Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[UllysesS.Archer]

They baby Jesus grew up.

And Christ does not want us serving homosexual weddings. Try again.

Really? In what passage or verse did Jesus say that? Have you actually read what Jesus said? If so, I can't see how you can imagine the man who turned water into wine would refuse to serve anyone.

Do you know what is a New Testament sin? Debating religion on a message board. Have fun in hell with the gays and adulterers.

You thinking, you know what Jesus said, is funny.

You thinking you are God, and getting to judge anyone, is hilarious!

You don't see any irony in your post at all?

I'm pointing out what actually IS in the bible. New Testament and everything. Debating is a sin in the bible. Nothing in there about baking, sinner.

Don't tell me, show me, what chapter and verse, that way I can educate you.

I already provided you the link...it's right in the post you responded to, sinner.

Debating

Not a link, a chapter and verse. Unless of coarse you cant, but don't have the guts to admit that.

 

[Seawytch]

Really? In what passage or verse did Jesus say that? Have you actually read what Jesus said? If so, I can't see how you can imagine the man who turned water into wine would refuse to serve anyone.

Do you know what is a New Testament sin? Debating religion on a message board. Have fun in hell with the gays and adulterers.

You thinking, you know what Jesus said, is funny.

You thinking you are God, and getting to judge anyone, is hilarious!

You don't see any irony in your post at all?

I'm pointing out what actually IS in the bible. New Testament and everything. Debating is a sin in the bible. Nothing in there about baking, sinner.

Don't tell me, show me, what chapter and verse, that way I can educate you.

I already provided you the link...it's right in the post you responded to, sinner.

Debating

Not a link, a chapter and verse. Unless of coarse you cant, but don't have the guts to admit that.

The chapters and verses were at the link. Stop being lazy...that's a sin.

 

[Seawytch]

Really? In what passage or verse did Jesus say that? Have you actually read what Jesus said? If so, I can't see how you can imagine the man who turned water into wine would refuse to serve anyone.

Do you know what is a New Testament sin? Debating religion on a message board. Have fun in hell with the gays and adulterers.

You thinking, you know what Jesus said, is funny.

You thinking you are God, and getting to judge anyone, is hilarious!

You don't see any irony in your post at all?

I'm pointing out what actually IS in the bible. New Testament and everything. Debating is a sin in the bible. Nothing in there about baking, sinner.

Don't tell me, show me, what chapter and verse, that way I can educate you.

I already provided you the link...it's right in the post you responded to, sinner.

Debating

I didn't see anything saying it was a sin. And what are you doing here, arguing Scripture? Doesn't that also make you a sinner, not to mention a hypocrite?

Of course you don't...you're sinning and in denial.

(Pssst, I'm not a Christian and don't adhere to the silly concept of sin)

 

[dblack]

I think that the imposition to gay couples is small enough while the imposition to the baker (if they are working in good faith with genuine religious conviction and trying to do what they feel is right and in accordance with their religion....which I argue some are) is great enough that I'm inclined on giving a the baker a pass on this one issue.

As the degree of practical effect on a gay couple that will have to go to another baker doesn't come anywhere within several orders of magnitude of the practical effect of segregation or interracial marriage bans.

I think its a mistake to dismiss anyone who is adverse to making wedding products for gays as an 'anti-gay bigot'. While there are certainly many, I'd argue that there are some that genuinely have no animus toward gays, but are instead motivated by sincere religious belief and an aversion to offending God.

And that their needs are distinct from the bigots....and worthy of consideration.

I assume you're trying to be magnanimous here, but I really find the point of view offensive. Why should a person's right to discriminate depend on their reasons for doing so? In your example, why should a person who discriminates against gays because the great spirit in the sky told them to enjoy any more consideration than someone with a secular conviction that homosexuality is damaging to society?

 

[Syriusly]

So you believe only wedding businesses should get a special carve out? The deeply held beliefs of other businesses don't matter, just weddings?

I think that the imposition to gay couples is small enough while the imposition to the baker (if they are working in good faith with genuine religious conviction and trying to do what they feel is right and in accordance with their religion....which I argue some are) is great enough that I'm inclined on giving a the baker a pass on this one issue.

As the degree of practical effect on a gay couple that will have to go to another baker doesn't come anywhere within several orders of magnitude of the practical effect of segregation or interracial marriage bans.

