Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Skylar]

See, on this specific issue I'm inclined to give folks a pass. I've had some long, detailed conversations on the issue with very principled Christian friends of mine. 'New Testament' Christians as I like to call them, whose focus is on loving God and loving their neighbor.

And I'm inclined to accept that their aversion to selling wedding goods for a gay wedding isn't motivated by homophobia or any animus toward gays. But by a genuine, abiding belief that selling these goods would constitute an offense to God. I've got no real problem with small scale, principled positions based on genuine faith. Especially when the practical effects are negligible.

My issue is with religion being used as a screen for homophobia. Sil for example isn't Christian. He just can't stand gays. And uses religion as justification for treating them like shit. And that concerns me. As given an open door where religion can be used to punish gays, people like Sil would take the loaf you offer and demand 10 more. As we've seen with Judge Bazile and his use of God to justify interracial marriage bans.

Sigh....but alas, that may be a tad too close to a slippery slope fallacy. True it has vast historical precedent. But it was during an era when religion held much more more secular power than it does now. So the effects may be much less pronounced today. Its hard to say.

On the issue that is, I'm inclined to accept genuine faith and religious belief as a basis for not providing wedding specific goods, and those alone. As the practical effect is so minor, amounting to a few dozen instances in the entire country. While orders and orders and orders of magnitude more folks will eagerly market to gays.

Those who have principled, heart felt moral positions on the matter are worth allowing folks like Keyes and Sil using their the smoke screen of faith to justify hate.

I've yet to see one of these "principled" Christians deny service to ANY other sinners.

Sigh.....don't get me wrong, Sea. I loath discrimination against gays for being gay. Its ugly, petting shit with a brutal pedigree. But I'm not an ideologue. I'm not going to stick with a position I think deserves compromise in order to stay ideologically consistent.

And in this specific instance, I think its possible for principled people to have an aversion to the issue that isn't based on animus to gays. But instead, fear of offending God. And even that alone isn't enough for me to be swayed on the issue. The kicker for me the tiny practical effect. I weight the imposition on gays denied service perhaps a few dozen times in the country vs. the imposition on the religious beliefs of principled individuals trying to devoutly follow what they believe is right.

On the balance, I'm inclined to side with the imposition against genuine religious belief. As there are *so* many folks in the wedding industry that are competing for gay clients. So the practical imposition of one or two that won't is minimal. And likely wouldn't effect the outcome of any wedding.

I think there is room enough for both. I like the approach that Utah is taking for example. And I appreciate the thought and desire for genuine compromise that the Mormons have taken on the issue. This may be an instance where its better to give a little rather than hold the line on strict ideological grounds.

I don't see allowing certain anti gay bigots a special exemption from following laws as a compromise. Where were these compromises for the racist bigots?

Because they aren't necessarily anti-gay bigots. The bigots can go fuck themselves on this issue. Those who genuinely don't want to offend god are more worthy of consideration.

Okay, where were the exemptions for those with "deeply held religious beliefs" against desegregation and interracial marriage? They didn't get a carve out.

Segregation and interracial marriage had a much, much greater practical effect. And involved State laws that mandated both. And were enforced by criminal law. We don't have either with PA law violations related specifically to the sale of wedding products.

That's an enormous difference.

Its the combination of genuine religious faith in some with an aversion to the issue combined with the comparatively minor practical effects on this issue that lead me to be inclined to consider an exemption.

 

[Seawytch]

I've yet to see one of these "principled" Christians deny service to ANY other sinners.

Sigh.....don't get me wrong, Sea. I loath discrimination against gays for being gay. Its ugly, petting shit with a brutal pedigree. But I'm not an ideologue. I'm not going to stick with a position I think deserves compromise in order to stay ideologically consistent.

And in this specific instance, I think its possible for principled people to have an aversion to the issue that isn't based on animus to gays. But instead, fear of offending God. And even that alone isn't enough for me to be swayed on the issue. The kicker for me the tiny practical effect. I weight the imposition on gays denied service perhaps a few dozen times in the country vs. the imposition on the religious beliefs of principled individuals trying to devoutly follow what they believe is right.

