One of the arguments that some use to oppose gay marriage is that it "denies religious liberty to people who believe in traditional marriage and who do not want to be forced to violate their conscience and sincerely held religious beliefs." (quote from Michelle Bachman). I would like to ask anyone who shares the belief that gay marriage imposes on their religious liberty - how does it do so? It seems to me that this is like saying that the presence of, say, a Hindu temple in town infringes on the religious liberty of Christians living in that town. Obviously Christians don't believe in Hinduism, but I've not heard anyone claim that the presence of a Hindu temple infringes on their own religious liberty. So, how does this argument work with gay marriage? Please don't get into moral arguments of gay life style, but rather stick to how the presence of a legally-married (as recognized by the state) gay couple can infringe on your liberty. Thanks!

Isn't that like saying a Steakhouse infringes on someone's liberty to be vegan or vegetarian?

You do have protected rights, at least in the USA you do. Where you lose that protection is when your rights are applied to the next person. You have the freedom to be religious and believe what you want to believe. You don't have the right to force it on others.

One way that is feared by many and that has already been taking place is that people are forced to participate even when it is against their own religion. Another is that some churches could be forced out of existence because of law suits should they refuse to participate in a gay marriage. It is more a matter of a group pushing an agenda then it is about a religious belief. Many saw how powerful the gay lobby was in Washington yet they didn't pursue the rights through civil union. Instead the group sought elevation into the rhelm that has been through the centuries held by men and women.

You comparison of a Hindu temple doesn't hold the same merrit as they aren't suing other churches nor non hindu to force them to participate against their beliefs.

Isn't suing a church a no thrills ticket to hell?

All the gay community wants is the same rights and recognitions as straight people have. Having those rights infringes on no one as far as I can tell. But I haven't spent a lot of time considering it.

One way that is feared by many and that has already been taking place is that people are forced to participate even when it is against thier own religion.

Please cite an example where anyone is "forced to participate" with respect to gay marriage. I know of no cases where someone has been forced to marry a person of the same sex!


Another is that some churchs could be forced out of existance because of law suits should they refuse to participate in a gay marriage.

Please cite an example where any church has ever been forced to perform any religious ceremony against its wishes. For example it is against Roman Catholic church policy to wed people who are either not RC or have not agreed to raise their children in the RC church, but I'm not aware of them ever being sued over this. Are you aware of any such law suits in any of the 12 states where gay marriage is already legal?


It is more a matter of a group pushing an agenda then it is about a religious belief. Many saw how powerful the gay lobby was in Washington yet they didnt persue the rights through civil union. Instead the group sought elevation into the rhelm that has been through the centuries held by men and women.

Good point - I think the civil union route would have been just fine except for the extreme entanglement of the word "marriage" in tens of thousands of laws and regulations on the books at all levels of local, city, county, state, and federal government. This has turned "marriage" into a legal status as much (or more) than a religious one. Perhaps it was a mistake for the government to ever get in the marriage business, and they should have used the term "civil union" for all legal unions for the past 237 years. But unfortunately that's not what happened, so we're stuck with "marriage" being a legal term. And in any event - this point doesn't address how gay marriage infringes on your liberty.


You comparison of a Hindu temple doesnt hold the same merrit as they arent suing other churchs nor non hindu to force them to participate against thier beliefs.

Please cite an example where a church has been sued to "participate" in a gay rights issue. What law suits have their been to force churches to "participate against their beliefs" with respect to gay rights issues? Again, we have 12 states with some experience in this area so presuambly there would be evidence of this happening already.

Here is one example. This florist is being sued over her convictions.

Washington State Florist Sued for Snubbing Gay Wedding (http://www.kbtx.com/mycw8/home/headlines/Washington-State-Florist-Sued-for-Snubbing-Gay-Wedding-203774551.html?site=full)

Christian florist being sued in US over gay marriage stance | News | The Christian Institute (http://www.christian.org.uk/news/christian-florist-being-sued-in-us-over-gay-marriage-stance/)

Florist who refused to sell flowers for gay couple's wedding is sued for a SECOND time over discrimination claims | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2311713/Florist-refused-sell-flowers-gay-couples-wedding-sued-SECOND-time-discrimination-claims.html)

No church should be forced into a situation of conducting a ceremony for gay people, it makes an absolute sham of their beliefs and for what a minority who obviously don't share their beliefs anyway, in the same way a business should be able to choose who they have as customers, it's not that long ago people thought it okay in your country to deny service to coloureds, the only way gays can be recognised is if they make themselves obvious by their behaviourand obviously obnoious along with it

Here's one of those links you were asking for, ebaines. No, the gays aren't sueing, it's worse than that.

Gay Marriage Supporters Threaten to Strip Churches of Tax Exemption (http://www.christianpost.com/news/gay-marriage-supporters-threaten-to-strip-churches-of-tax-exemption-41856/)

If this happens I'm filing IRS complaints against every Black preacher in politics.

in the same way a business should be able to choose who they have as customers,

I'm confused - are you saying it's OK for a business to discriminate on the basis of race? Really?

But we're getting off topic - I asked how gay marriage infringes on your religious liberty. Does serving married gays (not just gays per se) in your place of business do that?

Here's one of those links you were asking for, ebaines. No, the gays aren't sueing, it's worse than that.

Gay Marriage Supporters Threaten to Strip Churches of Tax Exemption (http://www.christianpost.com/news/gay-marriage-supporters-threaten-to-strip-churches-of-tax-exemption-41856/)

If this happens I'm filing IRS complaints against every Black preacher in politics.

I think most would agree that no organization with 501(c)(3) tax status should be allowed to politic on behalf of a political campaign or candidate. You would certainly object to a "charity" that politics for Nancy Pelosi. But we're getting off topic - how does this affect your religious liberty?

But we're getting off topic - I asked how gay marriage infringes on your religious liberty. Does serving married gays (not just gays per se) in your place of business do that?

Here is where it starts to go all wrong. When your talking non-religious activity such as getting a car repaired or laundering clothes or other non-religious services then that is very different then crossing a line that is considered religious to the person doing the serving.

Would you expect a Muslim butcher to carry your favorite pork roast? Or your local Jewish deli to carry non kosher foods? Of course you don't. The florest had sold flowers many times to the customers in question. Then came the religious aspect and she refused to participate. In effect her religious freedom was abridged. So when you talk about it in a broad sense it boils down to the person performing the service and the nature of that service.

It comes down to stop all this pandering to minorities and that includes gays. They have to take on the values of the society and not the other way around.

I'm not going to jump into this fray because I think separation of church and state should apply to marriage too (let all religions do their weddings how they wish and as sacred as they wish), and that all of us should be entitled to civil unions for the sake of family benefits and responsibilities. Why can't I have a contract with 2 roommates, for instance, so that they can inherit my house, or so that we can make decisions about death or visit me in Intensive Care? Or countless other reasons. A young man in India married his grandmother, I believe, for some of these reasons.
In other words, I want there to be two kinds of marriage - one for religious reasons and one for legal reasons.

I'm not going to jump into this fray because I think separation of church and state should apply to marriage too (let all religions do their weddings how they wish and as sacred as they wish), and that all of us should be entitled to civil unions for the sake of family benefits and responsibilities. Why can't I have a contract with 2 roommates, for instance, so that they can inherit my house, or so that we can make decisions about death or visit me in Intensive Care? Or countless other reasons. A young man in India married his grandmother, I believe, for some of these reasons.
In other words, I want there to be two kinds of marriage - one for religious reasons and one for legal reasons.

Many debates have raged over your viewpoint, Joy, since the Dark Ages when the Church WAS the State. Most governments want Divine authority to this day. That's why the people in those governments are there. They want to be rulers.

ebaines, MY religious liberty has been under attack since Constantine converted. We remain.

Blessed be.

Does Gay Marriage Infringe on Your Religous Liberty?

NO.

That's your opinion

Yep!!

Look you legalise gay marriage over there and all the gays here will piss off and your welcome

What does that have to do with you?

What does what have to do with me?

It doesn't. For gays it could be a contract or "marriage" in the eyes of law but church or any other religious body should not be forced to believe the same. I'm not against gay rights.

I'm not going to jump into this fray because I think separation of church and state should apply to marriage too (let all religions do their weddings how they wish and as sacred as they wish), and that all of us should be entitled to civil unions for the sake of family benefits and responsibilities. Why can't I have a contract with 2 roommates, for instance, so that they can inherit my house, or so that we can make decisions about death or visit me in Intensive Care? Or countless other reasons. A young man in India married his grandmother, I believe, for some of these reasons.
In other words, I want there to be two kinds of marriage - one for religious reasons and one for legal reasons.

I couldn't agree more .

it doesn't. for gays it could be a contract or "marriage" in the eyes of law but church or any other religious body should not be forced to believe the same. I'm not against gay rights.

I'm just against calling the union of homosexuals a marriage.

I'm just against calling the union of homosexuals a marriage.

First off - Yankees? UGH. Go REDS!!

Second - While I agree with you which is odd because I am not a member of the "straights", not allowing people who are gay to marry for every reason the straights do keeps them as second class citizens. Is that right? If my partner and I choose to go down that path, I have no problem calling it a civil union. But I am in the minority in the non-straights group.

I'm just against calling the union of homosexuals a marriage.I'm not.

Old ideas and traditions die hard.

It seems that the vocabulary of the word "marriage" is a sticking point here, but it's off topic. Still open for debate - how does the state describing the legal union of a gay couple as a "marriage" and granting them the same legal rights as straight couples infringe on your religious liberty? It would seem to me that you would have a similar issue with an aetheist man and aetheist woman being married by a Justice of the Peace at City Hall without mention of God or any religious context at all - does that marriage infringe on your religious liberty as well?

First off - Yankees? UGH. Go REDS!!!

Second - While I agree with you which is odd because I am not a member of the "straights", not allowing people who are gay to marry for every reason the straights do keeps them as second class citizens. Is that right? If my partner and I choose to go down that path, I have no problem calling it a civil union. But I am in the minority in the non-straights group.

No ,I don't think that makes gays 2nd class citizens .I'm not opposed for gays getting exactly the same legal rights as straights when they join in partnership . That is why I also agreed that it would be best if the state got out of the marriage business.

In my mind allowing gay couples to enjoy the same perks as the straighties through marriage is a victimless event therefore it cannot infringe on any rights.

It seems that the vocabulary of the word "marriage" is a sticking point here, but it's off topic. Still open for debate - how does the state describing the legal union of a gay couple as a "marriage" and granting them the same legal rights as straight couples infringe on your religious liberty? It would seem to me that you would have a similar issue with an aetheist man and aetheist woman being married by a Justice of the Peace at City Hall without mention of God or any religous context at all - does that marriage infringe on your religous liberty as well?

I agree with cdad that businesses have been forced to participate in religious ceremony that they oppose;and if they don't they are violating some civil right, In those cases ,indeed their religious liberty is being violated .

It seems that the vocabulary of the word "marriage" is a sticking point here, but it's off topic. Still open for debate - how does the state describing the legal union of a gay couple as a "marriage" and granting them the same legal rights as straight couples infringe on your religious liberty? It would seem to me that you would have a similar issue with an aetheist man and aetheist woman being married by a Justice of the Peace at City Hall without mention of God or any religous context at all - does that marriage infringe on your religous liberty as well?

What I have issue with is the state redefining the religious tradition of marriage. The state is supposed to stay out of religious matters, but this redefinition is an attack on the very basis of religious tradition. I fully expect that this move will lead to state enforced gay unions in churches in the name of freedom. You would deny the freedom of the many for the sake of a supposed freedom of a few

will lead to state enforced gay unions in churchesI don't think many want that at all. If if were not the case and it were about civil unions, does that make it better?

that businesses have been forced to participate in religious ceremony that they opposeNO business should be forced into ANY religious ceremony.

Life was so much easier when gays stayed in the closet out of fear. Much like minorities staying in their "place". That world is dying as more gays integrate into the institutions of general society and no longer settle for separate but equal, or the fringe of being a first class citizen.

They want what everyone wants FULL freedom to pursue their own happiness with whomever they please and the benefits that come with it. Some don't like being equal with a minority, especially a gay one. They have a right I think not to accept it. But they cannot deny anyone anything.

