Gay marriage

Gay marriage

There are 61362 comments on the Los Angeles Times story from Mar 28, 2013, titled Gay marriage. In it, Los Angeles Times reports that:

The U.S. Supreme Court is considering two controversial cases involving whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry: Proposition 8, California's 2008 ban on gay marriage, and the Defense of Marriage Act, which since 1996 has defined marriage for federal purposes as a union between a man and a woman.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Los Angeles Times.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5866 Sep 28, 2013
85% Think Christian Photographer Has Right to Turn Down Same-Sex Wedding Job
Of course, public opinion is irrelevant to fundamental rights, like the ability to avail one's self of services at a place of public accommodation (a business).
"One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette

If a businessman is intelligent, and wants to be successful, they do not want to turn away any customer, as the point of a business is to generate a profit by providing service to (spoiler alert) customers.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5867 Sep 28, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
She was too honest for a sham; she didn't want to deprive the couple of wedding pictures so she turned down the gig.
They want power to force their radical agenda on society, starting with Christians. Your group is next.
No, she was too stupid to know the law.

Brian, how does providing service to a same sex couple (or anyone who holds differing political, religious or sociological views than the proprietor) violate the free exercise of religion, or free speech of the proprietor?

Be specific.

I notice that each time I ask this question, you fail to answer. And each time you fail to do so, you tacitly admit that you have no valid argument.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5868 Sep 28, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
The photographer didn't refuse service to homosexuals, just to a same sex wedding.
Do you ever feel a little ashamed of yourself when you write such transparent lies?

“"Not all who wander are lost."”

Since: Mar 10

freshroast666@gmail.com

#5869 Sep 28, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The photographer didn't refuse service to homosexuals, just to a same sex wedding. What makes you think this is about homosexuality? The press?
The issue is same sex marriage; there is nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality. None of those Christians, the baker, florist or photographer ever refused to provide baked goods, flowers or a picture to a homosexual. They just refused to participate in a same sex wedding, like any good Christian would.
Keeping marriage male/female means religious liberty and freedom; same sex marriage means neighbor suing neighbor.
The photographer wasn't asked to participate in a same-sex wedding. He was asked to provide a service he had advertised and agreed to provide in his business charter without regard for any characteristics his clientele may possess with which he may be uncomfortable. If he is unwilling or, for religious reasons, unable to provide that service to some citizens, perhaps he should have sought some sort of exemption in his business charter from having to provide his hired services to just anybody and everybody. What? No such exemption exists? Now when you say, "...like any good Christian would", you clearly feel that any Christian who would "participate" in a same-sex wedding is not a "good Christian" (which I assume must include George and Barbara). Yet there is no shortage of Christians, indeed churches that identify as Christian, who have no problem with same-sex marriage. So you know what makes a "good Christian" and who, by their actions, is not a "good Christian." Good to know.*note to self: check with Brian to discern who is and is not a "good Christian."*

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#5870 Sep 28, 2013
Quest wrote:
So, straight people often marry people of the same sex?
I don't know how many straight people have had same sex marriages but there's no law against it.

.
Quest wrote:
What an odd notion.
Not everyone marries for sexual desire, some marry for reasons other than love.

.
Quest wrote:
Are you saying that if a business owner believes ANY marriage is immoral, such as interracial marriages, they should have every legal right to boycott them?
They didn't boycott an interracial marriage; those have existed throughout time and even in the bible. They boycotted a same sex wedding, that's the right thing to do.

.
Quest wrote:
If they choose to send the public out of their public accommodation on religious grounds and face legal consequences, that the government should ban ALL such marriages, simply to protect their "freedom to discriminate?" Again, Brain, that's simply not sane.
Most Americans agree, it's not good to force Christians to attend sames sex weddings. Where's your tolerance?

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#5871 Sep 28, 2013
MirthMenace wrote:
The photographer wasn't asked to participate in a same-sex wedding. He was asked to provide a service ....
How is providing a service not participating?

This should be good :)

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#5872 Sep 28, 2013
MirthMenace wrote:
<quoted text>So you're saying it should be legal for any business owner to refuse service to anyone on any basis or should they only be able to refuse service to homosexuals?
Dick,

It was not refusing service to homosexuals, it was refusing to participate in a faux wedding.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#5873 Sep 28, 2013
MirthMenace wrote:
<quoted text>Great idea!
The First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Calling ss couples married is a sacrilege for those of the Christian faith.

