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

[deltex1]

The progtards are volunteering to provide wedding night lubricants and back up batteries.

 

[Pheonixops]

The progtards are volunteering to provide wedding night lubricants and back up batteries.

Isn't that the "free market" that you hypocrites say that you are so fond of?

 

[deltex1]

The progtards are volunteering to provide wedding night lubricants and back up batteries.

Isn't that the "free market" that you hypocrites say that you are so fond of?

It would be but for the fact they are due reimbursement under obamacare...

 

[Pheonixops]

The progtards are volunteering to provide wedding night lubricants and back up batteries.

Isn't that the "free market" that you hypocrites say that you are so fond of?

It would be but for the fact they are due reimbursement under obamacare...

Please cite a reference so I can read it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You mean the Rome that didn't fall until the Christians came to power?

Nope, if you ever heard of the Constantinian Dynasty, then you know that not to be true. Please have a seat. The Roman Empire collapsed after the fall of Constantinople in 1453, under Constantine XI.

Christians came to power in the 306 BC. The empire lasted for almost 1,200 years afterwards.

It is very true.


The Byzantine did...until the Muslims conquered it. But the Western was conquered by the pagans AFTER the Christians took over. Oops....nice try trying to blame it on gays.

Nice try blaming it on Christians.



You dishonest hack.

 

[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.

As a "Libertarian", do you think that government should be involved in marriage?

If you had been reading my responses earlier in this thread, you would know my answer. Please take the time and do so now.

 

[Pheonixops]

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

As a "Libertarian", do you think that government should be involved in marriage?

If you had been reading my responses earlier in this thread, you would know my answer. Please take the time and do so now.

I responded to that post, please answer.

 

[TemplarKormac]

As a "Libertarian", do you think that government should be involved in marriage?

If you had been reading my responses earlier in this thread, you would know my answer. Please take the time and do so now.

I responded to that post, please answer.

Sigh I will not coddle you. Would it behoove you to search this thread?

But since you asked nicely:

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!

-and-

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.

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.

 

[Freewill]

No, who in their right mind would want to force someone to provide them services? Would you want a disgruntled baker to make your cake, provide food?

If this happens it won't surprise me it is how liberals operate. They don't wait for public sentiment to change they force their will on everyone. Think like them or you are condemned. The disasters we see today are all at the hands of the liberals. They have good intentions the only problem is they don't know what is good.

 

[Pheonixops]

If you had been reading my responses earlier in this thread, you would know my answer. Please take the time and do so now.

I responded to that post, please answer.

Sigh I will not coddle you. Would it behoove you to search this thread?

But since you asked nicely:



-and-

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.

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.

Thank you.

 

[deltex1]

Isn't that the "free market" that you hypocrites say that you are so fond of?

It would be but for the fact they are due reimbursement under obamacare...

Please cite a reference so I can read it.

Pg 1139, chap34, para12, line 21, sub para 3, line4 ref 6.

 

[hoosier88]

...

suing everyday people for not offering services is going to set the precedence for suing churches, temples, mosqs, etc, etc

Everyone knows this will happen or is a complete buffoon.

(My bold)

Religious institutions - churches, mosques, temples, etc. have typically been allowed exemptions on religious grounds from complying with federal regs, if their core values would be contravened. Presumably that would also apply to homosexual marriages, if the case were to come up.

The federal or state government would have to show some compelling reason in order to overrule competent religious authority. I think this scenario is a complete non-starter. I can't imagine a set of circumstances that would require federal or state gov to overrule the proper church authorities.

 

[francoHFW]

OP -Total Pubcrappe, of course....

 

[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.

suing everyday people for not offering services is going to set the precedence for suing churches, temples, mosqs, etc, etc


Everyone knows this will happen or is a complete buffoon.

Because we know it's already happened to churches who refused to perform interracial and/or interfaith marriages. The Catholic Church gets sued ALL THE TIME for refusing to marry previously divorced people.

 

[g5000]

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

Nope. They will teach it is not wrong.

 

[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.

suing everyday people for not offering services is going to set the precedence for suing churches, temples, mosqs, etc, etc


Everyone knows this will happen or is a complete buffoon.

Nonsense.

Public accommodations laws do not apply to religious institutions and other private organizations, as they’re protected by freedom of association doctrine. See, e.g., BSA v. Dale (2000).

 

[g5000]

Because we know it's already happened to churches who refused to perform interracial and/or interfaith marriages. The Catholic Church gets sued ALL THE TIME for refusing to marry previously divorced people.

I would like to see evidence the Catholic Church has been successfully sued for not marrying divorced people.

 

[francoHFW]

What hater dupes "know" is invariably BS...lol. Incredible.

 

[Noomi]

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.

Bakers don't need to put 'two plastic men' on a wedding cake. They can bake the cake and the couple can put the figurines on top. No one need know its a cake for a gay couple. I don't think that is relevant, anyway.

No matter what, you can't discriminate. It doesn't matter what your beliefs are - you cannot refuse to serve a black person, no matter how you feel about black people - so why should you be allowed to refuse service to a gay person, or a gay couple?

 

[bodecea]

Because we know it's already happened to churches who refused to perform interracial and/or interfaith marriages. The Catholic Church gets sued ALL THE TIME for refusing to marry previously divorced people.

I would like to see evidence the Catholic Church has been successfully sued for not marrying divorced people.