I think its a mistake to dismiss anyone who is adverse to making wedding products for gays as an 'anti-gay bigot'. While there are certainly many, I'd argue that there are some that genuinely have no animus toward gays, but are instead motivated by sincere religious belief and an aversion to offending God.

And that their needs are distinct from the bigots....and worthy of consideration.

In general I agree with you. Though I am not certain that we would excuse 'sincere religious belief' much in context of many other discrimination.

I agree. Which is why 'sincere religious belief' is one of two criteria I'm using. The other is practical effect. The imposition on the gay couple is quite small. Instances of this are rare, and available alternatives are vast.

I'm aware of the potential for a slippery slope. And it concerns me. But I've met people of good character and genuine principles that oppose providing wedding products to gays that I believe have no animus toward gays. But are instead motivated by what they feel is right, moral and in accordance with their faith.

These folks are worthy of some consideration.

I would be fine with a solution that did not require any financial penalties for a first incident- but would require business's to change their business model in the future- either sell their products to everyone without discrimination or stop selling whatever products that they think would be a religious dilemma for them in the future.

I'd be open a full exemption on this one issue. Or at least a discussion of it.

Its an interesting differentiation- the florist in Washington for example- she seems to have a sincerely held religious belief, and doesn't appear to have any animus against homosexuals.

Of course most of the people arguing on her 'behalf' here- start from a position of animus against homosexuals and try to use the bible to rationalize it.

 

[Seawytch]

So you believe only wedding businesses should get a special carve out? The deeply held beliefs of other businesses don't matter, just weddings?

I think that the imposition to gay couples is small enough while the imposition to the baker (if they are working in good faith with genuine religious conviction and trying to do what they feel is right and in accordance with their religion....which I argue some are) is great enough that I'm inclined on giving a the baker a pass on this one issue.

As the degree of practical effect on a gay couple that will have to go to another baker doesn't come anywhere within several orders of magnitude of the practical effect of segregation or interracial marriage bans.

I think its a mistake to dismiss anyone who is adverse to making wedding products for gays as an 'anti-gay bigot'. While there are certainly many, I'd argue that there are some that genuinely have no animus toward gays, but are instead motivated by sincere religious belief and an aversion to offending God.

And that their needs are distinct from the bigots....and worthy of consideration.

In general I agree with you. Though I am not certain that we would excuse 'sincere religious belief' much in context of many other discrimination.

I agree. Which is why 'sincere religious belief' is one of two criteria I'm using. The other is practical effect. The imposition on the gay couple is quite small. Instances of this are rare, and available alternatives are vast.

I'm aware of the potential for a slippery slope. And it concerns me. But I've met people of good character and genuine principles that oppose providing wedding products to gays that I believe have no animus toward gays. But are instead motivated by what they feel is right, moral and in accordance with their faith.

These folks are worthy of some consideration.

I would be fine with a solution that did not require any financial penalties for a first incident- but would require business's to change their business model in the future- either sell their products to everyone without discrimination or stop selling whatever products that they think would be a religious dilemma for them in the future.

I'd be open a full exemption on this one issue. Or at least a discussion of it.

Its an interesting differentiation- the florist in Washington for example- she seems to have a sincerely held religious belief, and doesn't appear to have any animus against homosexuals.

Of course most of the people arguing on her 'behalf' here- start from a position of animus against homosexuals and try to use the bible to rationalize it.

How do we know she doesn't? Because she sold them flowers before? Do we know for certain she knew they were gay before their wedding?

And can't anyone who wanted to discriminate simply say it's because of their religion?

 

[Mr.Right]

So you believe only wedding businesses should get a special carve out? The deeply held beliefs of other businesses don't matter, just weddings?

I think that the imposition to gay couples is small enough while the imposition to the baker (if they are working in good faith with genuine religious conviction and trying to do what they feel is right and in accordance with their religion....which I argue some are) is great enough that I'm inclined on giving a the baker a pass on this one issue.

As the degree of practical effect on a gay couple that will have to go to another baker doesn't come anywhere within several orders of magnitude of the practical effect of segregation or interracial marriage bans.

I think its a mistake to dismiss anyone who is adverse to making wedding products for gays as an 'anti-gay bigot'. While there are certainly many, I'd argue that there are some that genuinely have no animus toward gays, but are instead motivated by sincere religious belief and an aversion to offending God.