NO business should be forced into ANY religious ceremony.

I agree. I also agree that a marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. It should stay that way.

...I also agreed that it would be best if the state got out of the marriage business.

Unfortunately that ship has sailed. Can't go back now. It is an absolute impracticality to rewrite all laws, rules, regulations, contracts, insurance polies, etc etc for all towns, counties, states, and federal government to add "and civil union" wherever the term "marriage" occurs. You can't do it by fiat through any single law, short of an amendment to the Constitution. So we are stuck with having to use the word "marriage" as a legal term in matters of law..

Not that hard at all . State marriages that have already occurred need not change. And since marriage is a state issue anyway,no amendement is required. . (DOMA has been defeated in Federal Court 8 times and will not survive SCOTUS )
All it really takes is one law that says 'as of this date ' all unions sanctioned by the state shall be called "civil unions" for the purpose of contract and assigning legal benefits (or some legaleze version of that ) .

All it really takes is one law that says 'as of this date ' all unions sanctioned by the state shall be called "civil unions" for the purpose of contract and assigning legal benefits (or some legaleze version of that ) .

Unfortunately that doesn't work. This "one law" would have to be passed at the federal level in order to apply to federal income tax, social security benefits, medicare and medicaid, pension plans, etc; at the state level in order to apply to state laws regarding state income tax, property rights, estate planning and inheritance, insurance contracts, welfare, etc; at the county and town level to cover local ordinances such as issuing marriage licenses, property tax and "homesteading" issues. And it would require all 50 states agree to stop talking about marriage and adopt civil unions - what's the chance of that happening?

Call it a marriage, law has that authority but religious institutions also have their rights. Same sex union is quite opposite the laws of nature. Gays should have right to get married according to law but religious authorities has their own space.

Some religious institutions and churches do indeed perform gay marriages but the tick is if the couples relocate to where gay marriage from another state is not recognized.

Some religious institutions and churches do indeed perform gay marriages but the tick is if the couples relocate to where gay marriage from another state is not recognized.

That will be challenged at the Federal level . Give it time. The argument used will be the 'full faith and credit 'clause.

Some religious institutions and churches do indeed perform gay marriages but the tick is if the couples relocate to where gay marriage from another state is not recognized.

True enough. And it gets really screwed up if a married gay couple moves to another state that doesn't recognize gay marriage and then later want to get divorced. Gay married couples can't get divorced in Texas cause TX doesn't consider them legally married in the first place. So consider what happens if a gay couple gets married in, say, NY, then moves to TX, and they separate without being divorced (as it's impossible for a gay couple to be divorced in TX). Now suppose one or the other then falls in love with a person of the opposite sex and gets married in TX - no problem, according to TX. Now if this couple then moved back to NY they would be guilty of bigamy and could be arrested. So it seems that NY places a higher moral standard on protecting the sanctity of marriage than does TX - who'd have thought! To make it even more bizarre - suppose after moving back to NY one of the married couple dies without a will. Under state laws of both NY and TX if a married person dies intestate and if there are no children involved the spouse inherits the decedant's estate. So who inherits? NY says the original gay couple are still married and the hetero marriage is a sham; TX says the opposite. Yikes - this would make a fun case for the Supreme Court!

Some religious institutions and churches do indeed perform gay marriages but the tick is if the couples relocate to where gay marriage from another state is not recognized.
Yup. My sil and her partner of over 30 years had to drive to Iowa from their home in Colorado last year to get married. Now, back in Colorado, their marriage and all the rights it confers doesn't exist. As they age into their 60s and 70s and end-of-life challenges overwhelm them, I wonder how this will play out legally.

"... same sex union is quite opposite the laws of nature."


This is offensive.

I'd like to know more about the "laws of nature" that say this.

So everyone attracted to someone of the same sex is some sort of biological freak?

Could you possibly be more close minded!

Yikes - this would make a fun case for the Supreme Court!

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
Article 4 Sec 1 .

Last time I looked the laws of nature said survival of the fitest, kill or be killed, like begats like

The deviance we see in society is the result of degeneration in the gene pool

I wonder, if the florist, in the link Cdad provided, had refused to sell flowers to a black couple, because she's a racist, would the reactions be different? Would those that think she was in her right to refuse to provide flowers, think differently?

Are your religious liberties being denied? NO! But you are denying others of their basic human rights, all based on a religious belief. It's utter nonsense.

I wonder, if the florist, in the link Cdad provided, had refused to sell flowers to a black couple, because she's a racist, would the reactions be different? Would those that think she was in her right to refuse to provide flowers, think differently?

Are your religious liberties being denied? NO! But you are denying others of their basic human rights, all based on a religious belief. It's utter nonsense.

The only time that florist failed to provide service was when it moved into a religious rhelm. She on other occasions had sold them flowers. I understand your point but your missing the gist of the situation. In America retailors can refuse service for many reasons. It is common for eating establishments to have signs like "No Shoes, No Shirt - No Service.

The only time that florist failed to provide service was when it moved into a religious rhelm. She on other occassions had sold them flowers. I understand your point but your missing the gist of the situation. In America retailors can refuse service for many reasons. It is common for eating establishments to have signs like "No Shoes, No Shirt - No Service.

True, but she served this customer for years, he was a regular customer. She didn't refuse service until she found out he was gay. That's discrimination, like it or not.

So she's Christian, so she believes in God. So what? She has a legal right to believe what she wants, to be what she chooses. Religion is a right, and now, so is gay marriage! If she has a legal right "freedom of religion", and we all have to respect that, then why doesn't she have to respect the legal right to marry someone of the same sex? It goes both ways.

Let's paint this picture. A gay couple owns a flower shop. They sell to a Christian woman for years. One day she comes in, says that she's getting married in a church, that she'd like them to provide the flowers. They grasp her hand and say "I'm sorry, but I don't believe in God, so I won't sell you the flowers". Can you imagine the $hit storm the religious groups would cause over that? Don't tell me they wouldn't have the same reaction. In fact, we all know it would be a heck of a lot worse than what's happening to her, because it's religion, and any religious group that's discriminated against, well, hell would be more pleasant than dealing with the fallout lest you discriminate against religion.

Better yet, let's make it an Atheist that owns the flower shop. Let's leave gay out of it. No matter what, if someone refused to sell to someone because of their religious beliefs, the fit would hit the shan, and you all know it.

True, but she served this customer for years, he was a regular customer. She didn't refuse service until she found out he was gay. That's discrimination, like it or not.

So she's Christian, so she believes in God. So what? She has a legal right to believe what she wants, to be what she chooses. Religion is a right, and now, so is gay marriage! If she has a legal right "freedom of religion", and we all have to respect that, then why doesn't she have to respect the legal right to marry someone of the same sex? It goes both ways.

Let's paint this picture. A gay couple owns a flower shop. They sell to a Christian woman for years. One day she comes in, says that she's getting married in a church, that she'd like them to provide the flowers. They grasp her hand and say "I'm sorry, but I don't believe in God, so I won't sell you the flowers". Can you imagine the $hit storm the religious groups would cause over that? Don't tell me they wouldn't have the same reaction. In fact, we all know it would be a heck of a lot worse than what's happening to her, because it's religion, and any religious group that's discriminated against, well, hell would be more pleasant than dealing with the fallout lest you discriminate against religion.

Then with some things we are going to have to agree to disagree. Chiristians aren't like that. Most likely they may complain but they would go find another flower shop to get flowers at.

Also when you want to force things on people it never comes out good. Following your line of thinking I should be offended and demand (file suit) against a muslim butcher for not carrying bacon or my favorite pork roast? How dare they not carry my favorite pork product over "thier" silly religion. The same could be said about a jewish deli. You don't force them into converting to your way. You either participate or not. It's a "choice".

I highly doubt that the florist had no clue the person was gay. But I also believe they had a right to refuse service for a gay wedding based on their stated grounds.

True, but she served this customer for years, he was a regular customer. She didn't refuse service until she found out he was gay. That's discrimination, like it or not.

So she's Christian, so she believes in God. So what? She has a legal right to believe what she wants, to be what she chooses. Religion is a right, and now, so is gay marriage! If she has a legal right "freedom of religion", and we all have to respect that, then why doesn't she have to respect the legal right to marry someone of the same sex? It goes both ways.

Let's paint this picture. A gay couple owns a flower shop. They sell to a Christian woman for years. One day she comes in, says that she's getting married in a church, that she'd like them to provide the flowers. They grasp her hand and say "I'm sorry, but I don't believe in God, so I won't sell you the flowers". Can you imagine the $hit storm the religious groups would cause over that? Don't tell me they wouldn't have the same reaction. In fact, we all know it would be a heck of a lot worse than what's happening to her, because it's religion, and any religious group that's discriminated against, well, hell would be more pleasant than dealing with the fallout lest you discriminate against religion.

Better yet, let's make it an Atheist that owns the flower shop. Let's leave gay out of it. No matter what, if someone refused to sell to someone because of their religious beliefs, the fit would hit the shan, and you all know it.

So Westboro Baptist is equivalent to Gay Pride? Your analogy is suspect here.

Does the florist have a right to refuse flowers to a particular event? Absolutely. Do the participants have a right to organize a boycott or go to the media? Again, absolutely. Do the participants have the right to force the florist to provide the flowers? Never.

Besides, if you were the participants, would you really want the product of someone you had forced to create? Poison Ivy and Belladonna are rather pretty if arranged while wearing chemical resistant gloves.

I wonder, if the florist, in the link Cdad provided, had refused to sell flowers to a black couple, because she's a racist, would the reactions be different? Would those that think she was in her right to refuse to provide flowers, think differently?

Are your religious liberties being denied? NO! But you are denying others of their basic human rights, all based on a religious belief. It's utter nonsense.

The point is that she did not refuse to sell flowers ;she refused to partake in a ceremony that she had religious objections to. This is not the same as the civil rights movement... not even close.

Then with some things we are going to have to agree to disagree. Chiristians arent like that. Most likely they may complain but they would go find another flower shop to get flowers at.

Also when you want to force things on people it never comes out good. Following your line of thinking I should be offended and demand (file suit) against a muslim butcher for not carrying bacon or my favorite pork roast? How dare they not carry my favorite pork product over "thier" silly religion. The same could be said about a jewish deli. You dont force them into converting to your way. You either participate or not. Its a "choice".

I highly doubt that the florist had no clue the person was gay. But I also believe they had a right to refuse service for a gay wedding based on thier stated grounds.

Of course you can't demand or file suit against a store for not carrying a product you want. That's ridiculous. That's not the case here. The patron went in to buy flowers, the store owner sells flowers. He was a loyal customer. It had nothing to do with demanding that she carry a specific product that's against her religious beliefs.

You mentioned before that in the US store owners can decide who to serve, the whole "no shoes, no shirt, no service". We have that in Canada as well. There are signs on the doors letting patrons know what's allowed and what's not. Most stores don't allow pets, and have a sign stating that on the door, roller blades often aren't allowed, skateboards are usually forbidden, all posted on the door.

If the owner of the flower shop only wants to serve certain people perhaps she should put a sign on her door, a simple "Christians and heterosexuals only" sign. Of course that would be really bad for business, but she's already put her foot in her mouth, she may as well commit and put it on paper.

You know what guys, forget it.

I don't see why someone else's decision to marry has any effect on anyone else's religious beliefs or rights. We all have choices in this world. If you choose to discriminate against people because of your religious beliefs, and you're called out on it, then you pay the price.

Remember that religion is also a right. Be grateful no one has tried to take that right away from you.

Alty out.

Remember that religion is also a right. Be grateful no one has tried to take that right away from you.

Which is precisely what Washington State is trying to do with their anti-discrimination suit.

I believe religious rights of people and institutions like church should be kept intact while allowing gay marriages in legal terms. That's it.

I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone at any time.

“I believe religious rights of people and institutions like church should be kept intact while allowing gay marriages in legal terms. That's it.”

That is not what you said - you said, “"... same sex union is quite opposite the laws of nature."

Which is these two opposite statements do you believe? You appear to have shifted your position.

