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

[JoeBlam]

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.

Where in the hell are you getting this from? You aren't required to "post" your property to refuse access to it for any reason you see fit. And you can't be required to show cause for doing so. And btw, I ain't a lawyer and don't associate with lawyers unless it's unavoidable. Most lawyers are advocates for anti-establishment types because that's how they earn their beans and bacon. If the legal community was truly about "fairness", they'd step in on the persecution of religious institutions. No worries...the trend in your favor can't last...we've had it up to here with the left's agenda and come 2014, you'll see our reply at the ballot box.

 

[aaronleland]

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.

By what ethical standard? Sometimes I forget that your ethical standards are as fluid as the flavor of the day. I am so sorry. That's the problem with relativism, other than being spineless and rootless, but I guess the upside is that your hypocrisy is so easy to erase. That always seems to work for you, until cause and effect get factored in to the equation.

And how was my comment hypocritical? You don't have to answer that. I already know you know nothing about me. Where does this site get some moderators? Please take the Oddball route.

There should be NO LAW passed by our government defining marriage one way or another. Legality has nothing to do with it. Christians like myself should marry in the way their doctrine prescribes. Homosexuals should marry in the way they see fit. Government has no place on either side. Please be advised that I see homosexuality as a sin, I will continue to see it as such. I see it as a hormonal aberration. I however reject government involvement in the conjugal process of any religion or belief set. Please try not to misinterpret my statements.

I agree that government shouldn't be defining marriage, but since that is the case legality currently does have something to do with it. I respect your beliefs, and have already stated that no church should be forced to marry somebody against their beliefs. Unfortunately some "liberals" don't agree, and some "conservatives" believe their religion should be the law of the land. There is plenty of criticism to go around on both sides.

 

[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.

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

You poor poor victims.

 

[AmyNation]

Please remember this thread is in the Politics Forum, and abide by the posting rules for the PF.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

You poor poor victims.

Oho.

Oho no you didn't!

Before the SCOTUS ruling, who was acting like the victim?

 

[JoeBlam]

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

Sure if the parties in question are ACTING like divorced people....screaming and throwing plates at each other. Get divorced, you'll see.

 

[Amelia]

I swear the way people talk about public schools you'd think evil nazi liberals had them dropped down from the sky and filled with gay pedophile pinko commie teachers and the general populous can only shrug their shoulders and watch as their children are force indoctrinated.

If you don't like your local public school blame "the government". God forbid you take personal responsibility for the people you elected or actually DO something about it besides whine all the time.

People are taking responsibility. They're trying to increase their choices and the options for where their tax dollars are spent.

Of course the entrenched public school network is fighting against that tooth and nail. They do not want taxpayers to be able to claim the right to be involved with saying where their tax dollars are sent.

At least that's the case here in Wisconsin.

 

[aaronleland]

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

Sure if the parties in question are ACTING like divorced people....screaming and throwing plates at each other. Get divorced, you'll see.

 

[Amelia]

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.

I nominate you for USMB's Ms. Hyperbole award Seriously, you make Willow look like a moderate

As to the Op, It was never incessantly drilled into me in grade school the *cough* "sanctity" of heterosexual marriage. We were told what marriage was and we moved the fuck on to other topics. No one obsessed over it like socon Righties.

Heterosexual marriage was the norm and didn't need to be drilled. Now schools are going out of their way to make non-norms part of the curriculum.

 

[Seawytch]

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?

That will depend upon the individual public accommodation laws of each state and has zero to do with gays legally marrying.

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.

Not what he said. You're mistaken in your representation of his statements. Go look it up.

Show me a single church that has been successfully sued into being required to wed interracial or interfaith couples.

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

In states where gays can get married, it is.

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

They don't get "penalized", they just don't get some state's $$ (again, due to the state laws)

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.

Referring you back to public accommodation laws not consenting adults legally marrying.

Jail? Really Drama Queen?

 

[sfcalifornia]

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.

Hypocrisy is not the question or the point.

You said you don't believe the will of the majority should be suppressed. I asked if that were the case even if the will of the majority was unconstitutional.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

On topic: FUCK NO

I don't even see how this can be debatable.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Hypocrisy is not the question or the point.

You said you don't believe the will of the majority should be suppressed. I asked if that were the case even if the will of the majority was unconstitutional.

Your question does not make any sense. Negating the will of the majority in any instance sets a precedent that it can be suppressed at will. I will not accept such behavior.

 

[sfcalifornia]

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.

Hypocrisy is not the question or the point.

You said you don't believe the will of the majority should be suppressed. I asked if that were the case even if the will of the majority was unconstitutional.

Your question does not make any sense. Negating the will of the majority in any instance sets a precedent that it can be suppressed at will. I will not accept such behavior.

LOL

Now there's a crock of bullshit.

If the will of the majority is unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I swear the way people talk about public schools you'd think evil nazi liberals had them dropped down from the sky and filled with gay pedophile pinko commie teachers and the general populous can only shrug their shoulders and watch as their children are force indoctrinated.

If you don't like your local public school blame "the government". God forbid you take personal responsibility for the people you elected or actually DO something about it besides whine all the time.

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.

Nonsense.

Conservatives have the same rights as everyone else, including the right to file suit in Federal court challenging measures they perceive as violating their civil liberties.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

It is incumbent upon the majority to use its power wisely and in accordance with Constitutional case law, to enact measures in good faith beneficial to society as a whole, with animosity toward no class of persons.

When the majority fails in this regard, such as with DOMA and Proposition 8, they forfeit that power, as the power of the majority (state) is not absolute.

It would indeed be ‘totalitarian’ to ignore the rule of law, the Constitution, and the inalienable rights possessed by each man.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

On topic: FUCK NO

I don't even see how this can be debatable.

Which is consistent with being an authoritarian conservative.

 

[Katzndogz]

A government, any government, can only last so long if it continues to act against the will of the majority. Our government derives its power from the consent of the governed. The majority cam withdraw that consent and it should.

 

[novasteve]

Libs indoctrinate and give handouts . They will have a majority very soon because we let them

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

It is incumbent upon the majority to use its power wisely and in accordance with Constitutional case law, to enact measures in good faith beneficial to society as a whole, with animosity toward no class of persons.

When the majority fails in this regard, such as with DOMA and Proposition 8, they forfeit that power, as the power of the majority (state) is not absolute.

It would indeed be ‘totalitarian’ to ignore the rule of law, the Constitution, and the inalienable rights possessed by each man.

At some point, the will of the majority no longer matters, case law or not. Lets just say from now on the majority no longer has any power over anything, and let the minority usurp them at each and every turn.