And that their needs are distinct from the bigots....and worthy of consideration.

In general I agree with you. Though I am not certain that we would excuse 'sincere religious belief' much in context of many other discrimination.

I agree. Which is why 'sincere religious belief' is one of two criteria I'm using. The other is practical effect. The imposition on the gay couple is quite small. Instances of this are rare, and available alternatives are vast.

I'm aware of the potential for a slipper slope. And it concerns me. But I've met people of good character and genuine principles that oppose providing wedding products to gays that I believe have no animus toward gays. But are instead motivated by what they feel is right, moral and in accordance with their faith.

These folks are worthy of some consideration.

I would be fine with a solution that did not require any financial penalties for a first incident- but would require business's to change their business model in the future- either sell their products to everyone without discrimination or stop selling whatever products that they think would be a religious dilemma for them in the future.

I'd be open a full exemption on this one issue. Or at least a discussion of it.

So you believe only wedding businesses should get a special carve out? The deeply held beliefs of other businesses don't matter, just weddings?

I think that the imposition to gay couples is small enough while the imposition to the baker (if they are working in good faith with genuine religious conviction and trying to do what they feel is right and in accordance with their religion....which I argue some are) is great enough that I'm inclined on giving a the baker a pass on this one issue.

As the degree of practical effect on a gay couple that will have to go to another baker doesn't come anywhere within several orders of magnitude of the practical effect of segregation or interracial marriage bans.

I think its a mistake to dismiss anyone who is adverse to making wedding products for gays as an 'anti-gay bigot'. While there are certainly many, I'd argue that there are some that genuinely have no animus toward gays, but are instead motivated by sincere religious belief and an aversion to offending God.

And that their needs are distinct from the bigots....and worthy of consideration.

In general I agree with you. Though I am not certain that we would excuse 'sincere religious belief' much in context of many other discrimination.

I agree. Which is why 'sincere religious belief' is one of two criteria I'm using. The other is practical effect. The imposition on the gay couple is quite small. Instances of this are rare, and available alternatives are vast.

I'm aware of the potential for a slippery slope. And it concerns me. But I've met people of good character and genuine principles that oppose providing wedding products to gays that I believe have no animus toward gays. But are instead motivated by what they feel is right, moral and in accordance with their faith.

These folks are worthy of some consideration.

I would be fine with a solution that did not require any financial penalties for a first incident- but would require business's to change their business model in the future- either sell their products to everyone without discrimination or stop selling whatever products that they think would be a religious dilemma for them in the future.

I'd be open a full exemption on this one issue. Or at least a discussion of it.

Its an interesting differentiation- the florist in Washington for example- she seems to have a sincerely held religious belief, and doesn't appear to have any animus against homosexuals.

Of course most of the people arguing on her 'behalf' here- start from a position of animus against homosexuals and try to use the bible to rationalize it.

How do we know she doesn't? Because she sold them flowers before? Do we know for certain she knew they were gay before their wedding?

And can't anyone who wanted to discriminate simply say it's because of their religion?

How about we stay on topic. Do you believe that Christian churches should be forced to marry gays? Give me a simple yes or no.

 

[Skylar]

So you believe only wedding businesses should get a special carve out? The deeply held beliefs of other businesses don't matter, just weddings?

I think that the imposition to gay couples is small enough while the imposition to the baker (if they are working in good faith with genuine religious conviction and trying to do what they feel is right and in accordance with their religion....which I argue some are) is great enough that I'm inclined on giving a the baker a pass on this one issue.

As the degree of practical effect on a gay couple that will have to go to another baker doesn't come anywhere within several orders of magnitude of the practical effect of segregation or interracial marriage bans.

I think its a mistake to dismiss anyone who is adverse to making wedding products for gays as an 'anti-gay bigot'. While there are certainly many, I'd argue that there are some that genuinely have no animus toward gays, but are instead motivated by sincere religious belief and an aversion to offending God.

And that their needs are distinct from the bigots....and worthy of consideration.

In general I agree with you. Though I am not certain that we would excuse 'sincere religious belief' much in context of many other discrimination.

I agree. Which is why 'sincere religious belief' is one of two criteria I'm using. The other is practical effect. The imposition on the gay couple is quite small. Instances of this are rare, and available alternatives are vast.

