Should people have to perform/provide services for gay weddings?

[NYcarbineer]

And yet, you would deny a private business owner their rights. Pot, meet kettle...sheesh!

A private business that is open to the public may be private in its ownership but it is not private in its practice.

Let me ask you this:

New York State has a law against businesses that are public accommodations from refusing to do business with people because they are gay.

Is that unconstitutional?

I dont see it as unconsitutional, I see it as wrong.

Things dont have to be unconsitutional to be wrong and stupid.

Like I said, conservatives love the opportunity to discriminate against those who are not exactly like them.

 

[martybegan]

A private business that is open to the public may be private in its ownership but it is not private in its practice.

Let me ask you this:

New York State has a law against businesses that are public accommodations from refusing to do business with people because they are gay.

Is that unconstitutional?

I dont see it as unconsitutional, I see it as wrong.

Things dont have to be unconsitutional to be wrong and stupid.

Like I said, conservatives love the opportunity to discriminate against those who are not exactly like them.

I wouldnt discriminate against anyone, but I do not want to force my viewpoints on others who want to do it against anyone they so choose.

Anti-discrimination laws force YOUR viewpoint on me, thus discriminating against someone not exactly like YOU.

 

[KevinWestern]

It would definite make for an interesting scene.

It would be bad for a while, but in the end people's positions would be known.

But here's my thought process Marty:

You end the covert racism, and end the "blacks only signs", and instead of having the fully legal segregation you're now having blacks coming into the store and buying coffee. The cashier might initially think the word "n**ger" in their head while handing over the coffee, but over time you're going to have a situation where both blacks and whites are interacting in a business setting and over time the covert racism will (hopefully begin to) dissipate.

It's my opinion that it's easier to break down racism by getting a black and a white in a room talking vs keeping them separated. Not sure if you've had a different experience, but this is mine.

At first, the two might hate each other, but after talking/interacting for a few hours they might find they have more in common than they think. My father can be quite overtly racist around just white folks, but that all seems to dissipate the moment he comes across a black person who does not fit those stereotypes that are set in his head and he finds himself in a pleasant conversation.

Does that make sense?

it makes sense, but it still does not explain why we have to force people who's businesses are not part of any government program or action from doing what they please as a buisiness.

Forcing people to do ANYTHING they dont want to requires a compelling state interest, and having some photographer take pictures at a gay wedding he doesnt want to be at doesnt strike me as compelling.

It strikes me as the exact opposite of what those advocating gay marriage all along have been saying, that they dont want ACCEPTANCE, they just want the GOVERNMENT to recognize thier unions.

When you force someone to take part in something like thay, you are forcing acceptance, not tolerance.

Here's the thing Marty, a lot of folks say gays make up a very small percentage of the population - which is true - but what also is true that it's not just the gays who support gay marriage. Yes, the gays WANT the GOVERNMENT to recognize their unions, and so does over 50% of Americans and therefore the laws are beginning to change. This is just the trend in American society, you know?

I believe the polls are about 50% overall are pro-gay, and close to 70% with folks under 30 (so you see where the trend is going and will be in 20 years).

The 4% (or whatever) of gays who live in America didn't march to the Supreme Court with guns and hand grenades, demanding same sex marriage or death - did they? As far as I'm concerned, they've been following the normal legal channels to get things changed..

So when you say "forcing acceptance", what exactly do you mean?

If there's a bill and 80% of Congress votes "yay" would you get upset that the 20% who voted "nay" would have to accept the new law?

.

 

[martybegan]

But here's my thought process Marty:

You end the covert racism, and end the "blacks only signs", and instead of having the fully legal segregation you're now having blacks coming into the store and buying coffee. The cashier might initially think the word "n**ger" in their head while handing over the coffee, but over time you're going to have a situation where both blacks and whites are interacting in a business setting and over time the covert racism will (hopefully begin to) dissipate.

It's my opinion that it's easier to break down racism by getting a black and a white in a room talking vs keeping them separated. Not sure if you've had a different experience, but this is mine.

At first, the two might hate each other, but after talking/interacting for a few hours they might find they have more in common than they think. My father can be quite overtly racist around just white folks, but that all seems to dissipate the moment he comes across a black person who does not fit those stereotypes that are set in his head and he finds himself in a pleasant conversation.

Does that make sense?

it makes sense, but it still does not explain why we have to force people who's businesses are not part of any government program or action from doing what they please as a buisiness.

Forcing people to do ANYTHING they dont want to requires a compelling state interest, and having some photographer take pictures at a gay wedding he doesnt want to be at doesnt strike me as compelling.