On the balance, I'm inclined to side with the imposition against genuine religious belief. As there are *so* many folks in the wedding industry that are competing for gay clients. So the practical imposition of one or two that won't is minimal. And likely wouldn't effect the outcome of any wedding.

I think there is room enough for both. I like the approach that Utah is taking for example. And I appreciate the thought and desire for genuine compromise that the Mormons have taken on the issue. This may be an instance where its better to give a little rather than hold the line on strict ideological grounds.

I don't see allowing certain anti gay bigots a special exemption from following laws as a compromise. Where were these compromises for the racist bigots?

Because they aren't necessarily anti-gay bigots. The bigots can go fuck themselves on this issue. Those who genuinely don't want to offend god are more worthy of consideration.

Okay, where were the exemptions for those with "deeply held religious beliefs" against desegregation and interracial marriage? They didn't get a carve out.

Segregation and interracial marriage had a much, much greater practical effect. And involved State laws that mandated both. And were enforced by criminal law. We don't have either with PA law violations related specifically to the sale of wedding products.

That's an enormous difference.

Its the combination of genuine religious faith in some with an aversion to the issue combined with the comparatively minor practical effects on this issue that lead me to be inclined to consider an exemption.

Bovine feces. Anti segregationist have just as much biblical justification as those opposed to gays marrying. (Which is little to nothing)

Sorry but you can get rid of all PA laws, but the anti gay folks don't get special exemptions...and which businesses get these carve outs? Doctors? Police? EMTs?

 

[Skylar]

Bovine feces. Anti segregationist have just as much biblical justification as those opposed to gays marrying. (Which is little to nothing)

Again, the practical effects are vastly different. A gay person is denied a wedding cake by one baker, there are dozens more than are willing to sell to them. Compare that with segregation which made the violation of sweeping 'separate but equal' laws a criminal offense. Or interracial marriage laws that had law enforcement breaking into the home of interracial couples in the middle of the night to arrest them.

There's no state involvement in the violation of PA laws. Its a lone and errant baker. Or the occasional photographer. Related specifically and exclusively to issues of weddings. That on a good day, will happen only once in a person's entire life. And involve only one day.

Compared to interracial marriage bans or segregation. Which would effect a person every day, backed by prison time if they resisted it. These are orders and orders and orders of magnitude different in terms of practical effects.

Given the issue of genuine religious faith among *some* of those that are adverse to selling for weddings goods to gay, with their refusal motivated by a desire not to offend God rather than any animus toward gays......I'm inclined to give them a pass given the tiny practical effect of denying the baking of a wedding cake.

Sorry but you can get rid of all PA laws, but the anti gay folks don't get special exemptions...and which businesses get these carve outs? Doctors? Police? EMTs?

Wedding services and wedding goods. Specifically.

And when you ask why, its the practical effects A comparison of imposition v imposition. With the practical effects being far greater on the baker than on the occasional gay couple that has to buy their wedding cake elsewhere. Well that and the basis of the discrimination, with the plausible possibility of a genuine lack of animus toward gays. But an aversion to offending God.

 

[Seawytch]

Wedding services and wedding goods. Specifically.

And when you ask why, its the practical effects A comparison of imposition v imposition. With the practical effects being far greater on the baker than on the occasional gay couple that has to buy their wedding cake elsewhere. Well that and the basis of the discrimination, with the plausible possibility of a genuine lack of animus toward gays. But an aversion to offending God.

So you believe only wedding businesses should get a special carve out? The deeply held beliefs of other businesses don't matter, just weddings?

Fuck the humiliation suffered by the gay couple because they can go somewhere else?

It Was Never About the Cake American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois

Again, the first time one of these "Christians" refuses to bake a cake for a straight couple on biblical grounds, I'll buy your "it's not because they don't like gays" story...until then, they're asking for cover for anti gay bigotry.

