Sorry, I still have an issue with
* shutting down Catholic adoption programs that cannot accommodate gay couples because of their beliefs
* suing businesses to stop them from hosting weddings if they don't believe in serving gay couples equally
AM I THE ONLY CONSTITUTIONALIST AND LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE PROCHOICE DEMOCRAT WHO
BELIEVES IN EQUAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM FOR PEOPLE BOTH FOR OR AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE?
BTW how I would solve the business lawsuit cases
1. for the wedding sites, allow this to be rented but require the couple to bring in their own hire staff and pay for insurance to cover any damages to the site if the management does not want to be present at a gay wedding
2. have businesses and customers sign WAIVERS in advance protecting both from legal actions or costs
should there be disputes or conflicts for ANY REASON: require instead either mediation by mediator chosen by the customer, or if that fails, arbitration by arbiter chosen by the business; or else agree to REFRAIN from doing business if the dispute cannot be resolved by consensus of both parties to avoid legal issues or expenses.
This would protect both sides, regardless of the reason, and regardless what their beliefs are that may conflict.
============================================================================
Political Smell Test: Evidence lacking for tie between marriage law, firing & lawsuit - Political Buzz
======================
Jim O’Reilly says: “A lesbian couple sued us for not supporting their gay wedding because of our Christian beliefs. We had to pay $30,000 and can no longer host any weddings at our inn.”
Goddard says: “I was a national sportscaster in Canada. When a sports agent spoke out in favor of traditional marriage, I sent a personal tweet that I agreed with him. The next day I was fired.”
Opponents are using the same footage for ads in Maine, where same-sex marriage is also on the ballot Nov. 6.
Chip White, the spokesman for opposition group Preserve Marriage Washington, said the ad “shows real-life examples of serious negative consequences that people can face when marriage is redefined.” In a news release, he also said: “The same thing will happen in Washington if R-74 is approved.”
R-74-backing Washington United for Marriage said the incidents its opponents bring up have nothing to do with laws on marriage. “We have six states plus the District of Columbia that have marriage,” campaign manager Zach Silk said, “and there has been ample evidence that there has been no increase in lawsuits there.”
THE FACTS:
In the ad, the people involved in the cases accurately describe what happened to them.
The tie between those incidents and Washington’s proposal to recognize same-sex marriage is less clear.
Same-sex marriage is legal in Vermont, but the O’Reillys and their inn ran afoul of the state’s public-accommodations law, not the marriage law.
A lesbian couple wanting to have a wedding reception, Kate and Ming Linsley, sued the Wildflower Inn after being turned away. The lawsuit was settled in August after the inn agreed to pay $30,000 and stop hosting weddings and receptions.
By signing the settlement agreement, the inn owners agreed that any future “disparate treatment of same-sex couples” is illegal, including “discouragement of the couples from using the accommodations, facilities, advantages and privileges of any place of public accommodation.”
Washington has a law already on the books that guarantees “the right to the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges of any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement” regardless of sexual orientation.
That won’t change whether R-74 passes or fails.
It is possible that legalizing same-sex marriage would make such clashes more likely in Washington, when thousands of gay couples look for places to have ceremonies. R-74 would allow churches and religious leaders to refuse to participate in weddings, but businesses still would fall under the accommodations law.
But based on the experience of other states, Washington doesn’t appear likely to see many lawsuits or claims. Officials at the human-rights agencies in Connecticut, New Hampshire and Massachusetts, which all recognize same-sex marriage, said they don’t know of any complaints by same-sex couples over businesses turning them away for marriages. Vermont’s agency said the Wildflower Inn was the only instance of that happening there.
One place where a similar case has cropped up: Illinois, where same-sex marriage isn’t legal. A gay couple there looking for a place to have their civil-union ceremony filed discrimination claims against two bed-and-breakfast inns. One case was dropped and the other is awaiting a hearing.
So such cases can pop up in states regardless of marriage laws, and opponents don’t provide evidence they are more common in states with same-sex marriage.
White noted there’s no “database system that can comb through all the millions of lawsuits in America and find all the ones that have to do with people’s beliefs about marriage.” But he said if cases are popping up in places without same-sex marriage, “it would only get worse if there is same-sex marriage.”
Similarly, opponents say people are losing their jobs or having their jobs threatened because of same-sex marriage laws, but don’t provide evidence that it’s more common in places with those laws. They point to the case of the Canadian broadcaster, Goddard, but they also cite the case of a teacher suspended in Florida, where same-sex marriage is not legal. The teacher had criticized New York’s marriage law, and was later reinstated, according to news reports.
