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

[Noomi]

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.

So people should be allowed to refuse to bake a cake for an interracial couple?

That would be discrimination, and that is illegal.

 

[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.

So people should be allowed to refuse to bake a cake for an interracial couple?

That would be discrimination, and that is illegal.

I think they should have the right...and it isn't illegal everywhere.

Of course, the court of public opinion may not turn out well for them.....

 

[g5000]

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?

This is a tough one for me. The conservative part of me feels a business should be allowed to decide who they do or do not want to serve. The anti-bigot in me feels they should not be allowed to refuse service to anyone for irrational reasons, such as hating them just for being gay or black or country bumpkins.

Except we are focusing on mom and pop operations, which appeals to the conservative streak.

But what if a phone company like Verizon decided to stop serving blacks and Jews? Should they be allowed to do that?

Sure, we could argue it would be a huge economic mistake for them to give up so much business, but that just means we would be arguing it is okay to discriminate against really tiny minorities who have virtually no economic or political voice. It doesn't seem like that is the way to go.

Going the other direction, if a mom and pop bakery is the only bakery in town, do we just say, "Eat shit or make your own cake" to anyone they choose not to serve? While that is clearly a morally wrong choice, I think it is also morally wrong to force some bigoted asshole to bake a cake for gays, no matter how stupid and inbred he may be.

Like I said, this is a tough one.

 

[Clementine]

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.

Businesses are privately owned and they should keep their rights to refuse service to anyone. You can't walk in many places without wearing a shirt and shoes. If a business owner has religious beliefs, they should not be forced to go against that.

The government is doing way too much interfering.

Many people refuse to dine at Chic-fil-a because of their policy. If a company doesn't want your business, don't give it to them. Simple as that. If you knew a business was only doing business with you because they were forced to do so against their will, would you want to help them make a profit? I sure wouldn't.

 

[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?

This is a tough one for me. The conservative part of me feels a business should be allowed to decide who they do or do not want to serve. The anti-bigot in me feels they should not be allowed to refuse service to anyone for irrational reasons, such as hating them just for being gay or black or country bumpkins.

Except we are focusing on mom and pop operations, which appeals to the conservative streak.

But what if a phone company like Verizon decided to stop serving blacks and Jews? Should they be allowed to do that?

Sure, we could argue it would be a huge economic mistake for them to give up so much business, but that just means we would be arguing it is okay to discriminate against really tiny minorities who have virtually no economic or political voice. It doesn't seem like that is the way to go.

Going the other direction, if a mom and pop bakery is the only bakery in town, do we just say, "Eat shit or make your own cake" to anyone they choose not to serve?

Like I said, this is a tough one.

It is tough, because many would be outraged if a store owner refused to serve a black person - such as a baker refusing to bake a cake for an interracial couple - but would be okay with the same baker refusing service to the gay couple.
We cannot say that its okay to discriminate against one minority but not another.

I also believe that if a business doesn't wish to serve gay couples, or bake their wedding cake, provide wedding outfits, etc, they should put a sign on their door stating this. But they wouldn't - it would cause people to boycott the store.

 

[National Socialist]

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. They should not. I am 100% for Private property and a business deciding who it wants to cater to or not.

 

[Duped]

I believe the government should not discriminate, but any private entity should be able to - it's called choice. Marirage to me is between a man, and women, and always will be. You can't come along, and change the meaning of something, and expect people to accept it.
A simple sign - we don't acknowledge gay marriage. After all, gays don't acknowledge marriage, what it really is!

 

[Noomi]

I believe the government should not discriminate, but any private entity should be able to - it's called choice. Marirage to me is between a man, and women, and always will be. You can't come along, and change the meaning of something, and expect people to accept it.
A simple sign - we don't acknowledge gay marriage. After all, gays don't acknowledge marriage, what it really is!

You don't have to accept gay marriage. No one is forcing you to marry a gay person.

 

[auditor0007]

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.

There ya go, there's that "tolerance" the fascists on the left keep telling us about.

Yep, businesses shouldn't be forced to cater to gays if they don't want to. They shouldn't be forced to cater to Blacks or Hispanics if they don't want to either. And handicapped people? Fuck them. They can crawl if there is no ramp.