No faithful Christian would participate in such a desecration of marriage.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#5874 Sep 28, 2013
MirthMenace wrote:
<quoted text>For what little it's probably worth to you, Greg, my name is Jeff, not Dick. But you can call me Dick if you think it helps your credibility or in some way makes you feel better. I don't mind. I know my won name. I must have joined this discussion too late to have seen your explanation of your passion for this topic. Feel free to restate it because it would sure help me to understand you better. And indeed I am interested in understanding you better. I don't really see how anything I've said to you can be construed as an attack. It wasn't what I had in mind. All I recall doing is asking you questions. You've made it clear that you do not appreciate my questions, but I wouldn't ask them if I didn't care about your answers. You matter, Greg. You do. Your replies have grown increasingly vitriolic and I'm concerned that you might not be as faithful to your medicine as your psychiatrist would prefer. That can be very risky. I care about you, Greg, and want to do all I can do help you to understand the picture you've painted of yourself on this forum, for one. Your more-than-healthy interest in the private lives of others is a topic I would suggest you include in your next discussion with your therapist. Seriously, Greg. Fanaticism is usually a symptom of something much deeper.
Your post is a fitting example of why 'Dick' is appropriate.

Just where have I inserted myself in private lives?

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#5875 Sep 28, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, I know how much you hate losing control, BUT by logical deduction you have implied that sex outside of marriage is immoral and that YES you hate immorality so you have answered the question. Magic words will not save you from your decisions.
First, you have made a political decision based on religious doctrine which is unconstitutional. Second, you live your life according to a finite set of rules that were make 2000 years ago. You are not living in the present, and are not just conservative in your politics. You are committed to the magic that your faith promises will reward you.
A very dangerous person!
I did/do no such thing.

1. You asked me a specific question about my faith and I answered it. I in no way intimated that I based opposition to a faux marriage as being based on my religious beliefs.

At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

Ss couples are a defective failure of mating behavior. Clearly not equal to marriage. In fact, ss marriage is an oxymoron.

2. I live in the present. I do not live by OT Laws. I do live by classic morality that is not limited to just one religion or even no religion. I am not prejudice toward history, reality, science or a chosen belief system.

A dangerous person? Really. How so? Oh, I support the Tea Party to, we old people must scare the sh/t out of you!

LOL
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#5876 Sep 28, 2013
MirthMenace wrote:
<quoted text>So you're saying it should be legal for any business owner to refuse service to anyone on any basis or should they only be able to refuse service to homosexuals?
It wasn't "any basis". It was a decision based on their religion. Religion is protected by the 1st Amendment.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5877 Sep 28, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
I don't know how many straight people have had same sex marriages but there's no law against it.
How dumb do you want people to believe you are?
Brian_G wrote:
Not everyone marries for sexual desire, some marry for reasons other than love.
That is their choice. Our country values free will and free speech.
Brian_G wrote:
They didn't boycott an interracial marriage; those have existed throughout time and even in the bible. They boycotted a same sex wedding, that's the right thing to do.
Brian, you really are an idiot.
Providing service for a same sex wedding in no way violates the proprietor's free speech or freedom of religion. In states with anti-discrimination laws preventing places of public accommodation (businesses) from denying service on the basis of sexual orientation, proprietors that deny service for same sex weddings have broken the law.
Brian_G wrote:
Most Americans agree, it's not good to force Christians to attend same sex weddings. Where's your tolerance?
Most intelligent people agree, allowing bigots to project their religious moral views onto others, and/or deny service to those with other religious beliefs is unconstitutional.

Why do you defend those who break the law, Brian?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#5878 Sep 28, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
How dumb do you want people to believe you are?
<quoted text>
That is their choice. Our country values free will and free speech.
<quoted text>
Brian, you really are an idiot.
Providing service for a same sex wedding in no way violates the proprietor's free speech or freedom of religion. In states with anti-discrimination laws preventing places of public accommodation (businesses) from denying service on the basis of sexual orientation, proprietors that deny service for same sex weddings have broken the law.
<quoted text>
Most intelligent people agree, allowing bigots to project their religious moral views onto others, and/or deny service to those with other religious beliefs is unconstitutional.
Why do you defend those who break the law, Brian?
So a Chick-fil-a boycott is illegal?

