Sunday mass to the Mother's day pancake feed to helping out at a soup kitchen.

I thought that everything a church did revolved around fellowship… I am really confused now why my church (when I still believed) had a basketball court, bowling, baseball, and volleyball team. Its about getting people in the door. The best way to do that is to make them feel welcomed and like part of the family.

The florist's practice itself has nothing to do with religion. Jesus isn't in there showing off his green thumb growing or selling plants to people, nor is he in there buying flowers.

The act of going to church has nothing to do with personal faith either… Why is it that someone cannot practice their faith at home without attending a church.

Furthermore, there are religions who teach that its right to hate based on the color of someone's skin. Here is one example. Those people think that, if you aren't white, you have no soul. Do you think that its acceptable for a florist who is a Christian Identist to refuse service to a black person?

Then I guess I will ask you another question aswell… does this church have the right to refuse to wed a black straight couple since it is against there religious beliefs even though it is discrimination same as a church denying a gay couple. They are only affirming their beliefs which are protected under the separation of church and state… I can only imagine the uproar if this were to happen.

Like I said, they have bills to pay. And there are people out there who dress up and act like a church to scam people. I've never seen a priest or pastor from a legitimate non-profit church driving around in a Lamborghini, though.

How do you decide what is legitimate… there is a pastor in my neighborhood in Arizona that has a 13,000 square foot house. I guess that church must not be legitimate… u know what I know they are not legitimate… they have guitars and no altar in their service and their pastor doesn’t even wear a robe he stands in the front with microphone and polo shirt.

It's worth pointing out that there are no federal laws protecting gay people, and in most states it is perfectly legal to refuse to hire gay people or to refuse to rent to them just because they're gay. There are only 20 states with anti-discrimination laws that include gay people. I live in West Virginia, and my landlord could evict me tomorrow if she went to church, found Jesus, and decided I had to leave.

There is only one rule that should apply to this and that is that all men are created equal under meaning the government cannot discriminate against a certain group of people… but no where does it state that private individuals must treat everyone equally.

Seeing as I am a male I don’t think I could get a job as a hooters waitress because I do not meet all of the qualifications of the employer… Are they discriminating against males by not allowing men to be waiters… yes its something I cant change… easily… nor do I want to, but I just accept the fact that I will never work at hooters.

If your landlord chose to evict you for that reason he would be an idiot, but it would be his choice. Your landlord owns the property he shouldn’t even need a reason to evict you. Now there are certain procedures that he does have to follow like giving you a 30 day notice to quit on the eviction but that is something that is agreed to in almost any standard leasing contract. Also I bet if you did get evicted for that reason you would let the whole world know it and the landlord would only be hurting his own business.

I've never been to any service for any religion where a homosexual person was not allowed in. They let plenty of other "sinners" in, so I don't see why they'd not allow gay people. If anything, I think many Churches would see as an opportunity for the homosexual to redeem his/her soul. Committing your life to another member of the same sex pretty much indicates you're not willing to be "saved", though.

Look at the mormon religion where anyone who is not “temple worthy” is not even allowed in the door even if they lead a perfect life but are a member of another faith.

Churches don't receive payment, they receive "donations" remember.

Same thing

$150-200 (average) per funeral too..but its called an Honourarium lol.

A gift for the speaker, but at what point is the gift considered a fee seeing as the terms are negotiated before the event occurs.

I can see how hardcore conservatives might not want the word marriage to include homosexual unions. I can't see how anyone would object to extending the legal protections to such. It should make almost everyone happy to just use the term civil unions, or make up a new word for it. I have no problem with gay marriage. I can't understand why this is even a battle. I do think that the bigot generation is old and dying, and pretty soon good people will run the show. I don't see the gay rights movement being fought by our grandchildren. It's not the youth opposing gay rights. Granted, you'll have fringe groups forever, but the days of antihomosexuality being the power base are numbered. Religion altogether is dying slowly. The far right is beginning to overstay its welcome amongst the moderates, and it's the moderates that give religion any credibility whatsoever. Gays should just move to CT and MA - CT for the boring gays, and MA for the lively ones. There isn't much at all worth doing in CT. Boston has everything.

I actually agree I believe that marriage should be a religious thing and that it should have no legal ramifications. However if that party also wishes to have a civil union and be seen as one under the law then that should be handled separately from the marriage but all rights associated from the event should come from the civil union.

The main issue here is that people of religion (all religions) will follow the rules of their creator and abide by that before anything else. That's what is the main issue and the hurtle for same sex marriage.

