- Thread starter
- #801
And Coyote, I can't find the other post in which you used the argument that the person might be the only wedding planner around for miles. That should make no difference whatsoever. There is no fundamental right to have a wedding planner provided. Nobody can force somebody to go into business just because somebody wants access to such a business. And likewise, nobody should be able to force anybody to carry a product or service the business owner does not wish to carry just because somebody wants it. Just because a store is the ONLY one in the area does not mean the customers have any right to demand anything from it other than what the business owner chooses to offer.
Marriage is a fundamental right - one that is recognized by any civilized nation. Beyond that, there is the expectation that one will not, as a customer, be discrimminated against for reasons of race, religion, gender. That involves established law, and even thought that's barred from discussion it can't be totally omitted because it sets out what would be reasonable expectations for business' and customers. Those reasonable expectations are that anyone should be able to go into a store or to an event planner and be treated like any other customer assuming he can pay for it, behaves reasonably, and that what he is asking for is something the vender normally provides.
Do you go into each and every store wondering - will they sell me eggs? will they serve me lunch? will they rent me a hotel room? will they sell me a cake? I doubt it. You go in, knowing that you have the money to pay for it and expect to be served. If you have an event you want catered, the first thing you do is research venders who do those types of events. A wedding is a wedding and a same sex Christian based wedding is likely the same as a same sex heterosexual wedding in terms of preparation and supplies. The same expectations. There might be rejection based upon cost, unreasonable expectations, etc. or limitations set forth ahead of time by the vender (for example, they only do Hindu weddings).
We have two sets of rights here: the right of the vendor to refuse service for any reason and the right of a customer to be served in accordance to reasonable standards of expectation. None of these are constitutional or legal "rights" since we can't use law but they are rights none the less. Who's right is greater?
In my first post I used Condaleeza Rice's experiences growing up under segregation as an example.
There is no difference between a hotel owner refusing to let rooms to black couple than there is to a same-sex couple. They can claim they don't want their business to be associated with blacks in the same way that the wedding planner doesn't want her business associated with homosexuals. They can claim that they serve blacks in other capacities - they will bring a take out order from their dining room to be eaten in the car, they will let them fill up with gas at the pumps - but they will not rent them a hotel room.
What happens when 99% of the country believes that? According to you, no one is being discriminated against but the de facto situation is that yes - people are being discrimminated against and their rights are being infringed on - the rights that any reasonable person can expect from a business. That is the situation for which anti-discrimmination laws were set up to prevent proposing new laws to allow discrimination against certain classes again is a step backwards.
A business owner, when he operates his business, takes advantage of publically funded amenities - whether it's roads, infrastructure, special tax benefits, etc that allow him to more easily operate. What responsibility does that entail on the business in regards to the public he serves?
Lastly - a business is NOT an individual. An individual person who feels a situation violates his ethics, can refuse. The business can find someone else to fulfill the order in that individuals stead.
If I decline participation in your anti-gay marriage rally which you have every right to have but provide you services and products for any other of your organized rallies, you agreed I would not be discriminating against you as a person.
So how is it discriminating against people because they are gay if I decline to participate in a same sex wedding when I provide services and products for any other event requested by the same people?
In both cases, people have a fundamental right to organize and hold both events. Nobody is suggesting the couple should not be able to have their wedding and everything that goes with it. But what gives them a right to demand that a business owner be party to that when he chooses not to be? What of their rights is being violated? What of your rights has been violated if I won't be party to your anti-gay marriage rally?