But as long as laws exist that protect other minorities, it isn't appropriate to not extend that same protection to homosexuals.
I agree with the idea that they should be treated the same however I disagree with all laws regarding anti discrimination in the first place.
I never said you couldn't apply some business principles to the church, though your little excerpt is... interesting.
My point is that I see a church as a business. Now what they are selling may have a lot of meaning to some but it is still nothing more than a business.
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.
And I have been arguing that the current rules are wrong. The point I am trying to make is that people concede the right of a church to refuse service but not to another business… At least I don’t believe anyone has made the argument that the pastors should be forced to perform the ceremony. I just disagree that the pastor is any different than 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.
I highly doubt this is true. Please find a source for this because I doubt it would stand.
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.
The church is just a building and the pastor is just a man. Any added value is only given by its members. If the church burns down you build another one and if the pastor dies you hire another one. Sure you can be sad much like the flower shop owner would be said if his business burnt down… but it’s just a building
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.
Wo wait a second… what is wrong with porn… you have crossed the line… lol
The term brainwash is perhaps a bit stronger than I would like to use in this situation. I look at it a lot like I look at a timeshare. The only way that people are willing to buy that kinda stuff is if you have enough time to try and sell it to them. These activities get people through the door and make it so that people are more receptive to the message that they are getting. Unlike a timeshare; however, most of the people who are also involved are trying to sell it as well.
There are plenty of other places that a person could go to do those kind of activities the fact that a church does them is purely for a sense of community to preserve members and pick up more.
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.
My point is that if you truly believe does the building matter.
Yeah, they do. Again, I'd be real damned surprised to see an African-American couple try to get married there.
Try or not is not the issue it is more an issue of rights.
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.
I wasn’t really asking for what your definition of legitimate was I was just expressing the idea that whatever your answer was it is your opinion.
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.
Really… having a private chapel would make them have to forego tax exemption? If that is the case how are Mormons still tax exempt.
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.
Nope there is not a phrase like that anywhere in the constitution. The closest you come to that phrase is the Unruh Act which I believe isn’t even national legislation but it is in California despite the fact that a lot of states have legislation very similar.
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?
Everyone is a victim but not a victim of each other… everyone is a victim of the government and forcing someone else’s will upon them. If gay marriage is illegal it treats homosexuals like second class citizens and I doubt that many people really want that. On the other hand if the government forces everyone to treat gays equally then they are trouncing the religious freedoms that the constitution protects. The only thing that the government can do to resolve this is the one thing that neither side is willing to concede to and that is get out of the way and allow for choice because a key to any force is that there must be a victim.
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.
I disagree I think what they are really worried about is losing their tax exempt status.
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.
That is true but just because you are coming into the majority does not mean that you get to force the newly found minority to accommodate to your will despite how they have handled that power for some time.
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.
So because you guys protested him and he conceded… he is bad? Of course someone is going to back down when they are getting protested constantly especially when the fight is over… he is just looking for some peace and quiet.
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.
Although I liked that she said what she actually thought instead of what she thought she was supposed to say. I do wish she had a slightly better understanding of states rights, but I don’t think that 5% of the country on either side of the issue would have been able to answer the question much better.
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.
No they are not exempt from criticism in fact I wish that they were more often criticized but the fact is that they are handcuffed by the rules of being a 501c to not say what they truly feel or at least not publicly because they will lose their exemption.
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.
Yea churches should not be tax exempt I agree but can you imagine how politically charged they would become if they were able to say what they wanted to constantly without fear… would be interesting for sure.
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?
This is correct they may provide those services and not know it but that is not the issue. The issue is that if they know they should still have the right to refuse service (on any grounds) rather than being forced to accommodate.
Home Depot, approving of Axe murderers everywhere.
Well you bring up an interesting question of function. If someone comes in there and wants to buy an axe for the express purpose of killing someone don’t you think that you should be able to say… um I don’t want to sell you an axe. If you believe that you will be aiding in an action by selling the product then why is it not your right to deny the sale.
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.
I agree with most of this except for your conclusion that anti-discrimination laws are needed.
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.
They should have the same rights under the law but that is not the same as getting equal treatment. By forcing religious people to go against their faith and treat someone who they do not see as equal you are in fact infringing on their rights to be stupid religious people.
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.
I agree that marriage is not a right to get married but the legal ramifications of said marriage are and if the only way to get those legal boundaries is to be married then everyone should be allowed to marry.
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.
Actually… they are doing it the constitutional way seeing as this country is in fact not a democracy like you seem to be attesting that it is. This country is in fact a republic or rule by law and the way that our republic is set up they are actually going about it the correct way. You are just advocating democracy and the tyranny of the majority.
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.
Yes… once again disagree with final assessment but agree with the process.
No anti-discrimination laws and let the companies who wish to discriminate have a harder time selling their products.
There's nothing unconstitutional about going to the courts and asking a judge to step in when your rights are being trampled. That's one of the reasons we have a court system in the first place. The "will of the people" is not always some sacrosanct rule written in stone. Sometimes the majority is full of shit and doesn't care about who it hurts.
But no matter how you go about it, there's no point in waiting for religious nuts to thaw out. You're going to get backlash from them no matter what you do. Prayer got knocked out of school nearly 50 years ago, and fundamentalists are still complaining.
Constitutionally you are correct but forcing just as hard the other way is just as bad. It is the other side of the same coin basically.
to make a transaction.
;