True but at what point do your morals supersede someone else’s, why is it that you have to make that decision for someone else. Why is it that someone cannot discriminate if they so choose.

There's an old saying, "A liberal is just a conservative who hasn't been mugged yet."

Like many old sayings, there's an element of truth there. Though mostly it applies to attitudes on criminals, but still...

This kinda reminds me of a joke I heard one republican congressman say once.

The congressman was walking along when someone pulled out a knife and tried to mug him…

The mugger said, “Give me all your money”

The congressman responded boldly, “do you know I am, I am a United States congressman.”

The mugger stared at him for a minute and then stated, “Ok then give me all my money”

There don't have to be, and this is a bit of a sore spot. Reprising a recent argument, homosexuals are guaranteed the same rights as anyone else under the Constitution, and as such, are afforded equal protection under all existing laws, the same as anyone else.

Which is not to say that people don't occasionally get victimized by the rampant douchebaggery of lease agreements. Depending on what you signed when you leased the apartment, there could be a wonderful little caveat in there that states that the landlord or tenant may terminate the lease at any time without reason. So, technically, they can evict you just because they don't like your new haircut, much less because they happen to have found Jesus and feel that your dangerous homosexual lifestyle is a one-way ticket to eternal hellfire. One would think that a true Christian at this juncture would attempt to do anything in their power to save your heathen soul, but typically what really happens is that they find some flimsy pretext for terminating the lease agreement so as not to provoke a civil rights lawsuit.

Frankly, in that instance, while you're guaranteed the same rights as anyone else (and really don't need additional legislation to prove it), you may well get the short end of the stick because it can be extremely difficult to prove that sort of malicious intent if the landlord has two brain cells to rub together that aren't devoted wholly to bigotry.

Morcheeba raises an interesting point, but it's 2:36 in the morning here, so I'm going to wait and come back on the status of religious institutions in western democracies where separation of church and state are taken as a given. Short version: For my money, religions should be taxed like everything else, and be bound by the same laws as similar organizations.

Wow … I think Raesvelg is actually on my side of an argument for once… I feel dirty.

I agree with your last part but what I think Hali was saying is that they shouldn't be able to evict you for the reason you're homosexual.

You steered off topic a tad. Your saying all homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals. That's not true. Hali was just explaining that a workplace can fire someone if they found out they're gay. That's one example I know out of many others out there. That's not equal protection and equal rights to me.

It is equal rights under the law not equal treatment.

Now, someone is going to be a fool and come back and quote me saying something along the lines of "Employers have the right to fire for whichever reason they want so that's okay" garbage. Well let me tell you, they do not have the right to fire a straight person for being straight.

Why not?

Why is it that the NAACP is allowed to exist but the NAAWP is considered a hate group and was disbanded when their slogan was "Equal Rights For All — Special Privileges For None."

Yes I understand that NAAWP was founded by David Duke a white separatist but that is not actually the point I am trying to make i agree that David Duke the person is a huge racist… the question is why is one allowed to exist but not the other.

 

[Khajit]

cant fire a person for being straight? bullshit. there was some hairdresser in San Fransisco who faked being gay for months out of the fear that he would be fired if anyone realized he was straight. I cant remember if he got fired or not....

 

[Trippyhippy]

cant fire a person for being straight? bullshit. there was some hairdresser in San Fransisco who faked being gay for months out of the fear that he would be fired if anyone realized he was straight. I cant remember if he got fired or not....

I can't seem to find anything about that story at all.

 

[Raesvelg]

Now, someone is going to be a fool and come back and quote me saying something along the lines of "Employers have the right to fire for whichever reason they want so that's okay" garbage. Well let me tell you, they do not have the right to fire a straight person for being straight.

Constitutionally speaking, they don't have the right to fire you for being gay either.

There may be a lag effect, sadly, while we wait for public attitudes and a sufficient level of lawsuits to drive that home.

 

[Linhjah]

I also agree that it is morally wrong to deny services to a minority and as a business owner I would not do so… but it is not the role of the government to enforce morals. Discrimination and racism can only survive if the customers in the system allow it to because I do not know one person who would rather be homeless than sell flowers to gays. I do not blindly believe in capitalism as you say I wholeheartedly believe that people will disregard their beliefs and wish to make money if their livelihood is jeopardy.

But as long as laws exist that protect other minorities, it isn't appropriate to not extend that same protection to homosexuals.

Both sell something, one sells flowers and the other sells salvation although one is tangible and the other is a service industry. You seem to think that it is not a business because it is non profit but that is not the case. So lets see what it means to be a successful business.

Now can you please list the ways that church is not a business other than the fact that they are non profit organizations.