It strikes me as the exact opposite of what those advocating gay marriage all along have been saying, that they dont want ACCEPTANCE, they just want the GOVERNMENT to recognize thier unions.

When you force someone to take part in something like thay, you are forcing acceptance, not tolerance.

Here's the thing Marty, a lot of folks say gays make up a very small percentage of the population - which is true - but what also is true that it's not just the gays who support gay marriage.

At this point in time, I believe we're beginning to cross the 50% point with regards to Americans being in favor of gay marriage. As a result, our elected Gov't officials are beginning to change the laws.

The 4% (or whatever) of gays who live in America didn't march to the Supreme Court with guns and hand grenades, demanding same sex marriage or death - did they? As far as I'm concerned, they've been following the normal legal channels to get things changed..

So when you say "forcing acceptance", what exactly do you mean?

If there's a bill and 80% of Congress votes "yay" would you get upset that the 20% who voted "nay" would have to accept the new law?

.

I have no quarrel with gay marriage as long as it is created by legislative action instead of judicial fiat, and as long as it is mandated by the States, where marriage contracts have always been handled.

As for acceptance of the law, accepting it being in place and being forced to go along with it are two different things. What if we made a black caterer feed a KKK rally?

 

[KevinWestern]

I dont see it as unconsitutional, I see it as wrong.

Things dont have to be unconsitutional to be wrong and stupid.

I completely respect your opinion, and if there was more of you who thought gay marriage was wrong (like in 1950) we wouldn't be seeing the Supreme Court striking down DOMA, or States beginning to allow gay marriage.

However, in this Democracy, folks who are against gay marriage are waning in numbers, and therefore the laws of the society are changing.

This is basic Democracy at work.

Would you rather the laws reflect (in a general sense) the will of the majority, or (alternately) the will of minority that is waning in numbers?


.

 

[KevinWestern]

I have no quarrel with gay marriage as long as it is created by legislative action instead of judicial fiat, and as long as it is mandated by the States, where marriage contracts have always been handled.

Me too.

As for acceptance of the law, accepting it being in place and being forced to go along with it are two different things. What if we made a black caterer feed a KKK rally?

If it's a law and you choose to live in the US, then you must abide by those laws - right? Isn't that the agreement of living here?

I think if gay marriage becomes legal, and you're a gov't worker, then it's your duty as a gov't worker to honor those laws. That's just how it is.

Note that if you're a church - for example - you won't have to marry gays. You are a private institution and can define marriage however you wish. I'm totally fine with this.

And too, I doubt a KKK rally would want a black caterer to be in charge of their food (ie stuff they're going to be putting in their mouths/body).

 

[martybegan]

I dont see it as unconsitutional, I see it as wrong.

Things dont have to be unconsitutional to be wrong and stupid.

I completely respect your opinion, and if there was more of you who thought gay marriage was wrong (like in 1950) we wouldn't be seeing the Supreme Court striking down DOMA, or States beginning to allow gay marriage.

However, in this Democracy, folks who are against gay marriage are waning in numbers, and therefore the laws of the society are changing.

This is basic Democracy at work.

Would you rather the laws reflect (in a general sense) the will of the majority, or (alternately) the will of minority that is waning in numbers?


.

Laws should reflect the will of the majority tempered by the consitutional rights of the minority.

Segregation laws were pretty popular, even though they were unconsitutional.

You also make the mistake of assuming a constant liberalizing trend when it comes to social issues. Revanchism is always possible, look at the Muslim world as an example.

 

[martybegan]

I have no quarrel with gay marriage as long as it is created by legislative action instead of judicial fiat, and as long as it is mandated by the States, where marriage contracts have always been handled.

Me too.

As for acceptance of the law, accepting it being in place and being forced to go along with it are two different things. What if we made a black caterer feed a KKK rally?

If it's a law and you choose to live in the US, then you must abide by those laws - right? Isn't that the agreement of living here?

I think if gay marriage becomes legal, and you're a gov't worker, then it's your duty as a gov't worker to honor those laws. That's just how it is.

Note that if you're a church - for example - you won't have to marry gays. You are a private institution and can define marriage however you wish. I'm totally fine with this.

And too, I doubt a KKK rally would want a black caterer to be in charge of their food (ie stuff they're going to be putting in their mouths/body).

Government workers are not in question here, nor are agencies with connections to government (trains/buses/parks etc).

What is in question is small private buisinesses with no connection to interstate commerce or government.

A church is a private instiutuion that allows the public to walk in, sames as a baker or photographer.

 

[KevinWestern]

I dont see it as unconsitutional, I see it as wrong.