Otherwise, I do some work for HOME - discrimination takes many forms and shapes. I see unwed mothers discriminated against. If a woman has a child, is not married, can support that child, can afford the rent - why is she not a suitable tenant? Can all unwed mothers be "lumped" into one category?

Does the word "gay" take away a person's identity?

As far as refusing service to anyone at any time, that's fine if no one takes legal issue.

I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone at any time.

Within the law, and we do have guidelines for the basis you cannot refuse service to anyone.

There is a Muslim Temple in my neighborhood. People have protested, every now and then continue to protest, based on "religious" reasons. I think they are protests are discriminatory in origin.

That Temple does not infringe on my religious freedeom. The members do not fringe on my religious freedom.

Would it be any different if "gay" were in place of "muslim"?

Could I refuse to sell flowers to a Muslim who was getting married because I don't believe in Muslim marriage - particularly "multiple" marriages? And, yes, I occasionally knock on a door and ask for Mrs. X and there are two - the first and the second, both religious, one civil. Does that infringe on my religious rights?

What are those guidelines, Tal?

I'm not Tal, but for starters:

“Is it a violation of your civil rights for a business to refuse to serve you because of the way you look, the way you smell, or the way you act? The answer is... it depends.

The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

The right of public accommodation is also guaranteed to disabled citizens under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which precludes discrimination by businesses on the basis of disability.

In addition to the protections against discrimination provided under federal law, many states have passed their own Civil Rights Acts that provide broader protections than the Federal Civil Rights Act. For example, California's Unruh Civil Rights Act makes it illegal to discriminate against individuals based on unconventional dress or sexual preference.

In the 1960s, the Unruh Civil Rights Act was interpreted to provide broad protection from arbitrary discrimination by business owners. Cases decided during that era held that business owners could not discriminate, for example, against hippies, police officers, homosexuals, or Republicans, solely because of who they were.

In cases in which the patron is not a member of a federally protected class, the question generally turns on whether the business's refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific interest in refusing service. For example, in a recent case, a California court decided that a motorcycle club had no discrimination claim against a sports bar that had denied members admission to the bar because they refused to remove their "colors," or patches, which signified club membership. The court held that the refusal of service was not based on the club members' unconventional dress, but was to protect a legitimate business interest in preventing fights between rival club members.

On the other hand, a California court decided that a restaurant owner could not refuse to seat a gay couple in a semi-private booth where the restaurant policy was to only seat two people of opposite sexes in such booths. There was no legitimate business reason for the refusal of service, and so the discrimination was arbitrary and unlawful.

In one more complicated case, a court held that a cemetery could exclude "punk rockers" from a private funeral service. A mother requested that the funeral service for her 17-year-old daughter be private and that admission to the service be limited to family and invited guests only. The cemetery failed to exclude punk rockers from the service. The punk rockers arrived in unconventional dress, wearing makeup and sporting various hair colors. One was wearing a dress decorated with live rats. Others wore leather and chains, some were twirling baton-like weapons, drinking, and using cocaine. The punk rockers made rude comments to family members and were generally disruptive of the service.

Ironically, the funeral business had attempted to rely on the Unruh Civil Rights Act, claiming that if they had denied access to the punk rockers, they would have been in violation of the Act. But the court held that the punk rockers' presence had deprived the deceased person's family of the services of the business establishment, which were meant to provide comfort to grieving family members. On that basis, the court stated that the funeral business could have legitimately denied access to the punk rockers.

It's interesting to note that while it is unlawful to refuse service to certain classes of people, it is not unlawful to provide discounts on the basis of characteristics such as age. Business establishments can lawfully provide discounts to groups such as senior citizens, children, local residents, or members of the clergy in order to attract their business.

Like many issues involving constitutional law, the law against discrimination in public accommodations is in a constant state of change. Some argue that anti-discrimination laws in matters of public accommodations create a conflict between the ideal of equality and individual rights. Does the guaranteed right to public access mean the business owner's private right to exclude is violated? For the most part, courts have decided that the constitutional interest in providing equal access to public accommodations outweighs the individual liberties involved." http://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/equal-rights/right-refuse-service

I was in Texas, and my nephew and his wife could not get served because she is Hispanic - and he is not. Discrimination comes in many forms.

I am Christian. My late husband was an Orthodox Jew. I saw discrimination in many forms in both directions.

And, yes, by all means refuse service to people based on your individual "feelings" and beliefs. I need the work!

Speech ;you didn't build your business . What makes you think you can make decisions about what opportunities to accept or decline ?


For the most part, courts have decided that the constitutional interest in providing equal access to public accommodations outweighs the individual liberties involved."
Of course ;because as we all know ,the constitution was designed to protect the collective right over the individual.

Hello:


the point is that she did not refuse to sell flowers ;she refused to partake in a ceremony that she had religious objections to. This is not the same as the civil rights movement... not even close.I've never been to a wedding where a florist "partook" in the ceremony. At best, he delivered the flowers and put 'em where the people wanted 'em. That's NOT "participation" in anybody's book. If, to him, "delivery" equates to participation, then other arrangements could have been made. If he feels that simply HAVING his flowers AT a gay wedding infringes on his religious rights, he's bonkers.. FLOWERS aren't religious.

Excon

There's a lawsuit in NY right now - a photographer turned down a gay couple that was getting married because he doesn't believe in gay marriage. I wouldn't take it to this extent - but he got sued for violating their civil rights.

The Attorney changed it to the photographer being unfamiliar with same sex weddings, didn't know about two brides (which was the case), colors and angles and so forth, not a white dress and a dark suit, blah, blah, blah. Don't know how it will play out BUT the photographer is, at least for the moment, under Court Order NOT to photograph weddings. There goes his business!

I think the Court is infringing on the photographer's rights at the moment - but I'm not the Judge.

There's a lawsuit in NY right now - a photographer turned down a gay couple that was getting married because he doesn't believe in gay marriage. I wouldn't take it to this extent - but he got sued for violating their civil rights.
And a photographer "participates" in a wedding ceremony, i.e. is on the scene taking photos, whereas a florist delivers, arranges, and leaves before the wedding begins.

The dufus photographer should have taken a page from the closet racist, smile and make up an excuse why he couldn't squeeze them into his busy schedule. He himself opened the door for redress with his blatant discrimination. That's why he has to pay a lawyer for his stupidity.

Not defending the hater who hides behind his "religious beliefs", but blatant discrimination is just not allowed. I mean if you want to holler about what YOUR rights are, how can you deny someone else THEIR rights. Goes back to the original question of how does exercising their rights stop you from exercising yours? It should not but we obviously see where we do have an effect on someone else by our actions.

Good or bad.

Not defending the hater who hides behind his "religious beliefs", but blatant discrimination is just not allowed. I mean if you want to holler about what YOUR rights are, how can you deny someone else THEIR rights. Goes back to the original question of how does exercising their rights stop you from exercising yours? It should not but we obviously see where we do have an effect on someone else by our actions.

Good or bad.

What it seems your failing to understand is that those rights you speak of are situational. That is why there are laws in place. But somewhere lines have to be drawn. "New" is never an easy process. They are still hammering everything out. But I stand by those that have religious convictions and don't wish to cross those convictions just because there is money involved. When you speak of rights you can't forget that there are responsibilities that go along with it. There is no need to be sue happy at every offence that comes your way. It hurts the very thing you proclaim to protect. We see every day discrimination on many levels. Visit a family court room and you will see it in action with the full force of the law protected by the barrel of a gun. Ask your insurance company if they have a redline policy. Its everywhere.

Hello:

I've never been to a wedding where a florist "partook" in the ceremony. At best, he delivered the flowers and put 'em where the people wanted 'em. That's NOT "participation" in anybody's book. If, to him, "delivery" equates to participation, then other arrangements could have been made. If he feels that simply HAVING his flowers AT a gay wedding infringes on his religious rights, he's bonkers.. FLOWERS aren't religious.
excon

By selling and /or arranging ,the florist is facilitating a same-sex wedding .This case is in law suit too. Again ,this is not the same as a civil rights violation based on color . First ,this florist has frequently sold flowers to at least one of the couple previously ,and has on occasion hired a gay. . So no case can be made that she is discriminating over so called sexual orientation. In fact ;the only reason she refused is for religious reasons. Forcing her to sell flowers to the couple for that purpose indeed violates her 1st amendment rights of religion and the implicit freedom of association. .

Hello again, tom:

In fact ;the only reason she refused is for religious reasons.Even if that's so, when her religious freedom bumps up against someone else's civil rights, it DOESN'T mean she automatically wins.. One Constitutional right does NOT trump another.

Excon

What it seems your failing to understand is that those rights you speak of are situational. That is why there are laws in place. But somewhere lines have to be drawn. "New" is never an easy process. They are still hammering everything out. But I stand by those that have religious convictions and dont wish to cross those convictions just because there is money involved. When you speak of rights you can't forget that there are responsibilities that go along with it. There is no need to be sue happy at every offence that comes your way. It hurts the very thing you proclaim to protect. We see every day discrimination on many levels. Visit a family court room and you will see it in action with the full force of the law protected by the barrel of a gun. Ask your insurance company if they have a redline policy. Its everywhere.

They have a right to sue and let a judge decide. And everyone has there own convictions, gay or not, religious or not. Does that make one better than the other? You can't claim your religion allows you to break the law, nor more than you can shoot someone and claim self defense. The disputes are settled in courts and who cares if they are crowded or not.

Bet a few court cases lost will make people think before they act or speak.

Not even lost - and I see both sides here.

Having your business sued, getting that publicity (lots of people have gay friends/relatives), having to pay an Attorney and traipse back and forth to Court, possibly having your business "frozen" while it plays out - any/all of these factors would scare me straight!

Yes that is the intimidating power of government to impose it's will on individuals .This is also the core problem with the IRS scandal . The founders never envisioned the system they constructed would grow to be such a Leviathan.

They have a right to sue and let a judge decide. And everyone has there own convictions, gay or not, religious or not. Does that make one better than the other? You can't claim your religion allows you to break the law, nor more than you can shoot someone and claim self defense. The disputes are settled in courts and who cares if they are crowded or not.

Bet a few court cases lost will make people think before they act or speak.

You are aware that there are laws on the books that address shooting someone in self defense right? Also when dealing with a protected class then aren't you asking the courts to give another superior rights?

Court and constitution allows equal rights to all. Law will provide gay marriages legal status. But even if law forces religious bodies to do gay marriages, it will not give them social status. So those religious places who are fine with gay marriages should do that. Those who don't must not be forced.

The legal system is designed to give people redress before the law, as opposed to duels and physical feuds. Or one group dominating another. It doesn't matter what the vision of the founders was, what matters is how we keep building this nation which has grown in leaps and bounds. We have to have a vision of ourselves as we have changed as a society, and will probably change a lot more in the future.

The founders could wear a small government because the nation was small and full of farmers and merchants and life was simpler. That's no longer the case, and there are many complexities and nuances that a larger population has to address. The behavior of the citizens being first and foremost.

I mean do you define the value of the citizen by the size of his wallet, and give him more power and privilege, or are we all equal under the law? The constitution says we are equal with no regard for the size of your wallet. The founders wrote that.

You are aware that there are laws on the books that address shooting someone in self defense right? Also when dealing with a protected class then arent you asking the courts to give another superior rights?

And those laws will have to stand the court and public scrutiny and be changed as necessary as have others before, that's the system.

But I would like a definition of protected class.

And those laws will have to stand the court and public scrutiny and be changed as necessary as have others before, that's the system.

But I would like a definition of protected class.

Me too. But from Judy's earlier post you will see this as part of it:

In cases in which the patron is not a member of a federally protected class, the question generally turns on whether the business's refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific interest in refusing service.

Me too. But from Judy's earlier post you will see this as part of it:

In cases in which the patron is not a member of a federally protected class, the question generally turns on whether the business's refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific interest in refusing service.

Protected class - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class)

The patron can accept what a business does, or act in good conscious and do something about it. Is this not the way to establish what's acceptable, and what's not?

Protected class - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class)

The patron can accept what a business does, or act in good conscious and do something about it. Is this not the way to establish what's acceptable, and what's not?