I never said you couldn't apply some business principles to the church, though your little excerpt is... interesting.

Then why should they want someone who is filled with hate make their flowers either. I admit one of the services is seemingly more important but they are still both services that can be screwed up if the party selling does not do an adequate job.

I'm not saying they would want some hatemonger preparing their floral arrangement. I've never encountered a homosexual who wasn't aware of how many religions feel about homosexuality. You can't expect a customer to know that the shops owner is a homophobe before going in the store, though. And once they're in the store, its not okay given current rules protecting other minorities for the shop owner/manager/employee to refuse service.

The same way that a pastor marrying two gay people goes against his beliefs… By selling them flowers he is acknowledging the union and therefore by this action he is acting against his faith facilitating the “sins” of the couple. The feeling of conspiracy to commit “sin” would be felt by both the pastor and the flower shop owner.

Like I said before, laws protect other minorities, and there are religions that preach racism. If he was a member of that religion, he still couldn't legally refuse service to a black person just because he/she was black. Its wrong to pick and choose which minorities we're going to protect.

What about the fact that when a Mormon friend of mine was getting married he wasn’t able to get married at a temple because he wanted to allow his non-Mormon friends to attend.

Yeah, Mormons are interesting. Never been to a Mormon service.

Why should a pastor be allowed to refuse service to a gay couple?

Because the church and the pastor ARE religious beliefs - tangible representation of those beliefs. The flower shop has nothing to do with religion. There may be a Catholic and an atheist working side by side together.

I thought that everything a church did revolved around fellowship… I am really confused now why my church (when I still believed) had a basketball court, bowling, baseball, and volleyball team. Its about getting people in the door. The best way to do that is to make them feel welcomed and like part of the family.

Why do you feel that making someone feel like part of the family is an attempt to brainwash them? Providing an opportunity for children or adults to come together and play sports does build relationships, and it provides a safe and healthy place for socialization. The people who participate in those activities could be at home looking at porn, or robbing a liquor store, or out joining a gang, or any number of other "sinful" activities. An outlet where people can do something that is good for them both physically and mentally/emotionally is completely in line with many religious beliefs, providing that outlet is along the lines of helping your neighbor.

The act of going to church has nothing to do with personal faith either… Why is it that someone cannot practice their faith at home without attending a church.

Going to church has a lot to do with personal faith for some people. Personal faith is just that, personal. Don't presume that you speak for everyone.

Then I guess I will ask you another question aswell… does this church have the right to refuse to wed a black straight couple since it is against there religious beliefs even though it is discrimination same as a church denying a gay couple. They are only affirming their beliefs which are protected under the separation of church and state… I can only imagine the uproar if this were to happen.

Yeah, they do. Again, I'd be real damned surprised to see an African-American couple try to get married there.

How do you decide what is legitimate… there is a pastor in my neighborhood in Arizona that has a 13,000 square foot house. I guess that church must not be legitimate… u know what I know they are not legitimate… they have guitars and no altar in their service and their pastor doesn’t even wear a robe he stands in the front with microphone and polo shirt.

I define legitimate in this case as an establishment or group of individuals running that establishment who are in it for the message and not the money. It has nothing to do with the type of service, whether they wear a robe or not.

 

[Khajit]

Yeah my attention span is having trouble tracking it down on bg atm. I did however find out that a 9 year old knows more about women than i do and that the catholic church says aliens can and probably do exist.

 

[Lukas]

In regards to churches, if they operate in public spaces then they are required by law to make their services available to all without discriminating. It's that simple. Now a congregation is more than welcome to fund their own shitty, private place of worship available to their members only, however that would require them to FOREGO THEIR TAX EXEMPT STATUS. If you want to be a bigot, that's fine - but you will pay taxes like everyone else.

Busineses on the other hand are a touch more complex. I'm fairly certain that the constitution mentions something about full and equal enjoyment of goods and services to all, right? I believe a business can only refuse service to someone if their reasoning is not arbitrary - meaning that the business must prove that catering to certain people would be detrimental to their image or their livelihood. It's a moot point because gays getting married would mean that a florist would sell more shitty flowers. What is wrong with these idiots? Turning down business during times of financial strife? Oh my stars and garters.

Anyway, the premise of this entire argument is moronic and I don't understand it. Granting equal civil rights to a marginalised class of society is somehow an attack on religious liberties and makes these church nutjobs victims?

 

[Halifirien]

Anyway, the premise of this entire argument is moronic and I don't understand it. Granting equal civil rights to a marginalised class of society is somehow an attack on religious liberties and makes these church nutjobs victims?