 

[Duped]

I believe the government should not discriminate, but any private entity should be able to - it's called choice. Marirage to me is between a man, and women, and always will be. You can't come along, and change the meaning of something, and expect people to accept it.
A simple sign - we don't acknowledge gay marriage. After all, gays don't acknowledge marriage, what it really is!

You don't have to accept gay marriage. No one is forcing you to marry a gay person.

Marriage is made in Heaven, gay marriage is a man made abomination. It impossible for two men to be married, or two women. A fag god is not God. The essense of marriage is life, and the essence of homosexuality is death - they are as disperate as it gets.

 

[Noomi]

I believe the government should not discriminate, but any private entity should be able to - it's called choice. Marirage to me is between a man, and women, and always will be. You can't come along, and change the meaning of something, and expect people to accept it.
A simple sign - we don't acknowledge gay marriage. After all, gays don't acknowledge marriage, what it really is!

You don't have to accept gay marriage. No one is forcing you to marry a gay person.

Marriage is made in Heaven, gay marriage is a man made abomination. It impossible for two men to be married, or two women. A fag god is not God. The essense of marriage is life, and the essence of homosexuality is death - they are as disperate as it gets.

Fred Phelps, is that you?

 

[Amelia]

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?

This is a tough one for me. The conservative part of me feels a business should be allowed to decide who they do or do not want to serve. The anti-bigot in me feels they should not be allowed to refuse service to anyone for irrational reasons, such as hating them just for being gay or black or country bumpkins.

Except we are focusing on mom and pop operations, which appeals to the conservative streak.

But what if a phone company like Verizon decided to stop serving blacks and Jews? Should they be allowed to do that?

Sure, we could argue it would be a huge economic mistake for them to give up so much business, but that just means we would be arguing it is okay to discriminate against really tiny minorities who have virtually no economic or political voice. It doesn't seem like that is the way to go.

Going the other direction, if a mom and pop bakery is the only bakery in town, do we just say, "Eat shit or make your own cake" to anyone they choose not to serve?

Like I said, this is a tough one.

It is tough, because many would be outraged if a store owner refused to serve a black person - such as a baker refusing to bake a cake for an interracial couple - but would be okay with the same baker refusing service to the gay couple.
We cannot say that its okay to discriminate against one minority but not another.

I also believe that if a business doesn't wish to serve gay couples, or bake their wedding cake, provide wedding outfits, etc, they should put a sign on their door stating this. But they wouldn't - it would cause people to boycott the store.

Who is this "we" of whom you speak?

 

[Noomi]

This is a tough one for me. The conservative part of me feels a business should be allowed to decide who they do or do not want to serve. The anti-bigot in me feels they should not be allowed to refuse service to anyone for irrational reasons, such as hating them just for being gay or black or country bumpkins.

Except we are focusing on mom and pop operations, which appeals to the conservative streak.

But what if a phone company like Verizon decided to stop serving blacks and Jews? Should they be allowed to do that?

Sure, we could argue it would be a huge economic mistake for them to give up so much business, but that just means we would be arguing it is okay to discriminate against really tiny minorities who have virtually no economic or political voice. It doesn't seem like that is the way to go.

Going the other direction, if a mom and pop bakery is the only bakery in town, do we just say, "Eat shit or make your own cake" to anyone they choose not to serve?

Like I said, this is a tough one.

It is tough, because many would be outraged if a store owner refused to serve a black person - such as a baker refusing to bake a cake for an interracial couple - but would be okay with the same baker refusing service to the gay couple.
We cannot say that its okay to discriminate against one minority but not another.

I also believe that if a business doesn't wish to serve gay couples, or bake their wedding cake, provide wedding outfits, etc, they should put a sign on their door stating this. But they wouldn't - it would cause people to boycott the store.

Who is this "we" of whom you speak?

All of us. No one can say that it is okay to discriminate against one group of people but not another, especially when neither minority are breaking any laws.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It is tough, because many would be outraged if a store owner refused to serve a black person - such as a baker refusing to bake a cake for an interracial couple - but would be okay with the same baker refusing service to the gay couple.
We cannot say that its okay to discriminate against one minority but not another.