* shutting down Catholic adoption programs that cannot accommodate gay couples because of their beliefs
* suing businesses to stop them from hosting weddings if they don't believe in serving gay couples equally
AM I THE ONLY CONSTITUTIONALIST AND LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE PROCHOICE DEMOCRAT WHO
BELIEVES IN EQUAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM FOR PEOPLE BOTH FOR OR AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE?
BTW how I would solve the business lawsuit cases
1. for the wedding sites, allow this to be rented but require the couple to bring in their own hire staff and pay for insurance to cover any damages to the site if the management does not want to be present at a gay wedding
2. have businesses and customers sign WAIVERS in advance protecting both from legal actions or costs
should there be disputes or conflicts for ANY REASON: require instead either mediation by mediator chosen by the customer, or if that fails, arbitration by arbiter chosen by the business; or else agree to REFRAIN from doing business if the dispute cannot be resolved by consensus of both parties to avoid legal issues or expenses.
This would protect both sides, regardless of the reason, and regardless what their beliefs are that may conflict.
============================================================================
Political Smell Test: Evidence lacking for tie between marriage law, firing & lawsuit - Political Buzz
======================
Jim O’Reilly says: “A lesbian couple sued us for not supporting their gay wedding because of our Christian beliefs. We had to pay $30,000 and can no longer host any weddings at our inn.”
Goddard says: “I was a national sportscaster in Canada. When a sports agent spoke out in favor of traditional marriage, I sent a personal tweet that I agreed with him. The next day I was fired.”
Opponents are using the same footage for ads in Maine, where same-sex marriage is also on the ballot Nov. 6.
Chip White, the spokesman for opposition group Preserve Marriage Washington, said the ad “shows real-life examples of serious negative consequences that people can face when marriage is redefined.” In a news release, he also said: “The same thing will happen in Washington if R-74 is approved.”
R-74-backing Washington United for Marriage said the incidents its opponents bring up have nothing to do with laws on marriage. “We have six states plus the District of Columbia that have marriage,” campaign manager Zach Silk said, “and there has been ample evidence that there has been no increase in lawsuits there.”
THE FACTS:
In the ad, the people involved in the cases accurately describe what happened to them.
The tie between those incidents and Washington’s proposal to recognize same-sex marriage is less clear.
Same-sex marriage is legal in Vermont, but the O’Reillys and their inn ran afoul of the state’s public-accommodations law, not the marriage law.
A lesbian couple wanting to have a wedding reception, Kate and Ming Linsley, sued the Wildflower Inn after being turned away. The lawsuit was settled in August after the inn agreed to pay $30,000 and stop hosting weddings and receptions.By signing the settlement agreement, the inn owners agreed that any future “disparate treatment of same-sex couples” is illegal, including “discouragement of the couples from using the accommodations, facilities, advantages and privileges of any place of public accommodation.”
Washington has a law already on the books that guarantees “the right to the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges of any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement” regardless of sexual orientation.
That won’t change whether R-74 passes or fails.
It is possible that legalizing same-sex marriage would make such clashes more likely in Washington, when thousands of gay couples look for places to have ceremonies. R-74 would allow churches and religious leaders to refuse to participate in weddings, but businesses still would fall under the accommodations law.
But based on the experience of other states, Washington doesn’t appear likely to see many lawsuits or claims. Officials at the human-rights agencies in Connecticut, New Hampshire and Massachusetts, which all recognize same-sex marriage, said they don’t know of any complaints by same-sex couples over businesses turning them away for marriages. Vermont’s agency said the Wildflower Inn was the only instance of that happening there.
One place where a similar case has cropped up: Illinois, where same-sex marriage isn’t legal. A gay couple there looking for a place to have their civil-union ceremony filed discrimination claims against two bed-and-breakfast inns. One case was dropped and the other is awaiting a hearing.
So such cases can pop up in states regardless of marriage laws, and opponents don’t provide evidence they are more common in states with same-sex marriage.
White noted there’s no “database system that can comb through all the millions of lawsuits in America and find all the ones that have to do with people’s beliefs about marriage.” But he said if cases are popping up in places without same-sex marriage, “it would only get worse if there is same-sex marriage.”
Similarly, opponents say people are losing their jobs or having their jobs threatened because of same-sex marriage laws, but don’t provide evidence that it’s more common in places with those laws. They point to the case of the Canadian broadcaster, Goddard, but they also cite the case of a teacher suspended in Florida, where same-sex marriage is not legal. The teacher had criticized New York’s marriage law, and was later reinstated, according to news reports.
