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

[dilloduck]

why am i not surprised?....children of gays are typically cut off at the knees from the moment they are 'gay-parented'.....they lose one gender of parent....many don't even know who the other real parent even is....at least with divorce the kids still know who their two real parents are....the natural rights of children are being subordinated to the selfish wants of adults...

why can't people object to this type of 'marriage' in the business world in order to protect the children....?

People can object all they want - they just can't sidestep the rights of the individual.

"protect the children"? really? what are you going to protect the children from? Two loving parents? Children find role models - gender role models - in many places - rarely from home. I grew up in a two parent home but my gender role was not my dad - I thought he was a disciplinary dictator and I found a better role model outside the home. I later learned that my dad was not who I thought he was but I had already become someone else.

Children rarely find their gender role models at home ? Please tell me you're joking.

 

[bodecea]

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

No. They should be able to refuse service to whom ever they want for what ever reason.

I agree with this. I believe the current problem is with states that have laws that make business owners provide equal access. It's not a gay thing, it's a state law on equal access thing. The people in those states, if they wish, should repeal those laws.

 

[AmyNation]

http://www.jesussite.com/blog/2008/...oup-loses-court-case-over-gay-discrimination/

Can't have your cake and eat it too. They spent the last 30 years enjoying a special tax breaks because of the Green Acres program, which requires that they be open to all public equally.

you asked for the link--you got it

Yup, and good thing I did, or else someone might think it was really about a church being forced to allow gays to marry on their property!

 

[buckeye45_73]

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.

It's gay bullying.

Yep the gaystopo is out in full force, i love it when liberals deny they are forcing anyone......because they themselves NEVER descriminate........lololol

 

[sfcalifornia]

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.

Even when the will of the majority is unconstitutional?

 

[OriginalShroom]

Hell, People have been fired from public institutions for expressing a personal belief against Homosexuality. In one case, they said the woman's opinion violated their "diversity" rules.

In other words, they want diversity everywhere except in thought if they disagreed with that thought.

Case | Crystal Dixon v. University of Toledo | AFLC - American Freedom Law Center

 

[bodecea]

Churches have already been sued and lost cases when Gays have wanted to use their property to get "wedded" on.

Links to such cases so you can prove that those churches owned said property and it was theirs alone to do with as they wished?

 

[PaulS1950]

Property laws vary on its use. Private property that is open to the public can no longer exclude individuals without cause. You're a lawyer, you should know that.

My property is posted - it is not open to the public - or even to the mail services - so I can exclude or admit anyone I care to - without cause. If I open my property to the public then I have to have cause to exclude someone. That cause must fit the anti-discrimination laws set forth and supported by the court system unless I want to go to court to fight a battle that has no chance of being won.

 

[bodecea]

Can't have your cake and eat it too. They spent the last 30 years enjoying a special tax breaks because of the Green Acres program, which requires that they be open to all public equally.

you asked for the link--you got it

Yup, and good thing I did, or else someone might think it was really about a church being forced to allow gays to marry on their property!

Doesn't matter, Amy. They parade this lie again and again and again....

 

[sfcalifornia]

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.

Private businesses should be allowed to sell to whomever they wish without reprisal from government.

It's much more fun boycotting those businesses and watching them fall financially for their stupidity.

 

[Dot Com]

Can't have your cake and eat it too. They spent the last 30 years enjoying a special tax breaks because of the Green Acres program, which requires that they be open to all public equally.

you asked for the link--you got it

Yup, and good thing I did, or else someone might think it was really about a church being forced to allow gays to marry on their property!

dillo busted!!!

you want that tax-break then you allow equal access.

 

[Plasmaball]

Minority conservatives don't stand a chance in towns with liberal majorities. The rights of minorities disappear then it's the conservatives who are the minority.

So? The majority rules, in majority conservative places and majority liberal places. You still have options. You can still make the minority voice heard, or send your child elsewhere, or move, or homeschool.

God forbid any citizen in America should have the same voice as the other.

But you believe in the majority so no there is no god forbid. You get nothing.
Fucking retard.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Which might be appropriate if the United States were a democracy, fortunately it is not. The United States is a Republic, its citizens subject only to the rule of law, not men, as men are incapable of ruling justly – DOMA is proof of that.

Majority rule does not apply when the majority enacts measures offensive to the Constitution, the majority does not determine who will or will not have his civil liberties.

And that you ‘oppose’ homosexuality because the bible tells you so means that you yourself should not engage in homosexual activity; it does not mean you have the right to attempt to codify that subjective religious dogma into secular law.

