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

[Nosmo King]

It isnt a right either. Your desire to use wedding planner X should not trump wedding planner X's right to work for who they choose to work for.

So the lunch counter at Woolworth's can simply refuse to serve the Black teenagers there because they are Black? The real estate agent can use his personal bigotry to deny a home buyer from a specific neighborhood because the real estate agent is a knuckle dragging bigot?

What REAL harm comes to the baker who is asked to bake a wedding cake for someone he fears and is hatred toward? is the law set up to protect and encourage bigotry and stupidity and hate and fear and other Conservative "virtues"?

Because the baker who bakes the wedding cake actually has to participate in the wedding. They have to go there. They don't put the cake in a box and send it off with the bride and groom. Of course you might find this in the future. Bakers will be happy to bake the cakes but that's as far as it goes.

No one should have to perform a personal service for anyone. Not ever. The black person stopping by a lunch counter does not have the right to demand the grill operator appear at their home and whip up a burger.

The baker delivers the cake to a venue, but he doesn't stick around and toast the happy couple! A florist delivers arrangements to a funeral home, but he doesn't crawl in a casket. Delivering a wedding cake to the country club on Saturday afternoon is not the same as being "compelled" to go to a wedding.

You go to a lunch counter and there is an understanding that the cooking and the consumption will happen on the premises. You order a six tiered wedding cake and you expect it will be delivered, but you don't expect a gift of a toaster oven from the baker.

Guests are invited, vendors are not.

 

[thanatos144]

So the lunch counter at Woolworth's can simply refuse to serve the Black teenagers there because they are Black? The real estate agent can use his personal bigotry to deny a home buyer from a specific neighborhood because the real estate agent is a knuckle dragging bigot?

What REAL harm comes to the baker who is asked to bake a wedding cake for someone he fears and is hatred toward? is the law set up to protect and encourage bigotry and stupidity and hate and fear and other Conservative "virtues"?

Because the baker who bakes the wedding cake actually has to participate in the wedding. They have to go there. They don't put the cake in a box and send it off with the bride and groom. Of course you might find this in the future. Bakers will be happy to bake the cakes but that's as far as it goes.

No one should have to perform a personal service for anyone. Not ever. The black person stopping by a lunch counter does not have the right to demand the grill operator appear at their home and whip up a burger.

The baker delivers the cake to a venue, but he doesn't stick around and toast the happy couple! A florist delivers arrangements to a funeral home, but he doesn't crawl in a casket. Delivering a wedding cake to the country club on Saturday afternoon is not the same as being "compelled" to go to a wedding.

You go to a lunch counter and there is an understanding that the cooking and the consumption will happen on the premises. You order a six tiered wedding cake and you expect it will be delivered, but you don't expect a gift of a toaster oven from the baker.

Guests are invited, vendors are not.

Only progressives are stupid enough to think forcing someone to do something is a smart idea.

 

[bodecea]

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.

this is the beginning. First its bakers and caterers then it will be Churches and damn 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.

Out of that amendment how much has this administration tried to circumvent? All of it

Show where, since Loving v Virginia that religious organizations have been forced to marry interracial couples. or interfaith couples. or the Catholic Church has been forced by law to marry previously divorced couples.

 

[thanatos144]

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.

this is the beginning. First its bakers and caterers then it will be Churches and damn 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.

Out of that amendment how much has this administration tried to circumvent? All of it

Show where, since Loving v Virginia that religious organizations have been forced to marry interracial couples. or interfaith couples. or the Catholic Church has been forced by law to marry previously divorced couples.

Comprehend what I wrote before you show how stupid you are please.

 

[Unkotare]

Public schools will be actively attempting to make children view gay marriage as normal. .

They've already been doing that for years now.

 

[bodecea]

this is the beginning. First its bakers and caterers then it will be Churches and damn 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.

Out of that amendment how much has this administration tried to circumvent? All of it

Show where, since Loving v Virginia that religious organizations have been forced to marry interracial couples. or interfaith couples. or the Catholic Church has been forced by law to marry previously divorced couples.

Comprehend what I wrote before you show how stupid you are please.

I comprehend that you have NOT shown me any cases of religious organizations being forced to marry interracial couples, interfaith couples, or the Catholic Church being forced by law to marry previously divorced couples.

Can you guess WHY you cannot show me any examples?

 

[thanatos144]

Show where, since Loving v Virginia that religious organizations have been forced to marry interracial couples. or interfaith couples. or the Catholic Church has been forced by law to marry previously divorced couples.