 

[Mr.Right]

This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.

Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?

There is simply no good excuse to do so. Churches are not the only place one can tie the knot. To force churches to do so would be a direct violation of the first amendment. But then that never seems to bother progressives in their never ending battle to subdue any and all opposition on the road to absolute power.

 

[Skylar]

So you believe only wedding businesses should get a special carve out? The deeply held beliefs of other businesses don't matter, just weddings?

I think that the imposition to gay couples is small enough while the imposition to the baker (if they are working in good faith with genuine religious conviction and trying to do what they feel is right and in accordance with their religion....which I argue some are) is great enough that I'm inclined on giving a the baker a pass on this one issue.

As the degree of practical effect on a gay couple that will have to go to another baker doesn't come anywhere within several orders of magnitude of the practical effect of segregation or interracial marriage bans.

I think its a mistake to dismiss anyone who is adverse to making wedding products for gays as an 'anti-gay bigot'. While there are certainly many, I'd argue that there are some that genuinely have no animus toward gays, but are instead motivated by sincere religious belief and an aversion to offending God.

And that their needs are distinct from the bigots....and worthy of consideration.

 

[Syriusly]

'force Christians as in......requiring Christians to follow the same laws as everyone else.......

Yes, they follow the 1st Amendment just fine. That's the law. And it's dominant BTW to any little po-dunk "law" in your small town that the lavender mafia has rammed through in violation of THE Law.

'po-dunk'? The grandaddy of all public accommodation laws is the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Of course the Christian mafia objects to legislation that is against discrimination towards Homosexuals- but fine with legislation that is against discrimination towards Christians.

Once again- here is Colorado's language:

It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry,

Why am I not surprised that the anti-gay mafia only objects to the part of the law that refers to 'sexual orientation'?

 

[Seawytch]

So you believe only wedding businesses should get a special carve out? The deeply held beliefs of other businesses don't matter, just weddings?

I think that the imposition to gay couples is small enough while the imposition to the baker (if they are working in good faith with genuine religious conviction and trying to do what they feel is right and in accordance with their religion....which I argue some are) is great enough that I'm inclined on giving a the baker a pass on this one issue.

As the degree of practical effect on a gay couple that will have to go to another baker doesn't come anywhere within several orders of magnitude of the practical effect of segregation or interracial marriage bans.

I think its a mistake to dismiss anyone who is adverse to making wedding products for gays as an 'anti-gay bigot'. While there are certainly many, I'd argue that there are some that genuinely have no animus toward gays, but are instead motivated by sincere religious belief and an aversion to offending God.

And that their needs are distinct from the bigots....and worthy of consideration.

And the first time one of these wedding businesses refuses to bake a cake or arrange flowers for a divorced and remarrying couple, I'll believe it's not about being anti gay and only about being religious.

 

[Syriusly]

This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.

Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?

There is simply no good excuse to do so. Churches are not the only place one can tie the knot. To force churches to do so would be a direct violation of the first amendment. But then that never seems to bother progressives in their never ending battle to subdue any and all opposition on the road to absolute power.

Pretty much every 'progressive' in this thread- myself included- say that churches should not- and will not- be forced to marry anyone that they dont' want to marry- regardless of the reason.

In the progressive never ending battle against Conservative discrimination- we say- Churches by nature are discriminatory and while we may not agree with the discrimination- they have every right to discriminate.

 

[Syriusly]

So you believe only wedding businesses should get a special carve out? The deeply held beliefs of other businesses don't matter, just weddings?

I think that the imposition to gay couples is small enough while the imposition to the baker (if they are working in good faith with genuine religious conviction and trying to do what they feel is right and in accordance with their religion....which I argue some are) is great enough that I'm inclined on giving a the baker a pass on this one issue.

As the degree of practical effect on a gay couple that will have to go to another baker doesn't come anywhere within several orders of magnitude of the practical effect of segregation or interracial marriage bans.