My state voted against gay marriage in 2004, I was not old enough to vote yet. I was all of 15 years old then. Therefore, I have never voted for or against it. I opposed to it but I never was able to turn that into a vote. And let me stop you right there. Majority rule does not apply when it enacts measures that are offensive to the minority. It will never be about the collective will of the people anymore. That is the existing mindset we have these days. Screw what the majority thinks, let's root for the underdog!

And as you folks are so keen on mentioning how the minority is so suppressed...

Should Mondale have beaten Reagan based on this mindset? Should Carter have beaten Nixon? Should McCain have beaten Obama in 2008? Should Romney have beaten Obama last year? So the loser from each election cycle in our history should have won because the minority is held in such high regard by people such as yourself. It isn't minority rule, Clayton. This is a government of the people, by the people and for the people.


You will also be astounded to know that this government is a Democracy.

Liberal democracy is a form of government in which representative democracy operates under the principles of liberalism. It is characterized by fair, free, and competitive elections between multiple distinct political parties, a separation of powers into different branches of government, the rule of law in everyday life as part of an open society, and the equal protection of human rights, civil rights, civil liberties, and political freedoms for all persons. To define the system in practice, liberal democracies often draw upon a constitution, either formally written or uncodified, to delineate the powers of government and enshrine the social contract. After a period of sustained expansion throughout the 20th century, liberal democracy became the predominant political system in the world.

A liberal democracy may take various constitutional forms: it may be a constitutional republic, such as France, Germany, India, Ireland, Italy, or the United States, or a constitutional monarchy, such as Japan, Spain, or the United Kingdom. It may have a presidential system (Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, the United States), a semi-presidential system (France and Taiwan), or a parliamentary system (Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, Poland, the United Kingdom).

 

[Plasmaball]

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.

It's gay bullying.

Yep the gaystopo is out in full force, i love it when liberals deny they are forcing anyone......because they themselves NEVER descriminate........lololol

Gaystopo? Shit your lame.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

why am i not surprised?....children of gays are typically cut off at the knees from the moment they are 'gay-parented'.....they lose one gender of parent....many don't even know who the other real parent even is....at least with divorce the kids still know who their two real parents are....the natural rights of children are being subordinated to the selfish wants of adults...

why can't people object to this type of 'marriage' in the business world in order to protect the children....?

People can object all they want - they just can't sidestep the rights of the individual.

"protect the children"? really? what are you going to protect the children from? Two loving parents? Children find role models - gender role models - in many places - rarely from home. I grew up in a two parent home but my gender role was not my dad - I thought he was a disciplinary dictator and I found a better role model outside the home. I later learned that my dad was not who I thought he was but I had already become someone else.

once again the Leftist viewpoint throws children under the bus....

is it a "right" to rip off one gender of a child's parents from birth.....?

 

[TemplarKormac]

So? The majority rules, in majority conservative places and majority liberal places. You still have options. You can still make the minority voice heard, or send your child elsewhere, or move, or homeschool.

God forbid any citizen in America should have the same voice as the other.

But you believe in the majority so no there is no god forbid. You get nothing.
Fucking retard.

You believe that only a select few should have a voice. BE SILENT, you hypocrite.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Even when the will of the majority is unconstitutional?

It would be true if you held the same for your own party. But unfortunately if your party holds the majority opinion, regardless of it's constitutionality, you will say "it's not unconstitutional". The act of suppressing hundreds of millions of people for the will of a few million is ludicrous. That has a totalitarian feel to it, mind you.

 

[PaulS1950]

No majority vote can restrict the rights of the individual.
A majority vote to limit your right to free speech is invalid and unlawful.
A majority vote to make one race less than another is invalid and unlawful.
Any law that tramples the rights of an individual is unlawful.

If your business is open to the public then you must serve the public. You can exclude an individual that is disruptive or behaves criminally but you cannot discriminate against a group of people or an individual based on ...... all those things covered in the anti-discrimination laws.

If you think I am on the left side of the aisle then you are either a member of the John Birch Society or gravely mistaken. I do believe that rights - all of our rights are beyond reproach.

 

[Plasmaball]

God forbid any citizen in America should have the same voice as the other.

But you believe in the majority so no there is no god forbid. You get nothing.
Fucking retard.

You believe that only a select few should have a voice. BE SILENT, you hypocrite.

Hey look you are assuming just like how you whine about aroan (sp) did with you.
You are a do as I say type huh?
If this is what you have to offer,id ask for a refund.

 

[Zona]

More importantly, can a business refuse to serve divorced people? Since religiously, that is JUST as wrong. Rightys?