Things dont have to be unconsitutional to be wrong and stupid.

I completely respect your opinion, and if there was more of you who thought gay marriage was wrong (like in 1950) we wouldn't be seeing the Supreme Court striking down DOMA, or States beginning to allow gay marriage.

However, in this Democracy, folks who are against gay marriage are waning in numbers, and therefore the laws of the society are changing.

This is basic Democracy at work.

Would you rather the laws reflect (in a general sense) the will of the majority, or (alternately) the will of minority that is waning in numbers?


.

Laws should reflect the will of the majority tempered by the consitutional rights of the minority.

Segregation laws were pretty popular, even though they were unconsitutional.

You also make the mistake of assuming a constant liberalizing trend when it comes to social issues. Revanchism is always possible, look at the Muslim world as an example.

Definitely realize that and agree.

Let me rephrase. As long as a law is not unconstitutional, we should make sure it reflects the will of the general majority.

And I don't think a State deciding that gay marriage is legal is unconstitutional.

 

[KevinWestern]

I have no quarrel with gay marriage as long as it is created by legislative action instead of judicial fiat, and as long as it is mandated by the States, where marriage contracts have always been handled.

Me too.

As for acceptance of the law, accepting it being in place and being forced to go along with it are two different things. What if we made a black caterer feed a KKK rally?

If it's a law and you choose to live in the US, then you must abide by those laws - right? Isn't that the agreement of living here?

I think if gay marriage becomes legal, and you're a gov't worker, then it's your duty as a gov't worker to honor those laws. That's just how it is.

Note that if you're a church - for example - you won't have to marry gays. You are a private institution and can define marriage however you wish. I'm totally fine with this.

And too, I doubt a KKK rally would want a black caterer to be in charge of their food (ie stuff they're going to be putting in their mouths/body).

Government workers are not in question here, nor are agencies with connections to government (trains/buses/parks etc).

What is in question is small private buisinesses with no connection to interstate commerce or government.

A church is a private instiutuion that allows the public to walk in, sames as a baker or photographer.

I don't know much detail about the laws, but I believe Churches and Private Golf Clubs are handled differently that say a "Dunkin Donuts" who will accept money from any guy off the street. I think the topic is with regards to places like "Dunkin Donuts" - specifically - that are open to the general public, and are taxpaying entities that accept $'s from whoever walks through their doors.

Perhaps with someone with more knowledge around the laws could elaborate..

 

[martybegan]

I completely respect your opinion, and if there was more of you who thought gay marriage was wrong (like in 1950) we wouldn't be seeing the Supreme Court striking down DOMA, or States beginning to allow gay marriage.

However, in this Democracy, folks who are against gay marriage are waning in numbers, and therefore the laws of the society are changing.

This is basic Democracy at work.

Would you rather the laws reflect (in a general sense) the will of the majority, or (alternately) the will of minority that is waning in numbers?


.

Laws should reflect the will of the majority tempered by the consitutional rights of the minority.

Segregation laws were pretty popular, even though they were unconsitutional.

You also make the mistake of assuming a constant liberalizing trend when it comes to social issues. Revanchism is always possible, look at the Muslim world as an example.

Definitely realize that and agree.

Let me rephrase. As long as a law is not unconstitutional, we should make sure it reflects the will of the general majority.

And I don't think a State deciding that gay marriage is legal is unconstitutional.

A state deciding to change its marriage laws via legislative action is not even remotely unconsitutional. What I dont see is a consitutional RIGHT to gay marriage. The consitution is silent with regards to marriage contracts in general.

When it comes to private anti-discrimination laws what I dont see is the counsitution giving that power over contracts (which is what an employment agreement or an agreement so sell a good or service esentially is, a contract) to the feds. States may retain it, but in general I see anti-discrimination laws targeted at private businesses as governmental overreach.

 

[Spoonman]

A private business that is open to the public may be private in its ownership but it is not private in its practice.

Let me ask you this:

New York State has a law against businesses that are public accommodations from refusing to do business with people because they are gay.

Is that unconstitutional?

I dont see it as unconsitutional, I see it as wrong.

Things dont have to be unconsitutional to be wrong and stupid.

Like I said, conservatives love the opportunity to discriminate against those who are not exactly like them.

sane and rational?

 

[KevinWestern]

A state deciding to change its marriage laws via legislative action is not even remotely unconsitutional. What I dont see is a consitutional RIGHT to gay marriage. The consitution is silent with regards to marriage contracts in general.

Perhaps, but that's not up for you or me to decide; that's the job of the Supreme Court justices.