I think its a mistake to dismiss anyone who is adverse to making wedding products for gays as an 'anti-gay bigot'. While there are certainly many, I'd argue that there are some that genuinely have no animus toward gays, but are instead motivated by sincere religious belief and an aversion to offending God.

And that their needs are distinct from the bigots....and worthy of consideration.

And the first time one of these wedding businesses refuses to bake a cake or arrange flowers for a divorced and remarrying couple, I'll believe it's not about being anti gay and only about being religious.

Or a woman wearing pants.......

 

[Syriusly]

So you believe only wedding businesses should get a special carve out? The deeply held beliefs of other businesses don't matter, just weddings?

I think that the imposition to gay couples is small enough while the imposition to the baker (if they are working in good faith with genuine religious conviction and trying to do what they feel is right and in accordance with their religion....which I argue some are) is great enough that I'm inclined on giving a the baker a pass on this one issue.

As the degree of practical effect on a gay couple that will have to go to another baker doesn't come anywhere within several orders of magnitude of the practical effect of segregation or interracial marriage bans.

I think its a mistake to dismiss anyone who is adverse to making wedding products for gays as an 'anti-gay bigot'. While there are certainly many, I'd argue that there are some that genuinely have no animus toward gays, but are instead motivated by sincere religious belief and an aversion to offending God.

And that their needs are distinct from the bigots....and worthy of consideration.

In general I agree with you. Though I am not certain that we would excuse 'sincere religious belief' much in context of many other discrimination.

I would be fine with a solution that did not require any financial penalties for a first incident- but would require business's to change their business model in the future- either sell their products to everyone without discrimination or stop selling whatever products that they think would be a religious dilemma for them in the future.

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

I agree, Christians should only work for Christians, Muslims for Muslims, Jews for Jews, and homosexuals for homosexuals.

Let a business proclaim what denomination of people they wish to serve, and only those types are able to be served at that business. No non Christian should be allowed to go to a Christian run food pantry(uh, oh, you are gonna starve), and non Christians should not be allowed in a Christian run halfway house, or a Christian run mission. They should reserve those beds for only down on their luck Christians.

Since crab fishermen are predominately Christian, then only Christians should be able to buy crab legs, and any other seafood that is caught in that area. Let the heathen catch their own fish. Since most cattle farmers are Christian, no non Christian shall be able to buy beef. Except from those who proclaim to be non Christian, and no Christian shall be able to buy beef from them.

All Christian truck drivers may only haul to Christian run businesses, and deliver their load. No non Christian business can do any business, in any way with a Christian.

Now, if all this actually took affect, who is going to be paying more for meat, and their products? Well, there are a lot more of us, than there are of you, and I am pretty sure, any business wanting to stay in business, will proclaim to be a Christian business, so you are going to starve. But, you can always go to a Christian run food pantry, oh, no you cant.

But, that's your problem, not ours.

Have a nice day
USA

'Cause that's what Christ would do, right?

Ya'll make the baby Jesus cry...

They baby Jesus grew up.

And Christ does not want us serving homosexual weddings. Try again.

Really? In what passage or verse did Jesus say that? Have you actually read what Jesus said? If so, I can't see how you can imagine the man who turned water into wine would refuse to serve anyone.

Do you know what is a New Testament sin? Debating religion on a message board. Have fun in hell with the gays and adulterers.

You thinking, you know what Jesus said, is funny.

You thinking you are God, and getting to judge anyone, is hilarious!

You don't see any irony in your post at all?

I'm pointing out what actually IS in the bible. New Testament and everything. Debating is a sin in the bible. Nothing in there about baking, sinner.

Don't tell me, show me, what chapter and verse, that way I can educate you.

 

[Mr.Right]

So you believe only wedding businesses should get a special carve out? The deeply held beliefs of other businesses don't matter, just weddings?

I think that the imposition to gay couples is small enough while the imposition to the baker (if they are working in good faith with genuine religious conviction and trying to do what they feel is right and in accordance with their religion....which I argue some are) is great enough that I'm inclined on giving a the baker a pass on this one issue.