I'm aware of the potential for a slippery slope. And it concerns me. But I've met people of good character and genuine principles that oppose providing wedding products to gays that I believe have no animus toward gays. But are instead motivated by what they feel is right, moral and in accordance with their faith.

These folks are worthy of some consideration.

I would be fine with a solution that did not require any financial penalties for a first incident- but would require business's to change their business model in the future- either sell their products to everyone without discrimination or stop selling whatever products that they think would be a religious dilemma for them in the future.

I'd be open a full exemption on this one issue. Or at least a discussion of it.

Its an interesting differentiation- the florist in Washington for example- she seems to have a sincerely held religious belief, and doesn't appear to have any animus against homosexuals.

Of course most of the people arguing on her 'behalf' here- start from a position of animus against homosexuals and try to use the bible to rationalize it.

The gays and the mormons have kinda 'broken bread' in Utah and come to some compromises. The State is moving forward on anti-gay discrimination legislation and religion-protection legislation. It seemed reasonable to me. Like people trying to understand and accommodate each other.

And it inspired me to clear the mental deck and have some pretty honest conversations with Christian friends of mine. The 'Love they Neighbor' Christians, not the 'God Hates Fags' Christians.

And I'm convinced at least some of these folks are genuinely motivated by sincere faith and no by any hostility toward gays. That their aversion to selling wedding products has to do with their relationship with God and not their relationship with gays.

I think there is some middle ground to be found on this specific and singular issue.

 

[Syriusly]

So you believe only wedding businesses should get a special carve out? The deeply held beliefs of other businesses don't matter, just weddings?

I think that the imposition to gay couples is small enough while the imposition to the baker (if they are working in good faith with genuine religious conviction and trying to do what they feel is right and in accordance with their religion....which I argue some are) is great enough that I'm inclined on giving a the baker a pass on this one issue.

As the degree of practical effect on a gay couple that will have to go to another baker doesn't come anywhere within several orders of magnitude of the practical effect of segregation or interracial marriage bans.

I think its a mistake to dismiss anyone who is adverse to making wedding products for gays as an 'anti-gay bigot'. While there are certainly many, I'd argue that there are some that genuinely have no animus toward gays, but are instead motivated by sincere religious belief and an aversion to offending God.

And that their needs are distinct from the bigots....and worthy of consideration.

In general I agree with you. Though I am not certain that we would excuse 'sincere religious belief' much in context of many other discrimination.

I agree. Which is why 'sincere religious belief' is one of two criteria I'm using. The other is practical effect. The imposition on the gay couple is quite small. Instances of this are rare, and available alternatives are vast.

I'm aware of the potential for a slipper slope. And it concerns me. But I've met people of good character and genuine principles that oppose providing wedding products to gays that I believe have no animus toward gays. But are instead motivated by what they feel is right, moral and in accordance with their faith.

These folks are worthy of some consideration.

I would be fine with a solution that did not require any financial penalties for a first incident- but would require business's to change their business model in the future- either sell their products to everyone without discrimination or stop selling whatever products that they think would be a religious dilemma for them in the future.

I'd be open a full exemption on this one issue. Or at least a discussion of it.

I think that the imposition to gay couples is small enough while the imposition to the baker (if they are working in good faith with genuine religious conviction and trying to do what they feel is right and in accordance with their religion....which I argue some are) is great enough that I'm inclined on giving a the baker a pass on this one issue.

As the degree of practical effect on a gay couple that will have to go to another baker doesn't come anywhere within several orders of magnitude of the practical effect of segregation or interracial marriage bans.

I think its a mistake to dismiss anyone who is adverse to making wedding products for gays as an 'anti-gay bigot'. While there are certainly many, I'd argue that there are some that genuinely have no animus toward gays, but are instead motivated by sincere religious belief and an aversion to offending God.

And that their needs are distinct from the bigots....and worthy of consideration.

In general I agree with you. Though I am not certain that we would excuse 'sincere religious belief' much in context of many other discrimination.

I agree. Which is why 'sincere religious belief' is one of two criteria I'm using. The other is practical effect. The imposition on the gay couple is quite small. Instances of this are rare, and available alternatives are vast.

I'm aware of the potential for a slippery slope. And it concerns me. But I've met people of good character and genuine principles that oppose providing wedding products to gays that I believe have no animus toward gays. But are instead motivated by what they feel is right, moral and in accordance with their faith.