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5879 Sep 28, 2013
KiMare wrote:
So a Chick-fil-a boycott is illegal?
That is free speech of individuals. The protesters are not refusing to provide service to anyone, because they are individuals who have chosen to avail themselves of their right to free speech and peaceable free assembly. It doesn't remotely correlate to a business, which is a place of public accommodation, denying service to a client.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#5880 Sep 28, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
That is free speech of individuals. The protesters are not refusing to provide service to anyone, because they are individuals who have chosen to avail themselves of their right to free speech and peaceable free assembly. It doesn't remotely correlate to a business, which is a place of public accommodation, denying service to a client.
So I lose my right to free speech when I run a business. Oh, and my right to freely practice my faith?

What about no shoes, no shirt, no service?

It would be participating in a sacrilege to support a faux wedding as a Pastor.
Huh

Faribault, MN

#5881 Sep 28, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
So I lose my right to free speech when I run a business. Oh, and my right to freely practice my faith?
What about no shoes, no shirt, no service?
It would be participating in a sacrilege to support a faux wedding as a Pastor.
So if my religion is to be barefoot and shirtless all the time is it illegal for a business to not let me in>?

Lets say I own a store and I have huge sign that says no religious people allowed....Also says no other race but white.....What if I dont allow women or men....

FREE SPEECH STOPS AT BIGOTRY AND DISCRIMINATION IDIOT.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5882 Sep 28, 2013
KiMare wrote:
So I lose my right to free speech when I run a business.
Not at all. A business is not speech, it is a place of public accommodation. The purpose of a business is to provide a service in order to generate a profit.
KiMare wrote:
Oh, and my right to freely practice my faith?
Providing a service does not violate your religious freedom. Denying service to someone who holds different religious views actually violates religious freedom of the customer. If you open a place of public accommodation, you should expect to accommodate the public, not to thrust your religious moral views onto them.
KiMare wrote:
What about no shoes, no shirt, no service?
When last I checked, requiring any of those does not violate anyone's religious freedom. in most jurisdictions they are required by the health department anyway.
KiMare wrote:
It would be participating in a sacrilege to support a faux wedding as a Pastor.
If your business is being a pastor, then you are not running a business, but rather a church, which would be not for profit, and tax exempt. As such you would be covered by the first amendment and not have to provide services that fall outside of your religious convictions. The same protections do not apply to secular businesses. Don't like it, don't start a business.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#5883 Sep 28, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
So if my religion is to be barefoot and shirtless all the time is it illegal for a business to not let me in>?
Lets say I own a store and I have huge sign that says no religious people allowed....Also says no other race but white.....What if I dont allow women or men....
FREE SPEECH STOPS AT BIGOTRY AND DISCRIMINATION IDIOT.
No it doesn't duh.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#5884 Sep 28, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all. A business is not speech, it is a place of public accommodation. The purpose of a business is to provide a service in order to generate a profit.
<quoted text>
Providing a service does not violate your religious freedom. Denying service to someone who holds different religious views actually violates religious freedom of the customer. If you open a place of public accommodation, you should expect to accommodate the public, not to thrust your religious moral views onto them.
<quoted text>
When last I checked, requiring any of those does not violate anyone's religious freedom. in most jurisdictions they are required by the health department anyway.
<quoted text>
If your business is being a pastor, then you are not running a business, but rather a church, which would be not for profit, and tax exempt. As such you would be covered by the first amendment and not have to provide services that fall outside of your religious convictions. The same protections do not apply to secular businesses. Don't like it, don't start a business.
Faith is not separated from a Christian's business.

I lived in HI. Shoes and shirts are not required. But a business can segregate.

Some ministers do serve weddings as a business, and even outside of a Church.

Some Christians and non-Christians rent rooms in their homes. It would be against their faith to allow unmarried couples to rent a room. You are asserting that the Founding Fathers mandated they rent that room?
Huh

Faribault, MN

#5885 Sep 28, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
No it doesn't duh.
So if you deny service to a gay person and lets say there religion is being gay...YOUR DENYING THERE RELIGION....Hows that work based on 1st amendment,,

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 3 min Rednek 72,345
News First protected DREAMer is deported under Trump 4 min Say What 28
News Feds arrest 53 non-violent criminals in San Die... 4 min Oldglory 2
News Trump's plan will seek to 'harden' schools agai... 5 min javawhey 871
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 6 min USAsince1680 1,746,248
News House Democrats talk to Cambridge Analytica whi... 6 min SirPrize 2
News CNN's Chris Cillizza Dissects 'Super Awkward' P... 9 min RustyS 2
News 'Get on the Right Side': Shooting Survivors Dec... 34 min inbred Genius 1,512
News Comey speculates Russians may have damaging inf... 58 min spam musubi 584
News Clinton: Free press is under 'open assault' in ... 58 min Lawrence Wolf 58