As the degree of practical effect on a gay couple that will have to go to another baker doesn't come anywhere within several orders of magnitude of the practical effect of segregation or interracial marriage bans.

I think its a mistake to dismiss anyone who is adverse to making wedding products for gays as an 'anti-gay bigot'. While there are certainly many, I'd argue that there are some that genuinely have no animus toward gays, but are instead motivated by sincere religious belief and an aversion to offending God.

And that their needs are distinct from the bigots....and worthy of consideration.

And the first time one of these wedding businesses refuses to bake a cake or arrange flowers for a divorced and remarrying couple, I'll believe it's not about being anti gay and only about being religious.

Just so you know. How would they know a person was divorced, unless they were told? If gays would simply learn to keep their mouths shut and just order a damn cake, no one would even know. Would they?

 

[Seawytch]

'Cause that's what Christ would do, right?

Ya'll make the baby Jesus cry...

They baby Jesus grew up.

And Christ does not want us serving homosexual weddings. Try again.

Really? In what passage or verse did Jesus say that? Have you actually read what Jesus said? If so, I can't see how you can imagine the man who turned water into wine would refuse to serve anyone.

Do you know what is a New Testament sin? Debating religion on a message board. Have fun in hell with the gays and adulterers.

You thinking, you know what Jesus said, is funny.

You thinking you are God, and getting to judge anyone, is hilarious!

You don't see any irony in your post at all?

I'm pointing out what actually IS in the bible. New Testament and everything. Debating is a sin in the bible. Nothing in there about baking, sinner.

Don't tell me, show me, what chapter and verse, that way I can educate you.

I already provided you the link...it's right in the post you responded to, sinner.

Debating

 

[Seawytch]

So you believe only wedding businesses should get a special carve out? The deeply held beliefs of other businesses don't matter, just weddings?

I think that the imposition to gay couples is small enough while the imposition to the baker (if they are working in good faith with genuine religious conviction and trying to do what they feel is right and in accordance with their religion....which I argue some are) is great enough that I'm inclined on giving a the baker a pass on this one issue.

As the degree of practical effect on a gay couple that will have to go to another baker doesn't come anywhere within several orders of magnitude of the practical effect of segregation or interracial marriage bans.

I think its a mistake to dismiss anyone who is adverse to making wedding products for gays as an 'anti-gay bigot'. While there are certainly many, I'd argue that there are some that genuinely have no animus toward gays, but are instead motivated by sincere religious belief and an aversion to offending God.

And that their needs are distinct from the bigots....and worthy of consideration.

And the first time one of these wedding businesses refuses to bake a cake or arrange flowers for a divorced and remarrying couple, I'll believe it's not about being anti gay and only about being religious.

Just so you know. How would they know a person was divorced, unless they were told? If gays would simply learn to keep their mouths shut and just order a damn cake, no one would even know. Would they?

Right...no wedding businesses have ever known they were providing a service to a divorced couple...or a non religious couple (that's a HUGE sin) or a fat couple (one of the deadly sins)...

Provide the advertised service, period.

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

See, on this specific issue I'm inclined to give folks a pass. I've had some long, detailed conversations on the issue with very principled Christian friends of mine. 'New Testament' Christians as I like to call them, whose focus is on loving God and loving their neighbor.

And I'm inclined to accept that their aversion to selling wedding goods for a gay wedding isn't motivated by homophobia or any animus toward gays. But by a genuine, abiding belief that selling these goods would constitute an offense to God. I've got no real problem with small scale, principled positions based on genuine faith. Especially when the practical effects are negligible.

My issue is with religion being used as a screen for homophobia. Sil for example isn't Christian. He just can't stand gays. And uses religion as justification for treating them like shit. And that concerns me. As given an open door where religion can be used to punish gays, people like Sil would take the loaf you offer and demand 10 more. As we've seen with Judge Bazile and his use of God to justify interracial marriage bans.