Comprehend what I wrote before you show how stupid you are please.

I comprehend that you have NOT shown me any cases of religious organizations being forced to marry interracial couples, interfaith couples, or the Catholic Church being forced by law to marry previously divorced couples.

Can you guess WHY you cannot show me any examples?

Listen dummy I said this was the first step you dishonest hack.

 

[Amelia]

I hear the cry of 'special rights' from Conservatives every time rights are protected for a class of citizens Conservatives hate. Rights aren't 'special' when they are being protected and extended to groups you hate. Rights are being maintained as they are to be maintained: for all citizens.

And how is society less tyrannical when bigotry rules rather than equality? Something about equality that is particularly disturbing to Conservatives? I know that egalitarianism is outside the Conservative lexicon. But equality? for all the faux "We love America" crap spewed by Conservatives, one would think that a concept like equality is something to be embraced rather than scorned.

Singling out groups for special treatment is contrary to the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

Conservatives are for equality. FOr everyone. Liberals want special treatment. Special treatment for blacks. For women. For Muslims. For gays. Etc. How many special interest group bills have the Democrats sponsored and passed?

Being able to use the same wedding planner for your wedding as everyone else is not special treatment.

Being able to use a wedding planner isn't an inalienable right.

 

[Amelia]

Singling out groups for special treatment is contrary to the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

Conservatives are for equality. FOr everyone. Liberals want special treatment. Special treatment for blacks. For women. For Muslims. For gays. Etc. How many special interest group bills have the Democrats sponsored and passed?

Being able to use the same wedding planner for your wedding as everyone else is not special treatment.

Not everyone uses the same wedding planner. There isn't one wedding planner universally used and someone is deprived of having a wedding planner if they can't get this one.

^^
that too

 

[Unkotare]

Adoption agencies will be penalized for not arranging for children to be placed with gay couples. .

Catholic Charities, which had helped place thousands and thousands of children with loving, adoptive families for many years, had to get stop their work on adoption-placement because 'da gubment' was going to force them to place children with homosexual couples - to violate the beliefs of their faith. Now, all those children they had been helping have a much lower chance of finding a family to love and support them. Way to go 'gubment'!

 

[Spoonman]

OK. here's a wild tangent. maybe it should even have it's own thread. but eh, i'm to lazy to start one.

A heterosexual could not marry his/her own brother or sister or cousin. Why? because of the risks of birth defects. Should the same law apply to homosexual couples? or is it not applicable in their case?

 

[martybegan]

Adoption agencies will be penalized for not arranging for children to be placed with gay couples. .

Catholic Charities, which had helped place thousands and thousands of children with loving, adoptive families for many years, had to get stop their work on adoption-placement because 'da gubment' was going to force them to place children with homosexual couples - to violate the beliefs of their faith. Now, all those children they had been helping have a much lower chance of finding a family to love and support them. Way to go 'gubment'!

The old "chew off your nose to spite your face" routine.

 

[The Rabbi]

So the lunch counter at Woolworth's can simply refuse to serve the Black teenagers there because they are Black? The real estate agent can use his personal bigotry to deny a home buyer from a specific neighborhood because the real estate agent is a knuckle dragging bigot?

What REAL harm comes to the baker who is asked to bake a wedding cake for someone he fears and is hatred toward? is the law set up to protect and encourage bigotry and stupidity and hate and fear and other Conservative "virtues"?

Because the baker who bakes the wedding cake actually has to participate in the wedding. They have to go there. They don't put the cake in a box and send it off with the bride and groom. Of course you might find this in the future. Bakers will be happy to bake the cakes but that's as far as it goes.

No one should have to perform a personal service for anyone. Not ever. The black person stopping by a lunch counter does not have the right to demand the grill operator appear at their home and whip up a burger.

The baker delivers the cake to a venue, but he doesn't stick around and toast the happy couple! A florist delivers arrangements to a funeral home, but he doesn't crawl in a casket. Delivering a wedding cake to the country club on Saturday afternoon is not the same as being "compelled" to go to a wedding.

You go to a lunch counter and there is an understanding that the cooking and the consumption will happen on the premises. You order a six tiered wedding cake and you expect it will be delivered, but you don't expect a gift of a toaster oven from the baker.

Guests are invited, vendors are not.

So it's OK to compel some people to violate their conscience some of them time?