The religious nutjobs (and I'm talking fundamentalist whackjobs, not all religous people are like that) are arguing that they'll get thrown in jail for preaching that homosexuality is wrong. Of course, they're unable to come up with any specific precedents for that in the United States; they're forced to quote cases from other nations that don't have the same First Amendment protections that we enjoy. The closest they can get was a bunch of anti-gay protestors who got hauled off to jail for blocking access to vendors and not for their views.

The problem they have these days is that more and more people are not buying into their belief that gay people are degenerate monsters trying to destroy The American Way of Life™. They're used to not having anyone question it when they call us perverts, but now they have to contend with people who are just as likely to call them close-minded idiots than agree with them.

Look at poor old mega-church pastor Rick Warren. He came out in favor Prop 8 in California, and now he's backing away from it and lying about his stated positions -- comparing homosexuality to incest and bestiality -- because people started calling him a bigot.

You also have poor Miss California who mangled her answer on gay marriage with a lot of ignorance about how the laws actually work and didn't win the Miss USA crown. The conservatives are holding her up as a victim of the gay mafia, saying her right to free speech was violated when it clearly wasn't.

Pastors and churches can say anything they want about gay people. It doesn't mean they're exempted from criticism. I don't care if they think I'm having Satanic masses and drug-fueled orgies every night, as long as they stay out of my way when I apply for a marriage license.

 

[Lukas]

I figured as much Hali, but I still don't understand how people can fall for that mess. "I'm a victim because you have equal rights and I do not believe that you should."

Anyone can claim that they are victims of Religious institutions by pointing out that all those tax-free Church dollars would greatly benefit a flailing healthcare system.... oh wait, that actually makes some sense.

Let's just stick to the more overtly aggresive and hateful ways these nutjobs marginalise people.

 

[Sharpe]

Some of the posts here, mainly Tomasello's make me feel physically sick. How can people be so backwards and ignorant.

Gays are just like straight people, treating them like shit and taking away their rights as humans is disgusting.

 

[Stine]

good post

I agree with what Amerie says. As a Christian I see marriage as between man and woman but as a rational person I understand that same sex couples should be allowed to get married because it is their right. Honestly I don't think it's my right to judge who someone loves or marries. True love is beautiful no matter what form it takes. Religious decisions are supposed to be separate from the state anyway.

I can understand a preacher not wanting to marry a gay couple but like the OP said I doubt that same sex couples really want that anyway. It does puzzle me that businesses are wanting the right to deny services to same sex couples for their wedding arrangements. Many of these businesses probably already make money from services that they have provided for gay people and don't even realize it. Just because you sell a product or service to a person doesn't mean that you approve of every decision that person makes. You would be very limited in your clientele. I am sure that these services are provided to people of faiths and views different from Christians without a second thought but all of a sudden it's a problem?

 

[Skaw]

Just because you sell a product or service to a person doesn't mean that you approve of every decision that person makes.

Home Depot, approving of Axe murderers everywhere.

 

[Javir]

Some of the posts here, mainly Tomasello's make me feel physically sick. How can people be so backwards and ignorant.

Gays are just like straight people, treating them like shit and taking away their rights as humans is disgusting.

There are a lot of posts here. And while I agree some of those posts are misguided, their mindset is exactly the same about people who disagree.

I think it was best pointed out by Linhjah, that if you provide protection for 1 minority, you should cover any minority.

------------

Personally I think what should be taken from this is that we shouldn't expect religious institutions to go against their faith, and let them deal with the consequences. I'd like to note that consequences aren't always bad, ultimately they could triumph. I think the first consequence should be a true and honest separation of Church and State, in regards to laws with religious undertone. Namely Marriage. Law should be purely "Civil Unions" which are an affect between two people. Allow religions to apply an addendum to the Civil Unions in the form of title only. Be just like a change from Ms to Mrs used for women.

I would also not be against allowing pastors apply and be given permission to act as a government official specifically to confirm a Civil Union, to save some time or effort. And of course they do not have to do it for anyone, as anyone can go directly to the government (ie a Judge or other individual given similar permission mentioned above).

This would be a great step towards unwinding more of these interpersonal tensions between various groups, and perhaps ultimately not needing antidiscrimination laws. For now, as we currently stand, there are enough people who aren't capable of not misbehaving when the government doesn't hold their hands.

I'd almost say, what better time than with the current economy. Most business can't afford to discriminate now anyhow, and those who would will likely fail and make way for less closed minded businesses.

 

[Sharpe]

There are a lot of posts here. And while I agree some of those posts are misguided, their mindset is exactly the same about people who disagree.

