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

[aaronleland]

I don't think anybody should be forced to provide a service for somebody they disagree with if they don't want to. I could care less if a store refused service to a minority as well. You have your right to be a bigot, and I have my right to not frequent your business because of it.

As far as public schools teaching gay marriage is normal, I agree they should have to. They should have been able to teach that it was normal from the very beginning.

Why should they have been able to teach that something which wasn't normal was normal?

Edit: Let me phrase that in a more open-minded way: During which time periods has gay marriage been normal?

Gay marriage is normal because the government says it is, not because 38 other American States say otherwise.

The same can be said in defense of gay marriage. Does the government saying it isn't normal make it not normal? Is government control over marriage what you call small government now?

 

[Two Thumbs]

Because gay marriage never should have been prohibited in the first place.

You may not have seen my edit.

Even if gay marriage should not have been prohibited, that doesn't mean it was normal, so why should schools teach that it was?


That brings me to the question in my edit: During which time periods has gay marriage been normal?

Society has never considered gay marriage "normal", that I know of. It doesn't make society right. There was a time when interracial marriages weren't considered normal. There was a time when marriages between the upper and lower class weren't considered normal. What society believes is usually dictated by what their government tells them is normal, and it's the "small government" Republicans who are usually opposed to gay marriage. When gay marriage has been legal for a few decades people will begin to refer to it as normal, because the "all-knowing government" told them it was.

About 15 percent of all new marriages in the United States in 2010 were between spouses of different race or ethnicity, according to a new report by the Pew Research Center.

Interracial marriage rate doubles in 30 years: how US attitudes have changed - CSMonitor.com

only about 25% short of normal.

 

[AmyNation]

No one should be forced into signing a contract.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Because gay marriage never should have been prohibited in the first place.

You may not have seen my edit.

Even if gay marriage should not have been prohibited, that doesn't mean it was normal, so why should schools teach that it was?


That brings me to the question in my edit: During which time periods has gay marriage been normal?

Society has never considered gay marriage "normal", that I know of. It doesn't make society right. There was a time when interracial marriages weren't considered normal. There was a time when marriages between the upper and lower class weren't considered normal. What society believes is usually dictated by what their government tells them is normal, and it's the "small government" Republicans who are usually opposed to gay marriage. When gay marriage has been legal for a few decades people will begin to refer to it as normal, because the "all-knowing government" told them it was.

So, society must kneel in submission all of the 3% who comprise it? So what about that is right?

It's not so much my opposition to gay marriage, it's to my government defining it, and infringing on my beliefs or someone else's because of such. It strikes me odd gay people want government to stay out of marriage, but allow it to define it one way or another via the Supreme Court, that they raise no objections when government tries to subsidize it.

 

[Katzndogz]

Because gay marriage never should have been prohibited in the first place.

You may not have seen my edit.

Even if gay marriage should not have been prohibited, that doesn't mean it was normal, so why should schools teach that it was?


That brings me to the question in my edit: During which time periods has gay marriage been normal?

Society has never considered gay marriage "normal", that I know of. It doesn't make society right. There was a time when interracial marriages weren't considered normal. There was a time when marriages between the upper and lower class weren't considered normal. What society believes is usually dictated by what their government tells them is normal, and it's the "small government" Republicans who are usually opposed to gay marriage. When gay marriage has been legal for a few decades people will begin to refer to it as normal, because the "all-knowing government" told them it was.

Interracial marriage and marriage between classes was never abnormal or a perversion. It was not done, it was socially distasteful, but never abnormal.

When Edward VIII married Wallace Simpson, the marriage wasn't abnormal.

Forcing people to accept same sex marriage goes beyond the act of marriage, it demands that the people who object accept a perversion as normal behavior.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Why should they have been able to teach that something which wasn't normal was normal?

Edit: Let me phrase that in a more open-minded way: During which time periods has gay marriage been normal?

Gay marriage is normal because the government says it is, not because 38 other American States say otherwise.

The same can be said in defense of gay marriage. Does the government saying it isn't normal make it not normal? Is government control over marriage what you call small government now?

I will make it clear for the record that I am not a Republican. Government should not be defining marriage at all, period. I simply oppose homosexuality because that is what the Bible tells me, not what my government tells me. I believe in majority rule. I don't believe you should suppress the majority for the will of the minority.

 

[blackhawk]

Should they be forced to no of course if they refuse there is a pretty good chance they will be vilified labeled as homophobes and sued over it.

 

[JoeBlam]

I read that too....Hussein saying he "won't make churchs perform 'gay' weddings"...mighty white of him eh? Like he can do that....I tell ya, well, maybe I won't tell ya....but something or somebody needs to remind his ass who he works for. He ain't KING, hell he ain't even a man. A private enterprise can refuse service to anybody they please outside of race/creed/color and the defective "gay" gene isn't covered under any of the three.