No I don't say that is the most acceptable way. The way to do it is to speak with your dollars and if you don't like how a business handles itself then you don't patronize that business. Isn't that what boycotts are all about? In cases of extreme discrimination then you can and should address the problems in a court room. Otherwise leading by example is a much better way to do things as it gets to the point directly.

Do you actually believe that most people need and want to live in a nanny state and be told what to do and how to live their lives?



Food for thought:

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2009/October/Gays-Now-a-Protected-Class-of-People-under-New-Law/

Obviously then we can violate other's rights at will since no one's trumps another's.

Or you could be outraged at violence targeted to gay people for being gay. I can't see a preacher preaching the gospel being held responsible for an idiot.

yes that is the intimidating power of government to impose it's will on individuals .This is also the core problem with the IRS scandal . The founders never envisioned the system they constructed would grow to be such a Leviathan.

Tom. why can't you answer your own questions? The answer is obvious. The Founders created a system that was a compromise when it comes to statism and federalism. This was always going to be a problem given enough time.

Not really ,they wrote in safeguards that have been eroded . Now some of them were self inflicted... like the 16th amendment (followed closely by the May 1913 17th which began to carve away at Federalism) .
The 16th amendment states :

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration
That amendment was a big brain fart . It opened the door to the statism and all it's unconstitutional excess that until that point had been relatively contained . It was the progressives wet dream. Direct taxation without apportionment is the very redistributive tool that Karl Marx advocated . (2nd plank of the Communist Manifesto)

not really ,they wrote in safeguards that have been eroded . Now some of them were self inflicted...like the 16th amendment (followed closely by the May 1913 17th which began to carve away at Federalism) .
The 16th amendment states :

That amendment was a big brain fart . It opened the door to the statism and all it's unconstitutional excess that until that point had been relatively contained . It was the progressives wet dream. Direct taxation without apportionment is the very redistributive tool that Karl Marx advocated . (2nd plank of the Communist Manifesto)

Tom, there are no planks to the "Communist Manifesto". Other than those found on on right wing think tanks. But I guess that depends on what you mean by,"planks".

Really ? Did you read chapter 2 ?


1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

really ? Did you read chapter 2 ?

Yes I have. I thought you were talking about the "Communist Manifesto"

I am.. I can't link to the pdf exact text . But here is Wiki...
. Proletarians and Communists

The second section, "Proletarians and Communists", starts by stating the relationship of conscious communists to the rest of the working class, declaring that they will not form a separate party that opposes other working-class parties, will express the interests and general will of the proletariat as a whole, and will distinguish themselves from other working-class parties by always expressing the common interest of the entire proletariat independently of all nationalities and representing the interests of the movement as a whole.[14]

The section goes on to defend communism from various objections, such as the claim that communists advocate "free love", and the claim that people will not perform labour in a communist society because they have no incentive to work.[14] The section ends by outlining a set of short-term demands: (aka planks )
1.Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2.A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3.Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4.Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5.Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6.Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7.Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8.Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9.Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.
10.Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form and combination of education with industrial production.[15]
The Communist Manifesto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto)

The implementation of these policies would, as believed by Marx and Engels, be a precursor to the stateless and classless society.[14] In a controversial passage they suggested that the "proletariat" might in competition with the bourgeoisie be compelled to organise as a class, form a revolution, make itself a ruling class, sweep away the old conditions of production, and in that step have abolished its own supremacy as a class.[14] This account of the transition from socialism to communism was criticised particularly during and after the Soviet era.

So you see gay marriage as a communist plot? What are you saying Tom?

Follow the conversation Tal

It started on this tangent when I replied to comment #72

Tom can I take you back to your original statement-to which I was responding:

"Direct taxation without appointment is the very redistributive tool that Marx advocated" . I would have thought that the reference to taxation outlined in the "Manifesto" was a prediction on the part of Marx.

Over to you.

So as I suspected, you are conflating gay marriage to government expansion, or intrusion in to the accepted traditional social fabrics that you are more comfortable with. I can understand your fear of the governing proclivities that use to be so fearful to us before, and the conflicts now that fuel that fear, but to be honest, you are lumping many things together that just don't fit.

And that's a rather rigid standard you hold to that's not only exclusionary in principle, but borders on domination. Worse than the communism you decry so much.

Philosophical opinion is great but you cannot ignore the effects on actual people of policy and practice.

Tal, are you under some ridiculous impression that I tolerate violence against gays or something?

Nope, not at all. Just throwing your own attitude right back at you! I mean if you can be bewildered by my lack of outrage at your issues, I wanted to show you why I am outraged on my own issues.

We seem to have outrage on different issues, and that's cool, ain't it?

Tom can I take you back to your original statement-to which I was responding:

"Direct taxation without appointment is the very redistributive tool that Marx advocated" . I would have thought that the reference to taxation outlined in the "Manifesto" was a prediction on the part of Marx.

Over to you.

A 'prediction' rather than a 'means to an end platform ' ? I refer you back to the Wiki link : The section ends by outlining a set of short-term demands:
Is Wiki wrong in making that statement ? No ;that is always how I've read the manifesto..

Tal I was commenting to this specific observation by Judy .

Having your business sued, getting that publicity (lots of people have gay friends/relatives), having to pay an Attorney and traipse back and forth to Court, possibly having your business "frozen" while it plays out - any/all of these factors would scare me straight!


Where is that "conflating " gay marriage to government expansion ? You forget ;unlike you statists ,I want the government out of the marriage business. I don't want the government to have the power to shut a small business florist down ;or drag through the courts because the owner has religions objections to gay marriage .Yes ,I compared the legal position that the florist is in to the punitive trampling on the 1st amendment rights of the TeaParty and conservative groups by the IRS and the political wing of the White House .
So yes ,the comparisons are valid... they do fit.

Its not government getting involved in peoples business its people who are involving the government in their business. I mean if the people hadn't made a stink about gay marriage you wouldn't need a judge to settle the conflicts now would we?

I mean when you make every dog gone thing under the sun a moral crisis and a scandal with selective high soaring rhetoric you force a reaction from the ones you holler about. What do you expect a gay guy to do who wants to come out into the real world and get some sun and you are keeping the closet door shut. Yes its like the IRS controversy that all of a sudden is about YOUR rights to form a group that doesn't pay taxes but can change elections.

Now you want to change the whole policy and process to fit your needs and get what YOU want, but the unintended consequence of skating and manipulating the law by both sides may be changing and reforming those laws, policies, and procedures and practices for fairness.

I note when your side did have power you did none of those things. We didn't either, but we were fighting you guys for the last 5 years to get your mess cleaned up. Not an excuse but the mess was much bigger than anyone though, and we needed more than a mop and bucket.

So while we can appreciate the mundane philosophy of thinking long gone by thinkers long gone in a different situation entirely, fact remains we have gone well beyond the hollering arguing stage and need to proceed into the actual make it work better phase.

Can't you guys work while you are hollering? At least get out of the door way and let the gay folks be happy.

Tal ,if you don't want the constitution and the government founded on that constitution to protect the rights guaranteed in it , you can say it in less than a 5 paragraph rant.

Less time protect rights against the boogey man and more time cleaning up our messes. How's that?

Less time protect rights against the boogey man and more time cleaning up our messes. How's that?

I agree. So how about you stop making all the messes you have been and we will go back to small government. Instead of the cradle to grave mentality that you want to force upon everyone. Talk about looking for boogyman everywhere.

What year was that you want us to go back to?

Michelle Bachmann was a nutcase, I'm glad her and Sarah Palin are out of the picture. Any straight people who feel threatened by gay marriage need to get a life and mind their own business.

What year was that you want us to go back to?

Lets start with this year and strip back the layers until we get lean and mean with laws that make sense.

Michelle Bachmann was a nutcase, I'm glad her and Sarah Palin are out of the picture. Any straight people who feel threatened by gay marriage need to get a life and mind their own business.

It is peoples business if they are being forced into a situation by the barrel of a gun or threat of a lawsuit.

It is peoples business if they are being forced into a situation by the barrel of a gun or threat of a lawsuit.

Do you have any examples of anyone being forced by threats of a lawsuit?

Do you have any examples of anyone being forced by threats of a lawsuit?

Have you read through this thread? It has been a central part of the debate.


The woman florist in Washington and the photographer in N.Y.

Even a private business can't refuse to do business based on race, religion or ethnic background, I'm pretty sure the florist would not be allowed to shun an interracial or interfaith marriage so why should sexual orientation still be allowed to get the "back of the bus" treatment?

Even a private business can't refuse to do business based on race, religion or ethnic background, I'm pretty sure the florist would not be allowed to shun an interracial or interfaith marriage so why should sexual orientation still be allowed to get the "back of the bus" treatment?

She didn't, she based it on religious convictions. She had hired gays before and previously sold flowers to these same people on other occasions.

a 'prediction' rather than a 'means to an end platform ' ? I refer you back to the Wiki link : The section ends by outlining a set of short-term demands:
Is Wiki wrong in making that statement ? No ;that is always how I've read the manifesto ..

Tom, no-one is interested in this except, perhaps the two of us. So I'll be brief. And yes, it has nothing to do with this thread.

The wiki quote is too brief and ignores the paragraph just above the so called list of demands. The ignored paragraph being:

These measures will be different in different countries.However, in advanced countries the following will be pretty generally applicable.

Marx is saying that the revolution will take on different characteristics in different countries. The list are possible combinations of factors that are likely to be seen.

Tom, have you actually read chapter 2, or just gone with the wiki interpretation?

Where is progressive taxation discussed in this chapter? Where does it say that progressive taxation is a demand?The chapter is largely devoted to the idea of political revolution before economic revolution. Now, I think Marx is inconsistent in this chapter on this particular issue, but that's a different story. Nonetheless, it is in keeping with his overall "materialist conception of history"

The list represents, 'sign posts' to look out for.

Oh ;so he was just being a wise soothsayer... he did not see these steps as a move towards his utopia ? I think he did .

I'll quote the 2 chapters above the list and the list

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.
These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.


Love this line " by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable".. and yet the left still champions these remedies.

His opinion, none of which has anything to do with gay marriage or the bad behavior because of religious convictions. That's the crux of this whole topic, forcing some ones convictions on another without respect and demanding respect for that conviction.

Even a private business can't refuse to do business based on race, religion or ethnic background, I'm pretty sure the florist would not be allowed to shun an interracial or interfaith marriage so why should sexual orientation still be allowed to get the "back of the bus" treatment?

Like ex said, no one's rights trump another's so the gay wedding does not trump her religious rights. But that's the rub, the left - including ex based on his own arguments - does believe certain rights trump others, as in forcing pharmacists to sell abortifacients and forcing religious organizations to buy birth control.

This couple isn't harmed by this particular florist not doing the wedding, they have options. The LGBT community and their crusaders don't believe others should have an option, they demand acceptance and accommodation regardless of anyone else's rights. Sorry, my rights are no less important than theirs.

His opinion, none of which has anything to do with gay marriage or the bad behavior because of religious convictions. That's the crux of this whole topic, forcing some ones convictions on another without respect and demanding respect for that conviction.

It's not bad behavior to exercise your first amendment rights. It's bad behavior in forcing someone to violate their religious beliefs to accommodate yours. You've got it bass ackwards.

You have a right to your convictions and they have a right to seek redress in a court. Explain it to the judge.

You have a right to your convictions and they have a right to seek redress in a court. Explain it to the judge.

So who did you mean was "forcing some ones convictions on another without respect and demanding respect for that conviction." The gay couple or the florist?

Hello again, Steve:
So who did you mean was "forcing some ones convictions on another without respect and demanding respect for that conviction." The gay couple or the florist?Seems to me that BOTH of them are, but that's because I'm a liberal thinker.. I'm sure you believe that only ONE of the parties are honorable.

Excon

It was a general statement about religious convictions and blatant discrimination. I mean seems to me the way you handle your convictions is a important as a right to them, and even more so when presented with a people who already feel their rights are denied. Maybe they are a bit sensitive, and maybe the other side of it is not enough sensitivity.

Their has to be a balance in the empathy and respect of all our rights, and hollering gay people have none, or only those you say they have doesn't garner respect, as black people resented being told to go to the back of the bus.

Bottom line you cannot holler your rights without respecting the rights of others in my opinion.