I think it was best pointed out by Linhjah, that if you provide protection for 1 minority, you should cover any minority.

------------

Personally I think what should be taken from this is that we shouldn't expect religious institutions to go against their faith

First of all of course you should provide protection to all minorities. Secondly no one is asking religious institutions to go against their faith, all people are asking for is that gays have the same rights as straights.

 

[Tomasello]

Some of the posts here, mainly Tomasello's make me feel physically sick. How can people be so backwards and ignorant.

So you find the truth backwards and ignorant? Please, please quote the post(s) I wrote that made you sooo physically ill. So I can rub it in your dangerously naive face...

It's radicals EXACTLY like you that are the reason gays have such a hard time getting their agenda passed in the voting booth. No fair minded person reads what I wrote then spews the garbage back that you did.

Wake up to reality...

 

[Sharpe]

So you find the truth backwards and ignorant? Please, please quote the post(s) I wrote that made you sooo physically ill. So I can rub it in your dangerously naive face...

It's radicals EXACTLY like you that are the reason gays have such a hard time getting their agenda passed in the voting booth. No fair minded person reads what I wrote then spews the garbage back that you did.

Wake up to reality...

How is equal rights for everyone no matter what their sexual orientation radical? It's you people stuck in the 1800s that are what's wrong with the world.

 

[Tagrineth]

Sitting back, waiting, and hoping for equal treatment isn't the way to go about getting people to treat you equally.

 

[Raesvelg]

I suppose we could always make it so that Tomasello's posts require moderator approval before they can be viewed.

Then, when he complains, say: "No no, don't complain. You should sit quietly and wait for QCDN to accept you. Once they do, there will be no issue anymore, and your status can be returned to normal."

On a completely unrelated note, I was awoken to post this by a combination of heartburn, excessive heat, and a really weird dream where myself and a bunch of friends were traveling cross-country through areas infested by zombies. Mostly of the stupid/slow variety. I was standing at the bottom of an escalator, killing zombies with a machete. When the ones at the top thinned out, and the ones at the bottom started to get more numerous, I hopped on the escalator and rode it to the top, then killed zombies at the top of the escalator until the situation reversed itself. Rinse/repeat until my arms got tired.

I'm trying to figure out if there's some sort of metaphor in all that.

 

[Tomasello]

How is equal rights for everyone no matter what their sexual orientation radical? It's you people stuck in the 1800s that are what's wrong with the world.

How can I be stuck in the 1800s when I already said, and I absolutely mean it, I would vote for gay marriage? The irony here is someone who calls himself Sharpe is anything but. FYI: since we've established you can't read let me reiterate marriage gay or straight IS NOT A RIGHT.

Sitting back, waiting, and hoping for equal treatment isn't the way to go about getting people to treat you equally.

Neither is trying to find wacko judges to usurp the will of the people. I never said wait around with your thumb in your ass, no pun intended. I REPEAT, "Talk, debate, poll, protest, write your congressman, be proactive, etc." Do it the CONSTITUTIONAL way ie in the voting booth and you won't get backlash from religious nuts if 50% + 1 person votes it in.

I'm trying to figure out if there's some sort of metaphor in all that.

That's easy. The zombies are all the people in this thread who think this is come kind of constitutional equal rights issue and by not allowing gay marriage its the same thing as persecution of a class of people and the taking away people's human rights like in some third world country. You, a once fair minded individual, are trying to fight off the slow/stupid radicals but are eventually over taken by their ignorant ideology and become one of them.

 

[Javir]

First of all of course you should provide protection to all minorities. Secondly no one is asking religious institutions to go against their faith, all people are asking for is that gays have the same rights as straights.

To which I agree, if you put together all my posts. Ultimately the debate here was guided more towards rights of gays as a minority to not be discriminated by a commercial establishment.

The main point of views that seam most relevant (off the top of my head) to businesses blocking gay couples are:

-Anti-discrimination for all (vs) anti-discrimination based on racial or national identity only

-No anti-discrimination laws outside of the government itself (vs) any semblance of anti-discrimination laws over Private Businesses/Organizations


Whether or not we think Gay people should or shouldn't be allowed to get married isn't the biggest factor in this discussion, it's more the catalyst. And honestly, I wish we could do away with all anti-discrimination laws go away to the history books and get the government to be an entity of unbiased fact and law. People however cannot control themselves without detailed and arbitrary rules in place. So I say, if you must have anti-discrimination laws at all, you include any group. All or nothing. And ultimately, I don't doubt that will likely lead to marriage rights as well.