These folks are worthy of some consideration.

I would be fine with a solution that did not require any financial penalties for a first incident- but would require business's to change their business model in the future- either sell their products to everyone without discrimination or stop selling whatever products that they think would be a religious dilemma for them in the future.

I'd be open a full exemption on this one issue. Or at least a discussion of it.

Its an interesting differentiation- the florist in Washington for example- she seems to have a sincerely held religious belief, and doesn't appear to have any animus against homosexuals.

Of course most of the people arguing on her 'behalf' here- start from a position of animus against homosexuals and try to use the bible to rationalize it.

How do we know she doesn't? Because she sold them flowers before? Do we know for certain she knew they were gay before their wedding?

And can't anyone who wanted to discriminate simply say it's because of their religion?

How about we stay on topic. Do you believe that Christian churches should be forced to marry gays? Give me a simple yes or no.

No.

For about the hundredth time in this thread.

Churches have every right to discriminate however they want. Churches should not and will not be forced to marry anyone they don't want to.
It hasn't happened in the 50 years since the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and it won't happen in the next 50 years.

 

[dblack]

So you believe only wedding businesses should get a special carve out? The deeply held beliefs of other businesses don't matter, just weddings?

I think that the imposition to gay couples is small enough while the imposition to the baker (if they are working in good faith with genuine religious conviction and trying to do what they feel is right and in accordance with their religion....which I argue some are) is great enough that I'm inclined on giving a the baker a pass on this one issue.

As the degree of practical effect on a gay couple that will have to go to another baker doesn't come anywhere within several orders of magnitude of the practical effect of segregation or interracial marriage bans.

I think its a mistake to dismiss anyone who is adverse to making wedding products for gays as an 'anti-gay bigot'. While there are certainly many, I'd argue that there are some that genuinely have no animus toward gays, but are instead motivated by sincere religious belief and an aversion to offending God.

And that their needs are distinct from the bigots....and worthy of consideration.

In general I agree with you. Though I am not certain that we would excuse 'sincere religious belief' much in context of many other discrimination.

I agree. Which is why 'sincere religious belief' is one of two criteria I'm using. The other is practical effect. The imposition on the gay couple is quite small. Instances of this are rare, and available alternatives are vast.

I'm aware of the potential for a slipper slope. And it concerns me. But I've met people of good character and genuine principles that oppose providing wedding products to gays that I believe have no animus toward gays. But are instead motivated by what they feel is right, moral and in accordance with their faith.

These folks are worthy of some consideration.

I would be fine with a solution that did not require any financial penalties for a first incident- but would require business's to change their business model in the future- either sell their products to everyone without discrimination or stop selling whatever products that they think would be a religious dilemma for them in the future.

I'd be open a full exemption on this one issue. Or at least a discussion of it.

In general I agree with you. Though I am not certain that we would excuse 'sincere religious belief' much in context of many other discrimination.

I agree. Which is why 'sincere religious belief' is one of two criteria I'm using. The other is practical effect. The imposition on the gay couple is quite small. Instances of this are rare, and available alternatives are vast.

I'm aware of the potential for a slippery slope. And it concerns me. But I've met people of good character and genuine principles that oppose providing wedding products to gays that I believe have no animus toward gays. But are instead motivated by what they feel is right, moral and in accordance with their faith.

These folks are worthy of some consideration.

I would be fine with a solution that did not require any financial penalties for a first incident- but would require business's to change their business model in the future- either sell their products to everyone without discrimination or stop selling whatever products that they think would be a religious dilemma for them in the future.

I'd be open a full exemption on this one issue. Or at least a discussion of it.

Its an interesting differentiation- the florist in Washington for example- she seems to have a sincerely held religious belief, and doesn't appear to have any animus against homosexuals.

Of course most of the people arguing on her 'behalf' here- start from a position of animus against homosexuals and try to use the bible to rationalize it.

How do we know she doesn't? Because she sold them flowers before? Do we know for certain she knew they were gay before their wedding?

And can't anyone who wanted to discriminate simply say it's because of their religion?

How about we stay on topic. Do you believe that Christian churches should be forced to marry gays? Give me a simple yes or no.

No.

For about the hundredth time in this thread.

