Not dodging at all. If you consider a PA law to be unfair, then you should address the PA law. But that has absolutely nothing to do with whether US citizens are entitled to equal protection under the law.
and that has nothing to do with whether laws authorizing SSM force those not getting married to do anything......as pointed out, in the case of both the florist and the baker, the law authorizing SSM did in fact require them to do something.....thus, the claim that it didn't falls short of truth.....
There is absolutely nothing in any SSM law which authorizes any such thing. Show me one from any state which does.
oh come on....do you think you can win this argument by just pretending you don't see it?.......did we have bakers and florists and photographers being threatened with law suits for not providing services for gay weddings before states began allowing gay weddings?.....if allowing gay weddings permits law suits against those who don't want to provide services for gay weddings, then one cannot pretend that allowing gay marriage has no impact upon anyone other than the people getting married......to deny it merely demonstrates dishonesty......
I see what you are saying. It is just the two really aren't connected at all. When interracial marriages were found to be Constitutionally protected I am sure there were all kinds of people who didn't want to have to provide services to them. That does not mean interracial couples shouldn't be given the same rights as everyone else. I am certain that many of those people thought God didn't want the races to marry.
So, to answer honestly, what you are saying is there is a conflict of rights between people who want to get married and people who provide services to weddings. If the state says the providers can refuse because of their religious beliefs, then the people getting married will have to go somewhere else for them. I am fine with that. If the state says the providers can't refuse, then the providers will either have to provide the services to them or stop providing the services entirely. I am fine with that as well. But I am not fine with denying basic rights to an entire segment of our society just on the chance those providers might have to make that decision.
Should a Baptist be prevented from marrying because a Catholic florist might be required to provide services?
Hi
PratchettFan
Yes and no
It's been pointed out, over and over,
that RACE is not a behavior. Homosexual relations are a behavior.
Orientation is NOT PROVEN.
That's why there's such a legal and religious conflict over whether
gender is determined at birth as physical like RACE,
or if you can start "wandering into behavior" by saying gender is
what someone chooses to dress up like on the outside.
The people in support of recognizing gender and orientation
as an internal trait and not just a behavior on the outside
are trying to prove it is GENETIC to seal the argument.
In the meantime it is FAITH BASED.
so like any other FAITH BASED BELIEF it should be kept out of public policy
unless people agree.
People agree to the race rules, and agree to keep their beliefs in private,
so that isn't being challenged as the gender/orientation rules are being challenged by people who don't agree to keep these private. Also the rules on political beliefs haven't been formally challenged and that is happening now.
PratchettFan
as I've pointed out before,
people have gone through spiritual healing therapy and CHANGED
their lifestyle and relations, to and from either transgender, straight, gay, etc.
You can say they go back to their NATURAL self, but they go through a spiritual process to get there.
Nobody I know has ever changed their natural born race by going through spiritual healing.
So these are NOT on the same level.
If you ask me the REAL issue is CREED.
If people recognized and respected all these views and beliefs as CREEDS
then all can be treated equally in the eyes of the law.
But people on both sides keep wanting to push their creed over someone else.
So this is a violation of discrimination by creed, and both sides are equally guilty
unless they agree on consensus policies that satisfy and protect all CREEDS equally as the law calls for.