When it comes to private anti-discrimination laws what I dont see is the counsitution giving that power over contracts (which is what an employment agreement or an agreement so sell a good or service esentially is, a contract) to the feds. States may retain it, but in general I see anti-discrimination laws targeted at private businesses as governmental overreach.

Again, perhaps and I'm sure you could build a compelling case on this that would deserve some attention. Just note that I don't mind this specific overreach and would likely not join in the fight. You might find some difficulty gaining momentum to overturn this particular precedent.

 

[KevinWestern]

There is a difference between providing a service and providing a personal service. Personal services should never be required by anyone. Selling cakes that are decorated with flowers and colored icing is a service. Selling a wedding cake made to personal specifications and instructions is a personal service.

Laws mandating providing personal services is nothing more than slavery and should be abolished.

Sure, but at the end of the day, Katz, a photographer can simply just say no to any person he/she wants and be fully protected under the law. At the end of the day a wedding planner can say "no thanks" to an infinite number of black couples and would not have to worry about facing prison time.

Is it worth fighting for that photographer's right to say no AND be able to tell the person it's because he/she is black?

What exactly does this accomplish?


.

 

[Uncensored2008]

On Face the Nation this morning Bob Schieffer was surprised to hear that people such as bakers and photographers are facing fines and possibly jail time for not providing their services to gay weddings. Whatever you feel about whether people should be forced to facilitate something they are religiously opposed to, it says a lot about the media coverage that Schieffer didn't even know about it.

Do you feel people who are religiously opposed to gay marriage should have to cater to gay weddings?

Obama said he won't make churches perform gay weddings. So, if we believe him, that one little corner of culture might not be forced to change. But everything else is fair game, isn't it.

Public schools will be actively attempting to make children view gay marriage as normal. Adoption agencies will be penalized for not arranging for children to be placed with gay couples. And bakers could lose thousands of dollars or go to jail if they refuse to put two plastic men on top of a wedding cake.

Once this was a free nation.

That is over now.

 

[DiamondDave]

Again, I respect your opinion, and in the hardcore Libertarian world I think your reasoning would be well received.

However, it's my personal opinion that a law that says a business can't deny a customer specifically because he/she is black - for example - only leads to good things. It means that business can no longer put up a "no blacks" sign in the windows, and means that a black man can travel anywhere in America and not have to fear being denied food, water, or housing due to skin color so long that he's a paying, respectable customer.

There's a lot to be said about Big Gov't butting in and creating unnecessary regulations that will hurt small businesses (while helping big businesses), etc, and I'm 100% against that sort of crony capitalist corruption.

However, this law is truly aimed at creating a more cohesive, respectable society and for that reason I stand behind it.

It brings blacks/whites together where the alternative will likely mean driving them apart in certain areas.

.

Then you could go with the argument about discriminating against something genetic in humans.. blacks do not have a choice of race, a person with deformities does not have a choice about the deformities... and I could be persuaded with issues like that (except in the rare case like where you have a 900 pound man suing the airline for not having a seat that fits him and he sues for discrimination, etc)

This is not the case with the homosexual marriage argument and people discriminate against choices and behavior all the time... I will not stand behind laws that take that freedom away

I hold the opinion that being gay is not a choice, as it's just the way some people are born. There's no possible way I could 'choose' to be physically attracted to another man in a sexual fashion; it just doesn't work for me as I am a straight male.

You can kick a gay man out of your grocery store if he's wearing a lewd outfit, or making out with his boyfriend, etc, I'm fine with that. They chose to behave that way and now should face the consequences.

But kick him out simply because he's gay (and that's it), I have no sort of qualm with a law prohibiting that sort of thing with regards to a public business.

.

There is no genetic link to gay, just as there is no genetic link to having something be 'transexual'.. that is fact... as much as they have tried to prove or suggest otherwise

There is more than choice.. there is learned behavior, there is environmental influence, and there are also abnormalities and disorders (normally which we seek to treat, like my daughter with bi-polar disorder).. now, since gay 'treatment' is frowned upon, I guess we have to say it is not a disorder or just a mere chemical imbalance.. so I guess we have to go with environmental or learned behavior, or choice... but regardless, it is a BEHAVIOR or ACTION, not something genetic like race.. and we discriminate against choices, behaviors, and actions continually.. and rightfully so.. and people have differing standards of that discrimination because of their beliefs, their own environment, their own learned behavior etc...