I never holler

Hello again, Steve:Seems to me that BOTH of them are, but that's because I'm a liberal thinker.. I'm sure you believe that only ONE of the parties are honorable.

excon

The florist gave referrals and was gracious about it, what more do you want? The AG is being an a$$ for suing someone for exercising their religious rights.

Hello again, Steve:

The florist gave referrals and was gracious about it, what more do you want? The AG is being an a$$ for suing someone for exercising their religious rights.I KNEW you'd think only one party was honorable.. I suppose you think the gay couple should have just taken their seat in the back of the bus... I mean they should have just taken the referrals and kept QUIET...

My friend, graciousness has NOTHING to do with rights.. The law does.

What if I was VERY gracious with a black patron in my restaurant, and offered him an excellent meal in the kitchen? Or what if I went out of my way, being gracious, of course, and made a reservation for him at one of the black restaurants down the street? Would that be cool with you?

Excon

Hello again, Steve:
I KNEW you'd think only one party was honorable.. I suppose you think the gay couple should have just taken their seat in the back of the bus... I mean they should have just taken the referrals and kept QUIET...

My friend, graciousness has NOTHING to do with rights.. The law does.

What if I was VERY gracious with a black patron in my restaurant, and offered him an excellent meal in the kitchen? Or what if I went out of my way, being gracious, of course, and made a reservation for him at one of the black restaurants down the street? Would that be cool with you?

excon

Bullsh*t, Tal just spoke of respect for the rights of others. Where is the respect of the florist's religious rights?

I knew you didn't really believe no one's rights trump another's just as I said above. You DO believe the gay couple's rights trump the first amendment rights of the florist and that is rather hypocritical in light of your previous statement..

Where is the respect of the florist's religious rights?
When I own a business and want to make money as I sell to the entire population, why should I think my religious rights have anything to do with anything?

So then that means that since I'm Lutheran (Protestant) and, remembering the Protestant Reformation with great affection, I can refuse to sell to anyone not Protestant? What good would that do me as a business owner wanting to make a profit?

Hello again, Steve:
I knew you didn't really believe no one's rights trump another's just as I said above. If I said that, and I probably did, I didn't complete the statement... In our judicial system, one persons rights bump up against somebody else's rights ALL THE TIME.. They're the ones who decide who's rights trump the others. Generally speaking, I agree with 'em.

If the SCOTUS rules that her religious rights trump the gay couples rights, then that's the way it is. However, given our history, and their previous decisions, I believe they'll agree with ME.

Excon

Just tell us ex, which rights are invalid?

Personally I don't believe your side gives a damn about my rights whatsoever or you wouldn't have a cow over someone saying something to the effect of "hey guys, you've been good customers and I'd love to sell you flowers, but please respect my decision not to participate in your wedding." What is the freakin' harm in that? Can we as a society never work anything out without hammering someone else into submission?

Hello again, Steve:
but please respect my decision not to participate in your wedding." What is the freakin' harm in that?
I DO give a damn about your rights. But, I think you're being a little one way here... You seem to think YOUR rights should reign supreme. You seem to think the ONLY harm here, when deciding between the two parties, is the FLORISTS harm. Frankly, it looks like it's YOU who doesn't give a damn about the gay couple's rights. What's the freaking harm in dropping off a dozen or so roses??

Excon

What's the freaking harm in dropping off a dozen or so roses?? That is indeed a good question which brings up back to the OP.

She didnt, she based it on religious convictions. She had hired gays before and previously sold flowers to these same people on other occassions.
If she wants to be consistent in her religious principles and convictions, she should NOT be hiring gays or selling anything to them.

Did she refuse to sell them a dozen roses?

Did she refuse to sell them a dozen roses?

She refused to sell them anything:

On March 1, Robert Ingersoll entered the shop in Richland, a small town approximately 200 miles from Seattle, where he had been buying flowers for years. When he informed Stutzman he was getting married to his boyfriend, Curt Freed, the store owner stopped him cold.

If she wants to be consistent in her religious principles and convictions, she should NOT be hiring gays or selling anything to them.

The difference between making a statement against the ceremony she'd be forced to participate in and a judgement against the individuals. She makes no judgement against them ;but she opposed the ceremony and refused to participate in ANY way.

She makes no judgement against themYou mean other than refusing them service completely when she found out he was gay?

the difference between making a statement against the ceremony she'd be forced to participate in and a judgement against the individuals. She makes no judgement against them ;but she opposed the ceremony and refused to participate in ANY way.
But her Bible apparently says homosexuality is an abomination. Why does she sell to them (she says she has served gay customers her entire career) and hire them (in her own words, "I could not [provide the flowers] because of my relationship with Jesus." She added: "I have hired all walks of people in different circumstances, and had the privilege of working with some very talented people that happen to be gay... "). Her Bible also says, "Eschew evil." Apparently, she picks and chooses what she wants to believe.

Did Jesus eshew people because he disproved of their acts ? Did he stone Mary Magdalene ? No he did not . But he certainly did not participate in their evil acts. John 8 1:11

Did Jesus eshew people because he disproved of their acts ?
She apparently disapproves of their actions but knowingly hires gays and sells to them on a day-to-day basis. Aren't they "doing evil" (according to her Bible) behind closed doors with her flowers in their house? So what is different about a same-sex wedding when she would take the order, get paid, and drop off the flowers at the wedding site?

the difference between making a statement against the ceremony she'd be forced to participate in and a judgement against the individuals. She makes no judgement against them ;but she opposed the ceremony and refused to participate in ANY way.

Yet everyone here is judging this woman, who by the way has filed a countersuit.
(http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/elderly-christian-florist-files-countersuit-over-refusing-to-participate-in)

She has a previous history of serving, and employing, self-identified homosexuals.

Now, Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys have filed a countersuit, Arlene’s Flowers v. Ferguson, on Stutzman’s behalf.

ADF explains that the state’s lawsuit “is attempting to force Stutzman to act contrary to her religious convictions in violation of her constitutional freedoms.”

“In America, the government is supposed to protect freedom, not use its intolerance for certain viewpoints to intimidate citizens into acting contrary to their faith convictions,” said ADF senior legal counsel Dale Schowengerdt. “Family business owners are constitutionally guaranteed the freedom to live and work according to their beliefs.”

He added, “It is this very freedom that gives America its cherished diversity and protects citizens from state-mandated conformity.”

In additional to federal constitutional protections, the Washington State Constitution also protects “freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief, and worship,” as stated in Article 1, Section 11.

Seems to me giving a referral accommodates the interests of both sides and no one has to violate their beliefs, but that would mean you lefties would have to honor our right to freedom of religion and we can't have that can we?

I'll leave it to your imagination to determine what possible evil they are doing with the flowers she sells them . If Jesus wouldn't judge the adulterer then there is no compelling reason for her to judge the homosexual . No ,her beef is solely with being compelled to participate in an act she is religiously opposed to.

I'll leave it to your imagination to determine what possible evil they are doing with the flowers she sells them . If Jesus wouldn't judge the adulterer then there is no compelling reason for her to judge the homosexual . No ,her beef is solely with being compelled to participate in an act she is religiously opposed to.
I said nothing about doing evil with flowers. Please reread my post. The flowers are in a gay's house, or the flowers are at a same-sex wedding ceremony -- so what's the difference?

But she IS judging the homosexual by refusing to supply flowers for his wedding after selling them to him at other times, knowing he is gay.

No one is compelling her to participate in any act. (And hiring gays and selling flowers to gays in her shop is not "participating in an act"?)

the Washington State Constitution also protects “freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief, and worship,Wow, that could cover pretty much anything when you think about it. It's extremely wide-ranging... "all matters of religious sentiment"? How does one define the limits to that?

I said nothing about doing evil with flowers. Please reread my post. The flowers are in a gay's house, or the flowers are at a same-sex wedding ceremony -- so what's the difference?

But she IS judging the homosexual by refusing to supply flowers for his wedding after selling them to him at other times, knowing he is gay.

No one is compelling her to participate in any act. (And hiring gays and selling flowers to gays in her shop is not "participating in an act"?)

Supplying flowers to a homosexual marriage is participating in the marriage ceremony . That is an indisputable fact.

supplying flowers to a homosexual marriage is participating in the marriage ceremony . that is an indisputable fact.
And her being willing (no religious concerns) to hire gays and sell flowers to them, knowing they are gay, cancels out the wedding "participation" problem. If this is how her Bible reads ("no participation in gay weddings"), she should have a sign on her shop window, "Gays will not be hired or served in any capacity." Otherwise, she is talking out of both sides of her mouth.

And her being willing (no religious concerns) to hire gays and sell flowers to them, knowing they are gay, cancels out the wedding "participation" problem. If this is how her Bible reads ("no participation in gay weddings"), she should have a sign on her shop window, "Gays will not be hired or served in any capacity."

Your rights don't get "canceled out" that way and you don't get to decide when she can exercise those rights.

supplying flowers to a homosexual marriage is participating in the marriage ceremony . That is an indisputable fact.Uh no, that's not 'indisputable' - in fact it's highly disputable. It's a textbook case of slippery slope type of argument - BBC - Ethics - Introduction to ethics: The slippery slope (http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/slipperyslope.shtml)

Your rights don't get "canceled out" that way and you don't get to decide when she can exercise those rights.
So she can hire gays and sell to gays, but just not deliver flowers to a same-sex wedding. (I truly do not understand the difference.)

Her Bible says homosexuality is an abomination. Why not all or nothing? (Gays' money is acceptable sometimes, but not at other times?)

Uh no, that's not 'indisputable' - in fact it's highly disputable. It's a textbook case of slippery slope type of argument - BBC - Ethics - Introduction to ethics: The slippery slope (http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/slipperyslope.shtml)
I get it that you don't understand religion.

So she can hire gays and sell to gays, but just not deliver flowers to a same-sex wedding. (I truly do not understand the difference.)

Her Bible says homosexuality is an abomination. Why not all or nothing? (Gays' money is acceptable sometimes, but not at other times?)

Tom answered (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/3477644-post133.html) that already.

I get it that you don't understand religion.
Why does her religion allow her to sell flowers to gays sometimes but not at other times?

If two lesbians came into her shop holding hands and wanted to buy an nice arrangement for the dining room table, would she sell flowers to them?

If a gay guy came in and said he wanted to send a dozen red roses to his legally married gay partner, would she refuse to complete the transaction?

tom answered (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/3477644-post133.html) that already.
No, he used Jesus to skirt around my question.

I get it that you don't understand religion.Oh I do, better than you think.

Enumerate for us the interactions with homosexuals that are allowed and those that aren't allowed, as per Jesus and/or the bible.

Hello again,

I think Carol made a compelling LEGAL argument too. If doing business with gays is bad, then she shouldn't do business with them AT ALL. But, if she SELECTIVELY does business with them, then she can't argue that she refused to do business THIS TIME because of her religious conscience.

excon

Hello again,

I think Carol made a compelling LEGAL argument too. If doing business with gays is bad, then she shouldn't do business with them AT ALL. But, if she SELECTIVELY does business with them, then she can't argue that she refused to do business THIS TIME because of her religious conscience.

excon
Nice summary!

Hello again,

I think Carol made a compelling LEGAL argument too. If doing business with gays is bad, then she shouldn't do business with them AT ALL. But, if she SELECTIVELY does business with them, then she can't argue that she refused to do business THIS TIME because of her religious conscience.

excon

And if all they wanted to do was pick flowers up at her shop she probably would have had no problem, but to do a wedding you have to go the site and set up the flowers, etc. What if the wedding were at a porn shop, a strip club? What if the wedding was a nude affair? What if they wanted Satanic symbols in the arrangements? Is there any point at which you would give the poor lady a break? Geez dude, you guys have zero sympathy for a Christian trying to balance her faith and her business. Get over it and leave her be.

And if all they wanted to do was pick flowers up at her shop she probably would have had no problem, but to do a wedding you have to go the site and set up the flowers, etc. What if the wedding were at a porn shop, a strip club? What if the wedding was a nude affair? What if they wanted Satanic symbols in the arrangements?
Had she been doing business with the porn shop owner, strip club owner, nude affair organizer in the past as she had been with the gay guy who wanted flowers for his wedding?