 

[The Rabbi]

OK. here's a wild tangent. maybe it should even have it's own thread. but eh, i'm to lazy to start one.

A heterosexual could not marry his/her own brother or sister or cousin. Why? because of the risks of birth defects. Should the same law apply to homosexual couples? or is it not applicable in their case?

I'm not sure how those are similar.
Once you say marriage can be between any consenting adults then you open the door to every form of relationship being called marriage. It is illogical to deny incestuous marriage, or polygamous marriage, once you approve gay marriage. In fact those two have far more claim to legitimacy than gay marriage does.

 

[Katzndogz]

OK. here's a wild tangent. maybe it should even have it's own thread. but eh, i'm to lazy to start one.

A heterosexual could not marry his/her own brother or sister or cousin. Why? because of the risks of birth defects. Should the same law apply to homosexual couples? or is it not applicable in their case?

Homosexual couples cannot have children without the participation of a third party.

 

[The Rabbi]

Adoption agencies will be penalized for not arranging for children to be placed with gay couples. .

Catholic Charities, which had helped place thousands and thousands of children with loving, adoptive families for many years, had to get stop their work on adoption-placement because 'da gubment' was going to force them to place children with homosexual couples - to violate the beliefs of their faith. Now, all those children they had been helping have a much lower chance of finding a family to love and support them. Way to go 'gubment'!

The old "chew off your nose to spite your face" routine.

I suppose they should just have picked the lesser of two evils?

 

[Katzndogz]

Because the baker who bakes the wedding cake actually has to participate in the wedding. They have to go there. They don't put the cake in a box and send it off with the bride and groom. Of course you might find this in the future. Bakers will be happy to bake the cakes but that's as far as it goes.

No one should have to perform a personal service for anyone. Not ever. The black person stopping by a lunch counter does not have the right to demand the grill operator appear at their home and whip up a burger.

The baker delivers the cake to a venue, but he doesn't stick around and toast the happy couple! A florist delivers arrangements to a funeral home, but he doesn't crawl in a casket. Delivering a wedding cake to the country club on Saturday afternoon is not the same as being "compelled" to go to a wedding.

You go to a lunch counter and there is an understanding that the cooking and the consumption will happen on the premises. You order a six tiered wedding cake and you expect it will be delivered, but you don't expect a gift of a toaster oven from the baker.

Guests are invited, vendors are not.

So it's OK to compel some people to violate their conscience some of them time?

You expect it to be delivered and constructed. That makes the vendor a participant in the wedding. If a wedding cake could be delivered by dropping it off at the curb you have an argument. Bakers should adopt that policy. So should florists. They'll sell the flowers, but don't arrange them.

 

[Spoonman]

OK. here's a wild tangent. maybe it should even have it's own thread. but eh, i'm to lazy to start one.

A heterosexual could not marry his/her own brother or sister or cousin. Why? because of the risks of birth defects. Should the same law apply to homosexual couples? or is it not applicable in their case?

I'm not sure how those are similar.
Once you say marriage can be between any consenting adults then you open the door to every form of relationship being called marriage. It is illogical to deny incestuous marriage, or polygamous marriage, once you approve gay marriage. In fact those two have far more claim to legitimacy than gay marriage does.

well i think the incestuous marriage has underlying health issues as the root of its not being allowed. polygamous, I think that would be a tough one to deny. it would be interesting to see the tax implications there

 

[thanatos144]

OK. here's a wild tangent. maybe it should even have it's own thread. but eh, i'm to lazy to start one.

A heterosexual could not marry his/her own brother or sister or cousin. Why? because of the risks of birth defects. Should the same law apply to homosexual couples? or is it not applicable in their case?

I dont think it has to do with genetic defect I think it has to do with cultural norms.... I could be wrong so I will look it up.

 

[RandallFlagg]

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.

No one should be punished for refusing to perform a service for someone with which they have a profound religious objection.

Yesterday there was a HUGE gay pride event celebrating same sex marriage. Vendors from bakeries, photographers, florists, caterers, wedding planners, wardrobe rentals, absolutely every aspect of a wedding, including venues, halls, churches, beach sites, forest sites, everything you could possible imagine were there. All advertising and vying for the money now available from gay nuptials. Gays don't want them. They want to find the one little guy who prays and hound them out of business.

No decent parent would send their child to public school anyway. May as well kick the kid to the curb in kindergarten and be done with it.

Absolutely correct. I truly believe that this has been the plan from day one.