Churches have every right to discriminate however they want. Churches should not and will not be forced to marry anyone they don't want to.
It hasn't happened in the 50 years since the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and it won't happen in the next 50 years.

Why should they get a pass when no one else does?

 

[Syriusly]

I think that the imposition to gay couples is small enough while the imposition to the baker (if they are working in good faith with genuine religious conviction and trying to do what they feel is right and in accordance with their religion....which I argue some are) is great enough that I'm inclined on giving a the baker a pass on this one issue.

As the degree of practical effect on a gay couple that will have to go to another baker doesn't come anywhere within several orders of magnitude of the practical effect of segregation or interracial marriage bans.

I think its a mistake to dismiss anyone who is adverse to making wedding products for gays as an 'anti-gay bigot'. While there are certainly many, I'd argue that there are some that genuinely have no animus toward gays, but are instead motivated by sincere religious belief and an aversion to offending God.

And that their needs are distinct from the bigots....and worthy of consideration.

In general I agree with you. Though I am not certain that we would excuse 'sincere religious belief' much in context of many other discrimination.

I agree. Which is why 'sincere religious belief' is one of two criteria I'm using. The other is practical effect. The imposition on the gay couple is quite small. Instances of this are rare, and available alternatives are vast.

I'm aware of the potential for a slipper slope. And it concerns me. But I've met people of good character and genuine principles that oppose providing wedding products to gays that I believe have no animus toward gays. But are instead motivated by what they feel is right, moral and in accordance with their faith.

These folks are worthy of some consideration.

I would be fine with a solution that did not require any financial penalties for a first incident- but would require business's to change their business model in the future- either sell their products to everyone without discrimination or stop selling whatever products that they think would be a religious dilemma for them in the future.

I'd be open a full exemption on this one issue. Or at least a discussion of it.

I agree. Which is why 'sincere religious belief' is one of two criteria I'm using. The other is practical effect. The imposition on the gay couple is quite small. Instances of this are rare, and available alternatives are vast.

I'm aware of the potential for a slippery slope. And it concerns me. But I've met people of good character and genuine principles that oppose providing wedding products to gays that I believe have no animus toward gays. But are instead motivated by what they feel is right, moral and in accordance with their faith.

These folks are worthy of some consideration.

I'd be open a full exemption on this one issue. Or at least a discussion of it.

Its an interesting differentiation- the florist in Washington for example- she seems to have a sincerely held religious belief, and doesn't appear to have any animus against homosexuals.

Of course most of the people arguing on her 'behalf' here- start from a position of animus against homosexuals and try to use the bible to rationalize it.

How do we know she doesn't? Because she sold them flowers before? Do we know for certain she knew they were gay before their wedding?

And can't anyone who wanted to discriminate simply say it's because of their religion?

How about we stay on topic. Do you believe that Christian churches should be forced to marry gays? Give me a simple yes or no.

No.

For about the hundredth time in this thread.

Churches have every right to discriminate however they want. Churches should not and will not be forced to marry anyone they don't want to.
It hasn't happened in the 50 years since the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and it won't happen in the next 50 years.

Why should they get a pass when no one else does?

As Skylar has pointed out before- Churches are by nature discriminatory.

Want to be a Jew- you need to either be born into it- or jump through the proper hoops and meet all the requirements.
Want to be a Catholic- you need to go through the whole process- and if you are not Catholic the church discriminates against you.
And if you are a Catholic- and a woman- the church discriminates against you.

'no one else does' - public accommodation laws only apply to business's- not to individuals not engaged in business, not to Churches.

No business gets a pass- but churches are not business's

 

[Skylar]

So you believe only wedding businesses should get a special carve out? The deeply held beliefs of other businesses don't matter, just weddings?

I think that the imposition to gay couples is small enough while the imposition to the baker (if they are working in good faith with genuine religious conviction and trying to do what they feel is right and in accordance with their religion....which I argue some are) is great enough that I'm inclined on giving a the baker a pass on this one issue.

As the degree of practical effect on a gay couple that will have to go to another baker doesn't come anywhere within several orders of magnitude of the practical effect of segregation or interracial marriage bans.

I think its a mistake to dismiss anyone who is adverse to making wedding products for gays as an 'anti-gay bigot'. While there are certainly many, I'd argue that there are some that genuinely have no animus toward gays, but are instead motivated by sincere religious belief and an aversion to offending God.