OH! Had the gay couple picked up their wedding flowers at her shop, THEN it would have been okay with her? That smells to high heaven. Isn't she still "participating" by supplying goods for their happy day, thereby "approving" of their union?

If she wants to be consistent in her religious principles and convictions, she should NOT be hiring gays or selling anything to them.

Actually that iisnt true. As a catholic the teaching say to embrace people but there are lines drawn as far as acceptance. If someone were a thief and was reforming then you embrace them. But if they continue to be a thief then you don't embrace them but pray for change. It goes against religious principle to deny someone that is trying to reform or is trying to live up to the faith. There is no prohibition in the catholic church against gays so long as they are non practicing. If they live a celebate life then they walk with god.

Actually that iisnt true. As a catholic the teaching say to embrace people but there are lines drawn as far as acceptance. If someone were a thief and was reforming then you embrace them. But if they continue to be a thief then you dont embrace them but pray for change. It goes against religious principle to deny someone that is trying to reform or is trying to live up to the faith. There is no prohibition in the catholic church against gays so long as they are non practicing. If they live a celebate life then they walk with god.
She knew her gay employees and customers were non-practicing homosexuals?

She knew her gay employees and customers were non-practicing homosexuals?

I don't know what she knew or didn't know. Do you?

Had she been doing business with the porn shop owner, strip club owner, nude affair organizer in the past as she had been with the gay guy who wanted flowers for his wedding?

OH! Had the gay couple picked up their wedding flowers at her shop, THEN it would have been okay with her? That smells to high heaven. Isn't she still "participating" by supplying goods for their happy day, thereby "approving" of their union?

In other words there is no point at which you would give the lady a break in trying to balance her faith and business and everyone's rights. Correct? I mean it seems clear to me that the only rights you and the lefties want protected are those of the gay couple. Correct?

In other words there is no point at which you would give the lady a break in trying to balance her faith and business and everyone's rights. Correct? I mean it seems clear to me that the only rights you and the lefties want protected are those of the gay couple. Correct?
If she wants to run a business open to the public, she cannot discriminate.

Does she supply flowers to weddings of interracial couples?

If she wants to run a business open to the public, she cannot discriminate.

Does she supply flowers to weddings of interracial couples?

That did not answer my questions.

That did not answer my questions.
If she wants to run a business open to the public, she cannot discriminate.

I would give her the same break she give the gay couple. They exercised their right and sued her for discrimination, and she exercised her rights to counter sue.

What ever the judge says, he says. That's the breaks. That's the law.

If she wants to run a business open to the public, she cannot discriminate.

So in other words, there is no point at which you would give the lady a break in trying to balance her faith and business and everyone's rights. Correct? I mean it seems clear to me that the only rights you and the lefties want protected are those of the gay couple. Correct?

If the wedding were at a porn shop, a strip club, was a nude affair, if they wanted Satanic symbols in the arrangements or asked her to slaughter a lamb and sprinkle the blood on the flowers you could find no point at which this lady could say no, I won't do that. Correct?

How far will you take your stand here?

How far will you take your stand here?
How far will you take yours?

So in other words, there is no point at which you would give the lady a break in trying to balance her faith and business and everyone's rights. Correct? I mean it seems clear to me that the only rights you and the lefties want protected are those of the gay couple. Correct?

If the wedding were at a porn shop, a strip club, was a nude affair, if they wanted Satanic symbols in the arrangements or asked her to slaughter a lamb and sprinkle the blood on the flowers you could find no point at which this lady could say no, I won't do that. Correct?

How far will you take your stand here?

Most florists simply provide the flowers, they don't actually set up the flowers at the venue. Someone picks up the flowers for the couple and delivers them. Set up is usually a separate fee, and not all florists even offer it as an option. In other words, I fail to see how she was being forced, or even asked, to participate in the actual ceremony. She was simply asked to provide the flowers, to a customer she knew was gay, and had served in the past.

So in other words the florist is only called on to sell flowers and do no arranging.. not even the bouquet ?
Well she seems to think otherwise. From her counter suit.
Arlene's Flowers has never refused to sell flowers to someone simply because of sexual orientation," the countersuit says. "But because of Barronelle Stutzman's Christian faith, she cannot as a matter of conscience participate in or facilitate a same-sex wedding by using her creative skills to personally craft floral arrangements to decorate the wedding. The Attorney General's attempt to use state law to compel her and Arlene's Flowers to do so violates the state and federal constitutions."

so in other words the florist is only called on to sell flowers and do no arranging ..not even the bouquet ?
Well she seems to think otherwise. From her counter suit.
Arlene's Flowers has never refused to sell flowers to someone simply because of sexual orientation," the countersuit says. "But because of Barronelle Stutzman's Christian faith, she cannot as a matter of conscience participate in or facilitate a same-sex wedding by using her creative skills to personally craft floral arrangements to decorate the wedding. The Attorney General's attempt to use state law to compel her and Arlene's Flowers to do so violates the state and federal constitutions."
A red herring. She could have sold whatever flowers they wanted and an unbiased person could have arranged them at the wedding site. Of course, then she wouldn't have a lawsuit.

so in other words the florist is only called on to sell flowers and do no arranging ..not even the bouquet ?
Well she seems to think otherwise. From her counter suit.
Arlene's Flowers has never refused to sell flowers to someone simply because of sexual orientation," the countersuit says. "But because of Barronelle Stutzman's Christian faith, she cannot as a matter of conscience participate in or facilitate a same-sex wedding by using her creative skills to personally craft floral arrangements to decorate the wedding. The Attorney General's attempt to use state law to compel her and Arlene's Flowers to do so violates the state and federal constitutions."

Of course the florist does the arranging. Do you know what that consists of? It doesn't mean that she has to step foot in the venue where the couple is being wed. She arranges the flowers at her shop. No one is asking her to "participate" in the wedding.

No one invited her to the actual wedding. She was simply supplying the flowers, like she'd done for years before for this very same customer.

She's picking and choosing what she wants to believe in, and using religion to show her bias. Either she's okay with having gay customers, or she's not. If she's not, that's fine, but she should have stated that from the very beginning. She knew he was gay, she's admitted to selling to gays in the past, and hiring them. She sold to this particular customer, knowing he's gay, for years. Now, suddenly, it's not okay. That's the problem with all of this.

A red herring. She could have sold whatever flowers they wanted and an unbiased person could have arranged them at the wedding site. Of course, then she wouldn't have a lawsuit.

Could've perhaps ;but that isn't what they were contracting her for.

No one is asking her to "participate" in the wedding The arrangement and decorations are indeed part of the ceremony . By doing the floral arrangement she is participating .

She's picking and choosing what she wants to believe in, and using religion to show her bias and you are telling her which of her religious beliefs are valid. Therefore she is not being permitted religious freedom.

could've perhaps ;but that isn't what they were contracting her for.

How do you know?

From what I read they never got to any form of contract. She had no idea what they were asking for, other than flowers. She didn't let them get that far. As soon as he said he was marrying his boyfriend, she told him she wouldn't supply the flowers because of her relationship with Jesus Christ.

So how do you know what he was contracting for when he was cut off right after informing her who he was going to marry?

How do you know?

From what I read they never got to any form of contract. She had no idea what they were asking for, other than flowers. She didn't let them get that far. As soon as he said he was marrying his boyfriend, she told him she wouldn't supply the flowers because of her relationship with Jesus Christ.

So how do you know what he was contracting for when he was cut off right after informing her who he was going to marry?

Again ;from the reporting about her counter suit :
The countersuit says Stutzman was approached around March 1 by Robert Ingersoll, a gay patron, who asked if she would create the floral arrangements for his wedding. She declined, however, telling him she wouldn't do so because of her Christian faith. He asked her to recommend other florists, which she did, and they hugged each other before he left the store, the document states.Read more at Wash. Florist Who Refused to Make Same-Sex Wedding Decorations Countersues (http://www.christianpost.com/news/wash-florist-who-refused-to-make-same-sex-wedding-decorations-countersues-96164/#Gs9Z2A8a4Ea86iZv.99)

and you are telling her which of her religious beliefs are valid. Therefore she is not being permitted religious freedom.

Not at all. But, I'm sick of people hiding behind their religion only when it suits them. It's all or nothing. If you're going to be a bigot, at least have the guts and conviction to follow your beliefs. Don't dabble.

If she had posted a sign in her store saying "I am a Christian, and because of my religious beliefs I will not sell to gays", than fine, that's her right. I wouldn't like her, nor would I go into her store (despite the fact that I'm not gay), but I'd at least have some respect for her convictions.

But she sold to gays for years, she hired gays, now suddenly it's not okay? All or nothing. Either you're religious or you're not. Stop picking and choosing what suits you.

Tal, the US constitution and Washington law both protect religious rights.

WG, I've clearly demonstrated flexibility to accommodate both sides. You have clearly demonstrated no willingness to accommodate the florist's rights at all.

Not at all. But, I'm sick of people hiding behind their religion only when it suits them. It's all or nothing. If you're going to be a bigot, at least have the guts and conviction to follow your beliefs. Don't dabble.

If she had posted a sign in her store saying "I am a Christian, and because of my religious beliefs I will not sell to gays", than fine, that's her right. I wouldn't like her, nor would I go into her store (despite the fact that I'm not gay), but I'd at least have some respect for her convictions.

But she sold to gays for years, she hired gays, now suddenly it's not okay? All or nothing. Either you're religious or you're not. Stop picking and choosing what suits you.

No actually it is not all or nothing . She clearly stated to the patron that it was the "wedding " she was opposed to ;and not the person. Her actions fall perfectly in her Christian faith .
John 8 1:11 . She does not condemn the person ,but she will not participate in their unholy union.

The constitution says all are equal, the federal law is no discrimination. The state law is unclear but it doesn't over ride the constitution or the state and should be challenged in the court.

A business that can't sell its products to anyone is discrimination, and you cannot hide behind religious conviction to break the law. At least that's what you told the Muslims about Sharia law.

The constitution says all are equal, the federal law is no discrimination. The state law is unclear but it doesn't over ride the constitution or the state and should be challenged in the court.

A business that can't sell its products to anyone is discrimination, and you cannot hide behind religious conviction to break the law. At least that's what you told the Muslims about Sharia law.

Where's the agree button?

Darnit, it's not here.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Tal, so Muslims have a right to stone an adulterous woman? Dude!

I ask you the same thing, is there ever a point the florist has the right to say no?

Why will no one answer my question?

Tal, so Muslims have a right to stone an adulterous woman? Dude!

I ask you the same thing, is there ever a point the florist has the right to say no?

Why will no one answer my question?

I already did, but my answer wasn't good enough.

If she had put a sign out stating that she's Christian and therefore doesn't believe in the rights of gays or gay marriage and won't sell to gays because of her beliefs, I wouldn't like her, but I would then say she's well within her rights to turn down this customer.

Why didn't she put out that sign? Because she was more than happy making money off the gays, until they crossed her supposed "religious" line. It's fine for them to buy flowers from her, work for her, as long as they don't get married.

I'd really like to see the exact quote from the bible that says that only gay marriage is un-Christian. I thought any gay activity was not allowed according to the bible.

Tal, so Muslims have a right to stone an adulterous woman? Dude!

Of course not! They have no right to use their religious convictions to commit a crime anymore than this florist does!

Just like in the bible:
Murder in the Bible (http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm)

So there is a law for Christians and a different one for everybody else?

The constitution says all are equal, the federal law is no discrimination. The state law is unclear but it doesn't over ride the constitution or the state and should be challenged in the court.

A business that can't sell its products to anyone is discrimination, and you cannot hide behind religious conviction to break the law. At least that's what you told the Muslims about Sharia law.

Love this part. So when do you think those gay couples are going to be filling out tax returns? That is a federal matter isn't it?

The question remains unanswered, is there ever a point the florist has the right to say no? Answer the question or stop your b!tching.

Hello again, Steve:


The question remains unanswered, is there ever a point the florist has the right to say no?If no discriminates against a protected class, they can't. It's not difficult. They can't discriminate against black people even if their religion tells them to do it. Same thing with gays.

You STILL think your religious rights trump a gays right. I don't know why you think you're special..

Excon

Love this part. So when do you think those gay couples are going to be filling out tax returns? That is a federal matter isnt it?