Sigh....but alas, that may be a tad too close to a slippery slope fallacy. True it has vast historical precedent. But it was during an era when religion held much more more secular power than it does now. So the effects may be much less pronounced today. Its hard to say.

On the issue that is, I'm inclined to accept genuine faith and religious belief as a basis for not providing wedding specific goods, and those alone. As the practical effect is so minor, amounting to a few dozen instances in the entire country. While orders and orders and orders of magnitude more folks will eagerly market to gays.

Those who have principled, heart felt moral positions on the matter are worth allowing folks like Keyes and Sil using their the smoke screen of faith to justify hate.

I've yet to see one of these "principled" Christians deny service to ANY other sinners.

It would depend on the service and/or goods offered, and if the 'sinners' decided to share what they were going to be doing.

If a man came into a store, owned and operated by a Christian, and tried to buy some condoms, then told the owner, he had a hot date, but not with his wife. It wouldn't surprise me any if the owner told him to get his 'merchandise' elsewhere.

If a man of 30 or so, walked into a bakery, and ordered a wedding cake for his wedding, and told the owner that his bride to be was a whopping 15 years old, the owner of that bakery might refuse to make that cake.

If a sinner wants to declare their sins, then the owner has a right not to serve that person, and help that person to revel in their sin.

 

[Seawytch]

So you believe only wedding businesses should get a special carve out? The deeply held beliefs of other businesses don't matter, just weddings?

I think that the imposition to gay couples is small enough while the imposition to the baker (if they are working in good faith with genuine religious conviction and trying to do what they feel is right and in accordance with their religion....which I argue some are) is great enough that I'm inclined on giving a the baker a pass on this one issue.

As the degree of practical effect on a gay couple that will have to go to another baker doesn't come anywhere within several orders of magnitude of the practical effect of segregation or interracial marriage bans.

I think its a mistake to dismiss anyone who is adverse to making wedding products for gays as an 'anti-gay bigot'. While there are certainly many, I'd argue that there are some that genuinely have no animus toward gays, but are instead motivated by sincere religious belief and an aversion to offending God.

And that their needs are distinct from the bigots....and worthy of consideration.

In general I agree with you. Though I am not certain that we would excuse 'sincere religious belief' much in context of many other discrimination.

I would be fine with a solution that did not require any financial penalties for a first incident- but would require business's to change their business model in the future- either sell their products to everyone without discrimination or stop selling whatever products that they think would be a religious dilemma for them in the future.

We wouldn't accept it for any other discrimination against a minority group. Only those that hate the gays get the "special" exemptions and only wedding planners.

What if a furniture store doesn't want to sell a gay marriage bed?

 

[Mr.Right]

They baby Jesus grew up.

And Christ does not want us serving homosexual weddings. Try again.

Really? In what passage or verse did Jesus say that? Have you actually read what Jesus said? If so, I can't see how you can imagine the man who turned water into wine would refuse to serve anyone.

Do you know what is a New Testament sin? Debating religion on a message board. Have fun in hell with the gays and adulterers.

You thinking, you know what Jesus said, is funny.

You thinking you are God, and getting to judge anyone, is hilarious!

You don't see any irony in your post at all?

I'm pointing out what actually IS in the bible. New Testament and everything. Debating is a sin in the bible. Nothing in there about baking, sinner.

Don't tell me, show me, what chapter and verse, that way I can educate you.

I already provided you the link...it's right in the post you responded to, sinner.

Debating

I didn't see anything saying it was a sin. And what are you doing here, arguing Scripture? Doesn't that also make you a sinner, not to mention a hypocrite?

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

See, on this specific issue I'm inclined to give folks a pass. I've had some long, detailed conversations on the issue with very principled Christian friends of mine. 'New Testament' Christians as I like to call them, whose focus is on loving God and loving their neighbor.

And I'm inclined to accept that their aversion to selling wedding goods for a gay wedding isn't motivated by homophobia or any animus toward gays. But by a genuine, abiding belief that selling these goods would constitute an offense to God. I've got no real problem with small scale, principled positions based on genuine faith. Especially when the practical effects are negligible.