And that their needs are distinct from the bigots....and worthy of consideration.

In general I agree with you. Though I am not certain that we would excuse 'sincere religious belief' much in context of many other discrimination.

I agree. Which is why 'sincere religious belief' is one of two criteria I'm using. The other is practical effect. The imposition on the gay couple is quite small. Instances of this are rare, and available alternatives are vast.

I'm aware of the potential for a slippery slope. And it concerns me. But I've met people of good character and genuine principles that oppose providing wedding products to gays that I believe have no animus toward gays. But are instead motivated by what they feel is right, moral and in accordance with their faith.

These folks are worthy of some consideration.

I would be fine with a solution that did not require any financial penalties for a first incident- but would require business's to change their business model in the future- either sell their products to everyone without discrimination or stop selling whatever products that they think would be a religious dilemma for them in the future.

I'd be open a full exemption on this one issue. Or at least a discussion of it.

Its an interesting differentiation- the florist in Washington for example- she seems to have a sincerely held religious belief, and doesn't appear to have any animus against homosexuals.

Of course most of the people arguing on her 'behalf' here- start from a position of animus against homosexuals and try to use the bible to rationalize it.

How do we know she doesn't? Because she sold them flowers before? Do we know for certain she knew they were gay before their wedding?

And can't anyone who wanted to discriminate simply say it's because of their religion?

Its a pickle. Because there are going to be a lot of assholes who use this as a way of excusing their own personal bigotry. I'm not pleased with the folks that are sending me their agreement in PM or thanking me for my posts.

But with the bigots there are people of sincere faith and genuine moral conviction who are following what they believe in the context of their faith. I find it ....distasteful.....to penalize someone or dismantle their business because they are doing what they genuinely feel is right. Especially when its a sincere and closely held religious belief.

Yet even that alone is not enough. The practical imposition to gays is also a factor. And an occasional baker or photographer refusing to provide goods and services to a wedding is a relatively minor imposition given the vast array of alternatives available. With the overwhelming majority of businesses either willing to or compete for the chance to bake that wedding cake. While the imposition to the baker penalized tens of thousands of dollars for sincere religious belief is quite severe.

Which is why on this one issue, I'm inclined to give the bakers and photographers a pass on providing wedding products. Even though it casts shade for the bigots and assholes out there.

 

[Syriusly]

So you believe only wedding businesses should get a special carve out? The deeply held beliefs of other businesses don't matter, just weddings?

I think that the imposition to gay couples is small enough while the imposition to the baker (if they are working in good faith with genuine religious conviction and trying to do what they feel is right and in accordance with their religion....which I argue some are) is great enough that I'm inclined on giving a the baker a pass on this one issue.

As the degree of practical effect on a gay couple that will have to go to another baker doesn't come anywhere within several orders of magnitude of the practical effect of segregation or interracial marriage bans.

I think its a mistake to dismiss anyone who is adverse to making wedding products for gays as an 'anti-gay bigot'. While there are certainly many, I'd argue that there are some that genuinely have no animus toward gays, but are instead motivated by sincere religious belief and an aversion to offending God.

And that their needs are distinct from the bigots....and worthy of consideration.

In general I agree with you. Though I am not certain that we would excuse 'sincere religious belief' much in context of many other discrimination.

I agree. Which is why 'sincere religious belief' is one of two criteria I'm using. The other is practical effect. The imposition on the gay couple is quite small. Instances of this are rare, and available alternatives are vast.

I'm aware of the potential for a slipper slope. And it concerns me. But I've met people of good character and genuine principles that oppose providing wedding products to gays that I believe have no animus toward gays. But are instead motivated by what they feel is right, moral and in accordance with their faith.

These folks are worthy of some consideration.

I would be fine with a solution that did not require any financial penalties for a first incident- but would require business's to change their business model in the future- either sell their products to everyone without discrimination or stop selling whatever products that they think would be a religious dilemma for them in the future.

I'd be open a full exemption on this one issue. Or at least a discussion of it.

I think that the imposition to gay couples is small enough while the imposition to the baker (if they are working in good faith with genuine religious conviction and trying to do what they feel is right and in accordance with their religion....which I argue some are) is great enough that I'm inclined on giving a the baker a pass on this one issue.