 

[AmyNation]

3% is the low, I've also seen studies the say its as high as 10%. Not that I think it matters.

Also. I think it's a tad alarmist to imply the ruling will now mean mass indoctrination of children and a total cultral shift.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Obama never said he won't make churches perform gay weddings, that’s a lie by the partisan right, who distorted and took the president’s statement out of context, as no president possesses that authority. Obama was correctly acknowledging the fact that the rulings and the Bill of Rights apply only to the states and local jurisdictions, not private organizations such as religious institutions.

Otherwise, schools should teach that all persons are equal, adoption agencies should place children in the best possible homes regardless the sexual orientation of the parents, and business must obey laws concerning public accommodations in accordance with Commerce Clause jurisprudence. See: Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States (1964), as businesses must obey all other laws and policies.

 

[aaronleland]

It's not so much my opposition to gay marriage, it's to my government defining it, and infringing on my beliefs or someone else's because of such.

Government has always been defining marriage. You only had no problem with it when they were defining it the way you wanted them to.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It's not so much my opposition to gay marriage, it's to my government defining it, and infringing on my beliefs or someone else's because of such.

Government has always been defining marriage. You only had no problem with it when they were defining it the way you wanted them to.

You are making assumptions about me that you have no business making. I have a problem with them defining it in any way, shape, or form. Can you not get that through your thick head? Condoning one way of marriage over another violates the establishment clause. It's unconstitutional!

 

[Two Thumbs]

3% is the low, I've also seen studies the say its as high as 10%. Not that I think it matters.

Also. I think it's a tad alarmist to imply the ruling will now mean mass indoctrination of children and a total cultral shift.

I got that from The Gay Population - Gay Population Statistics In The United States

GAYLIFE.COM


I don't think their leanometer could go any higher.

 

[PaulS1950]

Businesses can refuse service to anyone for cause. They cannot use bigotry as a reason to refuse service - that violates the civil rights of the individual. They can post signs stating that they have the right to refuse service - but they still can't discriminate on the grounds of prejudice.

Do they have the "right" to refuse service to someone solely based on race, religion, gender or physical or mental ability? NO!

 

[aaronleland]

It's not so much my opposition to gay marriage, it's to my government defining it, and infringing on my beliefs or someone else's because of such.

Government has always been defining marriage. You only had no problem with it when they were defining it the way you wanted them to.

You are making assumptions about me that you have no business making. I have a problem with them defining it in any way, shape, or form. Can you not get that through your thick head? Condoning one way of marriage over another violates the establishment clause. It's unconstitutional!

So, you believe gay marriage should be legal, because government never should have been defining it in the first place? That I can agree with.

 

[Plasmaball]

Why should they have been able to teach that something which wasn't normal was normal?

Because gay marriage never should have been prohibited in the first place.

People were smart back then. They knew was the definition of a marriage was.

You mean one man and one woman or one man many women...or something else.

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

Obama never said he won't make churches perform gay weddings, that’s a lie by the partisan right, who distorted and took the president’s statement out of context, as no president possesses that authority. Obama was correctly acknowledging the fact that the rulings and the Bill of Rights apply only to the states and local jurisdictions, not private organizations such as religious institutions.

Otherwise, schools should teach that all persons are equal, adoption agencies should place children in the best possible homes regardless the sexual orientation of the parents, and business must obey laws concerning public accommodations in accordance with Commerce Clause jurisprudence. See: Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States (1964), as businesses must obey all other laws and policies.

The best possible homes, to gay activists, is to remove children from homes that have a mother and father and place them with gay couples.
Children of same-sex parents are healthier, families closer than straight-parent families: study - NY Daily News

I'd be more confident if I didn't recall that the same thing was said in the 70s about children growing up in homes where the parents were divorced.

 

[Plasmaball]

It's not so much my opposition to gay marriage, it's to my government defining it, and infringing on my beliefs or someone else's because of such.

Government has always been defining marriage. You only had no problem with it when they were defining it the way you wanted them to.

You are making assumptions about me that you have no business making. I have a problem with them defining it in any way, shape, or form. Can you not get that through your thick head? Condoning one way of marriage over another violates the establishment clause. It's unconstitutional!

Dude all you do is make assumptions about people on here and you have the nerve to whine about this? Fuck you troll

You have no argument against it. It happened its over you lost and society won.

 

[gallantwarrior]

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.

I don' t think anybody with a private business should be legally punished for refusing their services to whomever they want. Just as clients, customers, etc have the choice to patronize that business. Even if a private business serves the public, the public has the ability to impact business by choosing to pay for the services or goods provided. I'm positive that homosexuals, et.al. are able to find more than enough business people to provide for their needs and take their money.
Schools need to get back to basics and leave the social ideological indoctrination to parents.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Just prior to the fall of historically great civilizations, gay marriage was considered normal.

Link?