Also.. in a grocery store, you may have the right to be against the choices or actions of someone outside the store, but you don't ask whether someone is buying a cantaloupe for a gay wedding... but when a behavior or action is announced and the reason behind a contracted service, it is a completely different situation.. and conflicting beliefs on those actions can happen.. and one person's belief does not trump the other, or it SHOULD NOT... but the agenda at hand here is one of protected status because of a behavior or action... THAT is WRONG

 

[Spoonman]

On Face the Nation this morning Bob Schieffer was surprised to hear that people such as bakers and photographers are facing fines and possibly jail time for not providing their services to gay weddings. Whatever you feel about whether people should be forced to facilitate something they are religiously opposed to, it says a lot about the media coverage that Schieffer didn't even know about it.

Do you feel people who are religiously opposed to gay marriage should have to cater to gay weddings?

Obama said he won't make churches perform gay weddings. So, if we believe him, that one little corner of culture might not be forced to change. But everything else is fair game, isn't it.

Public schools will be actively attempting to make children view gay marriage as normal. Adoption agencies will be penalized for not arranging for children to be placed with gay couples. And bakers could lose thousands of dollars or go to jail if they refuse to put two plastic men on top of a wedding cake.

Once this was a free nation.

That is over now.

i really don't understand why this is an issue that should even be brought up in public schools.

 

[koshergrl]

It's a theory, well supported. Hotly contested, of course, by people who are good at pretending vile behavior isn't really vile, and that history really doesn't show the things it appears to show.

 

[DiamondDave]

There is a difference between providing a service and providing a personal service. Personal services should never be required by anyone. Selling cakes that are decorated with flowers and colored icing is a service. Selling a wedding cake made to personal specifications and instructions is a personal service.

Laws mandating providing personal services is nothing more than slavery and should be abolished.

Sure, but at the end of the day, Katz, a photographer can simply just say no to any person he/she wants and be fully protected under the law. At the end of the day a wedding planner can say "no thanks" to an infinite number of black couples and would not have to worry about facing prison time.

Is it worth fighting for that photographer's right to say no AND be able to tell the person it's because he/she is black?

What exactly does this accomplish?


.

Having a published or stated policy that would state something like "We do not supply services for gay weddings" or "We do not supply services to hindu ceremonies" or "We do not photograph what we consider to be lascivious activities" or whatever else, SAVES TIME.. you make a slot for an appointment to go meet a potential client, to then find out the activity is against what you believe or are comfortable with... you waste time, effort, money, etc.. and it is just as worth it to be able to say you are not doing it because someone is gay, or Eskimo, or whatever other reason..

 

[KevinWestern]

There is no genetic link to gay, just as there is no genetic link to having something be 'transexual'.. that is fact... as much as they have tried to prove or suggest otherwise

Believing that being gay is NOT a choice is my personal opinion – I realize that. However will note that the human species still understands very, very little about genetics overall. We’ve only scratched the surface.

There is more than choice.. there is learned behavior, there is environmental influence, and there are also abnormalities and disorders (normally which we seek to treat, like my daughter with bi-polar disorder).. now, since gay 'treatment' is frowned upon, I guess we have to say it is not a disorder or just a mere chemical imbalance.. so I guess we have to go with environmental or learned behavior, or choice... but regardless, it is a BEHAVIOR or ACTION, not something genetic like race.. and we discriminate against choices, behaviors, and actions continually.. and rightfully so.. and people have differing standards of that discrimination because of their beliefs, their own environment, their own learned behavior etc...

Again, I believe genetic predispositions go beyond just physical, visible characteristics (ie skin color or deformity). But at this point in history (since we don’t fully understand genetics to any degree), we’re going to have to go with what most folks “believe” for the time being, and I’m assuming the trend is towards believing that “being gay” is NOT a choice. I’m not saying this is necessarily correct or incorrect; it’s instead just how it is…

Also.. in a grocery store, you may have the right to be against the choices or actions of someone outside the store, but you don't ask whether someone is buying a cantaloupe for a gay wedding... but when a behavior or action is announced and the reason behind a contracted service, it is a completely different situation.. and conflicting beliefs on those actions can happen.. and one person's belief does not trump the other, or it SHOULD NOT... but the agenda at hand here is one of protected status because of a behavior or action... THAT is WRONG

I think I mentioned this before, but if a Photographer doesn’t want to participate in a gay wedding they don’t have to – correct?

Too, I have no sympathy for someone who won’t take money for a cantaloupe because it comes out that a certain (respectful, paying) customer is gay. I just don’t feel it necessary to find the time fighting for his right to refuse the sale by helping to overturn the law. If you’d like to, be my guest (and I won’t think anything different of you). I just don’t think you’ll have much luck.