DOMA Supreme Court: Justice Kennedy Seen As Key Vote As Supreme Court Decides On DOMA This Month | KpopStarz (http://www.kpopstarz.com/articles/30145/20130604/doma-supreme-court-justice-kennedy.htm)

The question remains unanswered, is there ever a point the florist has the right to say no? Answer the question or stop your b!tching.

Sigh. For the third time:


If she had put a sign out stating that she's Christian and therefore doesn't believe in the rights of gays or gay marriage and won't sell to gays because of her beliefs, I wouldn't like her, but I would then say she's well within her rights to turn down this customer.

If she had put a sign out stating that she's Christian and therefore doesn't believe in the rights of gays or gay marriage and won't sell to gays because of her beliefs, I wouldn't like her, but I would then say she's well within her rights to turn down this customer.

Such a sign would be illegal.

Sigh. For the third time:

This is all turned around giving gays rights no one else has. The point is she has a right to refuse service and tough if a gay gets their nose out of joint

this is all turned around giving gays rights no one else has. The point is she has a right to refuse service and tough if a gay gets their nose out of joint
So he gets service during the week, but not on Saturday.

So he gets service during the week, but not on Saturday.

What you are denying here is the right to change your mind or uphold a principle. The community doesn't like it when Chrsitian principles are upheld. It likes to pay lip service to everything. As a small percentage of the population gays need to avoid antagonising the majority who tolerate them

as a small percentage of the population gays need to avoid antagonising the majority who tolerate them
What??

oh ;so he was just being a wise soothsayer ... he did not see these steps as a move towards his utopia ? I think he did .

I'll quote the 2 chapters above the list and the list


love this line " by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable" ..and yet the left still champions these remedies.

Tom, you just answered your own question yet again. Yes, he was a type of soothsayer. More correctly, he was an historicist in some instances and largely a dialectical materialist in most other instances. So yes, he did see this list as steps representing an inevitable move towards socialism and finally communism. That's the whole idea.

I think his theories are nonsense but that's beside the point. The point is that you have done a lot of colouring-in to highlight everything I am NOT disputing.

The question that I am asking is where in anything you have coloured is the reference to progressive taxation being a short term DEMAND?

What?????

Don't you understand english?

Tom, you just answered your own question yet again. Yes, he was a type of soothsayer. More correctly, he was an historicist in some instances and largely a dialectical materialist in most other instances. So yes, he did see this list as steps representing an inevitable move towards socialism and finally communism. That's the whole idea.

I think his theories are nonsense but that's beside the point. The point is that you have done a lot of colouring-in to highlight everything I am NOT disputing.

The question that I am asking is where in anything you have coloured is the reference to progressive taxation being a short term DEMAND?

You know and I know that the progressive movement took that list as marching orders ;and the only difference between the fabian ,socialist and communist state models is the rate of change ,and the degree of soft and hard tyranny used to achieve the ends.

you know and I know that the progressive movement took that list as marching orders ;and the only difference between the fabian ,socialist and communist state models is the rate of change ,and the degree of soft and hard tyranny used to achieve the ends.

Probably they did. But most were not scholars of Marx.

There is no way to prove this, but I suspect that the list was something tacked on towards the end of the largely Marxian contribution. Possibly at the behest of Engels.

P.S. Someone ought to consider changing that wikipedia entry.

In other words ex, you believe there is no line too far to cross in forcing someone to act against their religious beliefs, so the first amendment and Washington law are irrelevant.

you know and I know that the progressive movement took that list as marching orders ;and the only difference between the fabian ,socialist and communist state models is the rate of change ,and the degree of soft and hard tyranny used to achieve the ends.

You know Tom I would like to know what playbook you post from, It is certainly the fear playbook, you don't like anything you don't understand, and you just don't understand why all citizens should share in the wealth of the country. The powerful have to be brought to account otherwise all you have over there is a repeat of the roman empire and we know what happened to them

You know Tom I would like to know what playbook you post from, It is certainly the fear playbook, you don't like anything you don't understand, and you just don't understand why all citizens shoudl share in the wealth of the country. The powerful have to be brought to account otherwise all you have over there is a repeat of the roman empire and we know what happened to them

So let's forget about the American dream, that's so yesterday.

In other words ex, you believe there is no line too far to cross in forcing someone to act against their religious beliefs, so the first amendment and Washington law are irrelevent.

Maybe the problem is the line you draw is unreasonable and steps on the toes of others, and you guys instead of saying "excuse me", demand that other "get out of the way while you exercise YOUR rights".

Yeah we can draw lines of good behavior, and what's acceptable but if you cannot acknowledge the rights of others, don't expect them to acknowledge yours, or the lines you draw in the name of religious convictions.

You aren't the only ones with principles or convictions so stop acting like it!

Maybe the problem is the line you draw is unreasonable and steps on the toes of others, and you guys instead of saying "excuse me", demand that other "get out of the way while you exercise YOUR rights".

Yeah we can draw lines of good behavior, and what's acceptable but if you cannot acknowledge the rights of others, don't expect them to acknowledge yours, or the lines you draw in the name of religious convictions.

Excuse me, but how is it unreasonable to refer them to someone else? It isn't, the only side being unreasonable is yours, I've asked several times if there is a point at which forcing someone to violate their religious beliefs crosses a line and all I've gotten were crickets chirping. If there is a point, where is that line? I'm asking - either there is a point or there isn't, which is it?


You aren't the only ones with principles or convictions so stop acting like it!

Oh spare me the self-righteous crap, I'm the one trying to be flexible enough to make everyone happy. Reminds of that stupid "coexist" bumper sticker I saw this morning, you guys don't want to coexist with us at all - unless we adopt your views and behave the way you want. Sorry dude, but that ain't happening - it just pi$$es you guys off that we won't shut and go away or bow to your superior wisdom.

Hello again, Steve:


I'm the one trying to be flexible enough to make everyone happy. No, you're the one who wants to make the florist happy. You don't give a sh!t about the gay couple.

Excon

Hello again, Steve:

No, you're the one who wants to make the florist happy. You don't give a sh!t about the gay couple.

excon

Only in your world does referring someone to another florist that would be happy to do it = I don't give a sh!t about the gay couple. Hell, I would made the calls myself, given them cab fare to get over there and thrown in a dozen roses or a gift certificate just because. You won't budge at all my direction.

Hello again, Steve:

You won't budge at all my direction.Budge? If this florist can get away with discrimination, what makes you think that there would be ANY florists who'll sell to this couple?

Look.. I'm VERY sympathetic towards religion and your right to practice it. However, I DO draw the line when you want to practice it in the public square, and in the marketplace... A hospital is NOT a church.. My public square is NOT a church. Florist shops are NOT church's.

You see, when you practice your religion in your CHURCH, nobody's rights get violated... But, when you want to practice it in the public square, MY rights get violated, and when you want to practice it in the marketplace, LOTS of peoples rights get violated.

Keep your religion in CHURCH where it belongs.

Excon

unless we adopt your views and behave the way you want. Sorry dude, but that ain't happening - it just pi$$es you guys off that we won't shut and go away or bow to your superior wisdom.

That's the way America has always treated its minorities isn't it? It was called assimilation into the society. Okay they have assimilated and are no longer falling for YOUR superior wisdom. Even if you ask nicely and with flowers they no longer tolerate being asked to the back of the bus.

Yet you expect them too still don't you? Sure you do. You have often written that slavery and discrimination are over so get over it. Its your side that hasn't gotten over it. Discrimination is okay to you, except when its done to YOU.

Then you holler about YOUR rights.

PS, Not you personally, just your conservative and right wing brethren.

Hello again, Steve:
Budge? If this florist can get away with discrimination, what makes you think that there would be ANY florists who'll sell to this couple?

In other words I was right, there are no religious rights, there is no line that would violate my beliefs. If a satanist wanted me to slaughter a calf and sprinkle the blood on black roses while standing under a pentagram you'd think that was reasonable.


Look.. I'm VERY sympathetic towards religion and your right to practice it. However, I DO draw the line when you want to practice it in the public square, and in the marketplace... A hospital is NOT a church.. My public square is NOT a church. Florist shops are NOT church's.


You don't have the right to make a private business accommodate you in whatever way you wish, period. You think a Christian book store should have to sell someone the Satanic Bible if requested.


You see, when you practice your religion in your CHURCH, nobody's rights get violated... But, when you want to practice it in the public square, MY rights get violated, and when you want to practice it in the marketplace, LOTS of peoples rights get violated.

Keep your religion in CHURCH where it belongs.


As if liberals don't operate their businesses according to their beliefs. Bwa ha ha!!

Come on ex, your arguments are getting really moronic. Business owners don't lose their rights just because you say so. You'd absolutely hate it here, Christians proudly and openly display their faith at their businesses all over town. My faith belongs with me everywhere I go, get over it.

In other words I was right, there are no religious rights, there is no line that would violate my beliefs. If a satanist wanted me to slaughter a calf and sprinkle the blood on black roses while standing under a pentagram you'd think that was reasonable.
Why would he want you to do that?

You don't have the right to make a private business accommodate you in whatever way you wish, period. You think a Christian book store should have to sell someone the Satanic Bible if requested.
The florist question is not WHAT is sold, but WHO is allowed to be a customer. The correct parallel is that your Christian book store would refuse to sell religious material to "someone" (a Satanist?).

But that's not really appropriate either . She just refused to sell it to them for their "marriage " ceremony .

Why would he want you to do that?

The florist question is not WHAT is sold, but WHO is allowed to be a customer. The correct parallel is that your Christian book store would refuse to sell religious material to "someone" (a Satanist?).

Since my starting point was forcing a business owner to violate their religious beliefs I'll frame it however I wish thank you very much. Ex said religion should be kept out of the marketplace, how far does that go is still the question?

When does violating my religious beliefs as a business owner cross the line? Anywhere?

What part of my faith can I live in my business? Any of it?

I want answers, clear guidelines here, not shifting boundaries that move with whichever way the liberal wind is blowing today. I have freedom of religion, when, where and how can I exercise it with liberal approval?

I'd like to know that clause that says and individual can not either practice their faith in the market OR the public square.

Its none of her business what they want them for. Such prescreening for flowers? See l the flowers be done move on get over it. Just like her religious convictions are no one else's business.

As long as they have shoes and a shirt they should expect service. Its in the hands of a judge now so hold your water. But since you have your minds made up, may I point out that's prejudiced?

Hello wingers:

It's called the "establishment clause", tom.

If your faith includes not doing business with black people, you won't be able to practice it. There are people who are protected from discrimination by LAW.. I'm not sure if LGBT are on the federal or state list, but they're on the list in MY state.

So, if your religious rights run up against one of those peoples civil rights, you lose.

excon

The establishment clause prevents the state from forming a state religion (although I think the current progressive government has already violated that with it's secular religion) .It has nothing to do with a business owner practicing their faith or a groups of hikers finding a spot in the public park to have an informal prayer meeting .

If your faith includes not doing business with black people, you won't be able to practice it. canard... there is no religion real or invented that says that . Again... the beef here is being forced to create a flower arrangement for a gay "wedding " . She never refused selling flowers to gays because they were gay. Your law is in itself a discrimination against the florist shop owner .

When does violating my religious beliefs as a business owner cross the line? Anywhere?

When you refuse service based on sexual orientation.

Couple takes action against florist for anti-gay discrimination – LGBTQ Nation (http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2013/04/couple-takes-action-against-florist-for-anti-gay-discrimination/)


“We live in a diverse country, and when a business serves the general public, the business owner's religious beliefs may not be used to justify discrimination,” said ACLU cooperating attorney Michael Scott, who is representing the couple.

The Washington Law Against Discrimination (RCW 49.60.030), which prohibits discrimination because of sexual orientation, bars businesses from refusing to sell goods, merchandise, and services to any person because of their sexual orientation.

The courts have found that businesses open to the general public may not violate anti-discrimination laws, even on the basis of sincerely held religious beliefs, according to the ACLU.

The couple is seeking the following remedies:
That Arlene's Flowers agree not to refuse to provide flowers and other goods and services to any person on the basis of his or her sexual orientation.
That Arlene's Flowers agree to write a letter of apology to Mr. Freed and Mr. Ingersoll to be published in the Tri-City Herald.
That Arlene's Flowers agree to donate $5,000 to the Vista Youth Center in Kennewick, in lieu of payment of attorney's fees.