My issue is with religion being used as a screen for homophobia. Sil for example isn't Christian. He just can't stand gays. And uses religion as justification for treating them like shit. And that concerns me. As given an open door where religion can be used to punish gays, people like Sil would take the loaf you offer and demand 10 more. As we've seen with Judge Bazile and his use of God to justify interracial marriage bans.

Sigh....but alas, that may be a tad too close to a slippery slope fallacy. True it has vast historical precedent. But it was during an era when religion held much more more secular power than it does now. So the effects may be much less pronounced today. Its hard to say.

On the issue that is, I'm inclined to accept genuine faith and religious belief as a basis for not providing wedding specific goods, and those alone. As the practical effect is so minor, amounting to a few dozen instances in the entire country. While orders and orders and orders of magnitude more folks will eagerly market to gays.

Those who have principled, heart felt moral positions on the matter are worth allowing folks like Keyes and Sil using their the smoke screen of faith to justify hate.

I've yet to see one of these "principled" Christians deny service to ANY other sinners.

Sigh.....don't get me wrong, Sea. I loath discrimination against gays for being gay. Its ugly, petting shit with a brutal pedigree. But I'm not an ideologue. I'm not going to stick with a position I think deserves compromise in order to stay ideologically consistent.

And in this specific instance, I think its possible for principled people to have an aversion to the issue that isn't based on animus to gays. But instead, fear of offending God. And even that alone isn't enough for me to be swayed on the issue. The kicker for me the tiny practical effect. I weight the imposition on gays denied service perhaps a few dozen times in the country vs. the imposition on the religious beliefs of principled individuals trying to devoutly follow what they believe is right.

On the balance, I'm inclined to side with the imposition against genuine religious belief. As there are *so* many folks in the wedding industry that are competing for gay clients. So the practical imposition of one or two that won't is minimal. And likely wouldn't effect the outcome of any wedding.

I think there is room enough for both. I like the approach that Utah is taking for example. And I appreciate the thought and desire for genuine compromise that the Mormons have taken on the issue. This may be an instance where its better to give a little rather than hold the line on strict ideological grounds.

I don't see allowing certain anti gay bigots a special exemption from following laws as a compromise. Where were these compromises for the racist bigots?

No one chooses their race.

 

[Skylar]

So you believe only wedding businesses should get a special carve out? The deeply held beliefs of other businesses don't matter, just weddings?

I think that the imposition to gay couples is small enough while the imposition to the baker (if they are working in good faith with genuine religious conviction and trying to do what they feel is right and in accordance with their religion....which I argue some are) is great enough that I'm inclined on giving a the baker a pass on this one issue.

As the degree of practical effect on a gay couple that will have to go to another baker doesn't come anywhere within several orders of magnitude of the practical effect of segregation or interracial marriage bans.

I think its a mistake to dismiss anyone who is adverse to making wedding products for gays as an 'anti-gay bigot'. While there are certainly many, I'd argue that there are some that genuinely have no animus toward gays, but are instead motivated by sincere religious belief and an aversion to offending God.

And that their needs are distinct from the bigots....and worthy of consideration.

In general I agree with you. Though I am not certain that we would excuse 'sincere religious belief' much in context of many other discrimination.

I agree. Which is why 'sincere religious belief' is one of two criteria I'm using. The other is practical effect. The imposition on the gay couple is quite small. Instances of this are rare, and available alternatives are vast.

I'm aware of the potential for a slippery slope. And it concerns me. But I've met people of good character and genuine principles that oppose providing wedding products to gays that I believe have no animus toward gays. But are instead motivated by what they feel is right, moral and in accordance with their faith.

These folks are worthy of some consideration.

I would be fine with a solution that did not require any financial penalties for a first incident- but would require business's to change their business model in the future- either sell their products to everyone without discrimination or stop selling whatever products that they think would be a religious dilemma for them in the future.

I'd be open a full exemption on this one issue. Or at least a discussion of it.