I also believe that if a business doesn't wish to serve gay couples, or bake their wedding cake, provide wedding outfits, etc, they should put a sign on their door stating this. But they wouldn't - it would cause people to boycott the store.

Who is this "we" of whom you speak?

All of us. No one can say that it is okay to discriminate against one group of people but not another, especially when neither minority are breaking any laws.

How would you like being forced into serving someone? Don't you like the idea of being able to control the machinations of your own business? Of course not Noomi, you'd rather the government tell you whom you can and WILL serve, under pain of financial ruin.

 

[Noomi]

Who is this "we" of whom you speak?

All of us. No one can say that it is okay to discriminate against one group of people but not another, especially when neither minority are breaking any laws.

How would you like being forced into serving someone? Don't you like the idea of being able to control the machinations of your own business? Of course not Noomi, you'd rather the government tell you whom you can and WILL serve, under pain of financial ruin.

Do you think I should be allowed to refuse to serve people who are black?

 

[jgarden]

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.

Although the majority of Americans now believe in "gay marriage," I don't think private business' should be forced to provide their services.

Legally, they could always invent a plausible excuse if they really wanted to avoid prosecution and who would want to engage an unwilling business to perform a service or provide a product against their will?

Not accepting gay marriage could be argued on religious grounds, refusing to serve someone based on race is a totally different matter because racism has no religious justification.

 

[sfcalifornia]

The Constitution is arbitrary for a reason! If you don't like it, change it. Otherwise accept it as it is.

Sure, we should limit majority rights wherever possible. The Constitution be damned.

I'm perfectly happy with the Supreme Court's decision to strike down DOMA on the fact that it violates the Constitution.

What's your problem with it?

Are you trying to intimidate me? What is my problem with it? That the majority no longer has rights to petition their government for the chance to change the laws which govern them.

And technically, they didn't declare it unconstitutional, they vacated and remanded it, which let the ruling of the lower court stand. The fight is far from over, since proponents can raise this issue again in their next session. The SCOTUS has demonstrated a willingness to hear it again.

More bullshit.

If people want to amend the Constitution, they petition their lawmakers to amend it. When did any majority lose their right to do that?

DOMA was declared unconstitutional:


The more sweeping decision, though, came in relation to the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which the court said was unconstitutional and effectively gutted by ruling against a provision that denied benefits to legally married gay couples.

Read more: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA provision denying benefits to gay couples | Fox News

Prop 8 was remanded to the lower court's decision.

 

[Amelia]

It is tough, because many would be outraged if a store owner refused to serve a black person - such as a baker refusing to bake a cake for an interracial couple - but would be okay with the same baker refusing service to the gay couple.
We cannot say that its okay to discriminate against one minority but not another.

I also believe that if a business doesn't wish to serve gay couples, or bake their wedding cake, provide wedding outfits, etc, they should put a sign on their door stating this. But they wouldn't - it would cause people to boycott the store.

Who is this "we" of whom you speak?

All of us. No one can say that it is okay to discriminate against one group of people but not another, especially when neither minority are breaking any laws.

Sure people can. You can say it is okay to kill a fetus the second before it would be born weeks or even months after it reaches viability. Other people can say it is okay to stand up for their religious beliefs and not contribute to an action they believe is against God's will. People can say all kinds of things.

 

[Amelia]

All of us. No one can say that it is okay to discriminate against one group of people but not another, especially when neither minority are breaking any laws.

How would you like being forced into serving someone? Don't you like the idea of being able to control the machinations of your own business? Of course not Noomi, you'd rather the government tell you whom you can and WILL serve, under pain of financial ruin.

Do you think I should be allowed to refuse to serve people who are black?

Do you think an African-American photographer should be forced to take photos of a Ku Klux Klan event?

 

[Noomi]

Who is this "we" of whom you speak?

All of us. No one can say that it is okay to discriminate against one group of people but not another, especially when neither minority are breaking any laws.

Sure people can. You can say it is okay to kill a fetus the second before it would be born weeks or even months after it reaches viability. Other people can say it is okay to stand up for their religious beliefs and not contribute to an action they believe is against God's will. People can say all kinds of things.

Fetus's are not people, therefore no one can discriminate against them. Stay on topic, please.