On Tuesday, Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson filed a consumer protection lawsuit against Stutzman, seeking a permanent injunction requiring her flower shop to comply with the state's consumer protection laws and at least $2,000 in fines.

What part of my faith can I live in my business? Any of it?

That depends how you comport yourself when interacting with your fellow human beings.

When does violating my religious beliefs as a business owner cross the line? Anywhere?

When you refuse service based on sexual orientation.

Couple takes action against florist for anti-gay discrimination – LGBTQ Nation (http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2013/04/couple-takes-action-against-florist-for-anti-gay-discrimination/)



What part of my faith can I live in my business? Any of it?

That depends how you comport yourself when interacting with your fellow human beings.

It's already been established that she sells flowers to and employs gays.

Hello again, Steve:


It's already been established that she sells flowers to and employs gays.She's not being prosecuted for the time she wasn't discriminating - only for the time she WAS.

Excon

Hello again, Steve:

She's not being prosecuted for the time she wasn't discriminating - only for the time she WAS.

excon

And you also believe a nurse that otherwise does a bang-up job should be punished for refusing to participate in an abortion for convenience sake. Or the pharmacy that refuses to sell the morning after pill, or the Catholic hospital that won't buy contraceptives for its employees or any other example of someone that should be punished or prosecuted when they aren't performing every service or selling every product to every person that demands whatever the hell you think they should be able to demand.

I'm done here, you guys have sufficiently proven you don't give a damn about our rights and are completely unreasonable and unwilling to find middle ground.

And you also believe a nurse that otherwise does a bang-up job should be punished for refusing to participate in an abortion for convenience sake.
Why is this nurse working for a doctor or clinic or hospital that does "convenience abortions"? (She was blindsided?) She needs to job hunt.

Please, enough condescension, I'm not stupid.

Hospital That Forced Nurse to Assist Abortion Changes Policy (http://www.lifenews.com/2013/02/12/hospital-that-forced-nurse-to-assist-abortion-changes-policy/)


The nurse and the patient have individual rights that are clearly supported in the ANA Code for Nurses with Interpretive Statements (2001). The registered professional nurse has professional obligations that must be maintained while providing care to women who choose to have abortions. Additionally, New York Civil Rights Law provides that “no person who refuses in writing on the basis of conscience or religious beliefs may be required to perform or assist in an abortion (http://www.nysna.org/practice/positions/position2_04.htm).”

Hospital Apologizes to Nurses Who Refused to Assist in Abortion (http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/05/06/hospital-apologizes-to-nurses-who-refused-to-assist-in-abortion/)


New Jersey nurses charge religious discrimination over hospital abortion policy (http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-11-27/national/35281603_1_nurses-charge-case-abortion-patients)

For decades, most states, including New Jersey, have had laws protecting nurses and other health-care workers who have moral objections to participating in abortions. In addition, federal laws, such as the Church Amendment, require health-care facilities that receive taxpayer money to permit workers to refuse on ethical grounds.

On Nov. 3, U.S. District Judge Jose L. Linares granted a request for a temporary restraining order barring the hospital from requiring the nurses to undergo training to care for abortion patients, pending a Dec. 5 hearing on the case, which involves 12 of the 16 nurses who work in the hospital’s same-day surgery unit.

Matt Bowman, an attorney representing the nurses, said he had received an e-mail from a lawyer for the hospital arguing that no laws had been broken, because the nurses are required to care for abortion patients only before and after the procedure.

“The pre- and post-operative care provided to these patients is the same nature as that provided to patients who have undergone other surgical procedures,” Edward B. Deutsch of McElry, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter of Morristown, N.J. wrote in the e-mail.

Bowman argued that requiring the nurses to get involved before and after an abortion violated their right to refuse based on their conscientious objections.

“Federal and state law explicitly prohibits requiring nurses to assist in abortion against their moral and religious convictions,” Bowman said. “All these nurses are asking is that they not have to assist in any part of an abortion case.”

One of the nurses, Fe Esperanza R. Vinoya, said a manager told her: “‘You just have to catch the baby’s head. Don’t worry, it’s already dead.’ ”

“Nursing is a healing profession, and the law protects our right not to provide any services related to abortion,” Vinoya said at a news conference this month.

The nurse was supported by LAW. The hospital was wrong, you think they'll make a law to refuse service to other humans because of religious convictions though?

I believe the pharmacist is settle law also, not sure if its under national or local jurisdiction.

When does violating my religious beliefs as a business owner cross the line? Anywhere?

When you refuse service based on sexual orientation.

Couple takes action against florist for anti-gay discrimination – LGBTQ Nation (http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2013/04/couple-takes-action-against-florist-for-anti-gay-discrimination/)



What part of my faith can I live in my business? Any of it?

That depends how you comport yourself when interacting with your fellow human beings.


Im glad they are pursuing it in this manner. The florist wins and case closed. You see she did not discriminate solely on the basis of them being gay but did so on being asked to participate in a religious ceremony that goes directly against her religion.


There is a difference.

Got a link to the judges ruling?

Got a link to the judges ruling?

Not yet. But look for it after it happens.

The nurse was supported by LAW. The hospital was wrong, you think they'll make a law to refuse service to other humans because of religious convictions though?

I believe the pharmacist is settle law also, not sure if its under national or local jurisdiction.

The florist is supported by law, I already showed that (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/3477651-post135.html).


In additional to federal constitutional protections, the Washington State Constitution also protects “freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief, and worship,” as stated in Article 1, Section 11.

So you're OK with someone refusing to perform services on religious grounds after all. Good.

Hello again,

Michell Bachmann is against gay marriage. I don't know why, I just like this picture of her. It must be her eyes..

Hello again,

Michell Bachmann is against gay marriage. I dunno why, I just like this picture of her. It must be her eyes..

Starting up the war on women again I see.

Michell Bachmann is against gay marriage.Which is ironic.

Which is ironic.

Why is it ironic?

Y'know.. her husband.

In case you're confused, here are the results of a Google search for "Michelle Bachman husband":
https://www.google.ca/#safe=active&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=michele+bachmann+husband&oq=michelle+bach&gs_l=hp.1.2.0i10j0j0i10l2.1959.8125.0.11019.13.13. 0.0.0.1.647.4296.0j5j2j1j2j3.13.0...0.0...1c.1.17. psy-ab.gAHAU-g2Z1g&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.47883778,d.dmg&fp=37a2d43d391be4e6&biw=1680&bih=899

In case you're confused, here are the results of a Google search for "Michelle Bachman husband":
https://www.google.ca/#safe=active&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=michele+bachmann+husband&oq=michelle+bach&gs_l=hp.1.2.0i10j0j0i10l2.1959.8125.0.11019.13.13. 0.0.0.1.647.4296.0j5j2j1j2j3.13.0...0.0...1c.1.17. psy-ab.gAHAU-g2Z1g&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.47883778,d.dmg&fp=37a2d43d391be4e6&biw=1680&bih=899

It's ironic because Cher's gaydar says so? And you were complaining about the level of discourse here yesterday, now that's ironic.

What's ironic you would deny the same rights you enjoy to others because YOU believe marriage is between a man and woman exclusively.

Its ironic that you keep defining what your rights are yet balk when others define their rights.

Live within your beliefs if you want, that is your right, but you also have to let others live within theirs. You don't have to agree to respect that within reason.

What's ironic you would deny the same rights you enjoy to others because YOU believe marriage is between a man and woman exclusively.

Its ironic that you keep defining what your rights are yet balk when others define their rights.

Live within your beliefs if you want, that is your right, but you also have to let others live within theirs. You don't have to agree to respect that within reason.

Oh get off your sanctimonious high horse. No one is more rigid about trying to define other's rights than progressives. This issue is like every other issue with your side, your idea of coming together for a solution means we move to your side or nothing doing.

You have no middle ground that opens up reasonable dialog. There is no meet you in the middle. Sanctimonious? Perhaps but no more than you.

No middle ground ? I think I've offered more than one reasonable and legal alternative. But your side ;it's gay marriage or nothing.

You have no middle ground that opens up reasonable dialog. There is no meet you in the middle. Sanctimonious? Perhaps but no more than you.

Dude, I accepted the original compromise from the LGBT community - civil unions - many years ago but they reneged. That's how it works with your side, just as I said.

What, you think I've forgotten? No, when I agree to someone's compromise and then says the deal's off the table and walks away, they can kiss my...

Its not up to you, or me at this point since its in the hands of the courts. There will be a ruling Thursday, likely a narrow opinion on prop 8 in California, and maybe on the constitutionality of DOMA.

But gay people have the right to push for their rights through the court the same way any American does. That's why we have a court to settle grievances lawfully whether you agree with the decision or not. They can appeal if they have grounds, any decision by any judge.

Isn't that how the system works? Opinion between us means nothing, and changes nothing.

Dude, I accepted the original compromise from the LGBT community - civil unions - many years ago but they reneged. That's how it works with your side, just as I said.

What, you think I've forgotten? No, when I agree to someone's compromise and then says the deal's off the table and walks away, they can kiss my....

The LBGT community changed their minds and pushed it to the SCOTUS. I don't think they will give up, state or federal, because you don't like it. They are exercising their rights as Americans.

Then don't accuse us of having no middle ground . It's there where you find no compromise.

The LBGT community changed their minds and pushed it to the SCOTUS. I don't think they will give up, state or federal, because you don't like it. They are exercising their rights as Americans.

So that's what you meant by "middle ground", having it imposed on us. See, I was right.

That's the law imposing on you, not me.

That's the law imposing on you, not me.

Trying to worm your way out of that "middle ground" thing now, eh?

Civil union rights ≠ rights given in marriage

Trying to worm your way out of that "middle ground" thing now, eh?

No, but opinions and reality are two different things because a gay person being married really means nothing to me, so my level of outrage and alarm doesn't rise to having to do anything at all. Nor is it disturbing in any way.

But I have the advantage of seeing this public outcry for what's fair, and what's not played out before and the courts are always where such disagreement play out. Why is this any different?

I mean the world won't come to an end if two gay people file a tax return jointly, and why should I care if they do? Why should I care what they call it? The court is the one to determine if the middle ground is the fair ground, whether you or I agree or not? Can we agree on that at least?

Fairness means we have to give in

Give in to what? You can marry who you want and call it what you want. Can't you?

civil union rights ≠ rights given in marriage

I see no reason why a civil union could not confer the same rights, but that wasn't the issue. The issue was being told I have no "middle ground" which is entirely untrue.

No, but opinions and reality are two different things because a gay person being married really means nothing to me, so my level of outrage and alarm doesn't rise to having to do anything at all. Nor is it disturbing in any way.

But I have the advantage of seeing this public outcry for what's fair, and what's not played out before and the courts are always where such disagreement play out. Why is this any different?

I mean the world won't come to an end if two gay people file a tax return jointly, and why should I care if they do? Why should I care what they call it? The court is the one to determine if the middle ground is the fair ground, whether you or I agree or not? Can we agree on that at least?

The point seems to have flown right over your head, you said we wouldn't compromise and we have so you're moving the goalpost and refusing to admit it isn't us with no "middle ground," it's you.

I have moved nothing. And I never agreed to any compromise before on this issue because I'm not gay. All I do is stated my opinions through out the debate on here and all the current events threads. Obviously in real life gay people have pressed on.

I stand by the opinion that the court is the only binding agreement there is subject to any appeal.

Hello:

Maybe our resident right wingers offered gay people equal stuff, their fellow Republican legislators didn't follow their lead... Not ONCE did Republicans offer something that equated to marriage, but wasn't. If they had, maybe gay people wouldn't have gone for the full ball of wax.. But, they didn't and gay people are. That's the way it is here.

excon

Give in to what? You can marry who you want and call it what you want. Can't you?

Not really. Suppose I found another woman besides my current wife that I loved also just as deeply. Would I be allowed to sanction that relationship by marrying that woman as well as keep my current wife?


Answer: Nope.

Polygamy is against the law. So I can't marry who I want nor can I call it what I want.