As the degree of practical effect on a gay couple that will have to go to another baker doesn't come anywhere within several orders of magnitude of the practical effect of segregation or interracial marriage bans.

I think its a mistake to dismiss anyone who is adverse to making wedding products for gays as an 'anti-gay bigot'. While there are certainly many, I'd argue that there are some that genuinely have no animus toward gays, but are instead motivated by sincere religious belief and an aversion to offending God.

And that their needs are distinct from the bigots....and worthy of consideration.

In general I agree with you. Though I am not certain that we would excuse 'sincere religious belief' much in context of many other discrimination.

I agree. Which is why 'sincere religious belief' is one of two criteria I'm using. The other is practical effect. The imposition on the gay couple is quite small. Instances of this are rare, and available alternatives are vast.

I'm aware of the potential for a slippery slope. And it concerns me. But I've met people of good character and genuine principles that oppose providing wedding products to gays that I believe have no animus toward gays. But are instead motivated by what they feel is right, moral and in accordance with their faith.

These folks are worthy of some consideration.

I would be fine with a solution that did not require any financial penalties for a first incident- but would require business's to change their business model in the future- either sell their products to everyone without discrimination or stop selling whatever products that they think would be a religious dilemma for them in the future.

I'd be open a full exemption on this one issue. Or at least a discussion of it.

Its an interesting differentiation- the florist in Washington for example- she seems to have a sincerely held religious belief, and doesn't appear to have any animus against homosexuals.

Of course most of the people arguing on her 'behalf' here- start from a position of animus against homosexuals and try to use the bible to rationalize it.

How do we know she doesn't? Because she sold them flowers before? Do we know for certain she knew they were gay before their wedding?

And can't anyone who wanted to discriminate simply say it's because of their religion?

How about we stay on topic. Do you believe that Christian churches should be forced to marry gays? Give me a simple yes or no.

I noticed you started a topic with a link to Prison Planet.

Is that the source of your 'knowledge?

 

[dblack]

As Skylar has pointed out before- Churches are by nature discriminatory.

...'no one else does' - public accommodation laws only apply to business's- not to individuals not engaged in business, not to Churches.

Ok. Bigots are by nature discriminatory too. Why to business owned by bigots get targeted but churches do not?

What about individuals engaged in business? (aka 'customers') Are they allowed to discriminate?

No business gets a pass- but churches are not business's

Churches are very definitely businesses. Sometimes highly profitable businesses.

 

[Skylar]

As Skylar has pointed out before- Churches are by nature discriminatory.

...'no one else does' - public accommodation laws only apply to business's- not to individuals not engaged in business, not to Churches.

Ok. Bigots are by nature discriminatory too. Why to business owned by bigots get targeted but churches do not?

Because we've decided they don't.

And yup, we prioritize one form of discrimination over another.

And?

 

[Syriusly]

As Skylar has pointed out before- Churches are by nature discriminatory.

...'no one else does' - public accommodation laws only apply to business's- not to individuals not engaged in business, not to Churches.

Ok. Bigots are by nature discriminatory too. Why to business owned by bigots get targeted but churches do not?

What about individuals engaged in business? (aka 'customers') Are they allowed to discriminate?

No business gets a pass- but churches are not business's

Churches are very definitely businesses. Sometimes highly profitable businesses.

Do you know the reason why we have public accommodation laws?

 

[dblack]

As Skylar has pointed out before- Churches are by nature discriminatory.

...'no one else does' - public accommodation laws only apply to business's- not to individuals not engaged in business, not to Churches.

Ok. Bigots are by nature discriminatory too. Why to business owned by bigots get targeted but churches do not?

What about individuals engaged in business? (aka 'customers') Are they allowed to discriminate?

No business gets a pass- but churches are not business's

Churches are very definitely businesses. Sometimes highly profitable businesses.

Do you know the reason why we have public accommodation laws?

To target unpopular biases for suppression.

 

[dblack]

As Skylar has pointed out before- Churches are by nature discriminatory.

...'no one else does' - public accommodation laws only apply to business's- not to individuals not engaged in business, not to Churches.

Ok. Bigots are by nature discriminatory too. Why to business owned by bigots get targeted but churches do not?

Because we've decided they don't.

And yup, we prioritize one form of discrimination over another.

And?

Does that seem anything at all like equal rights to you? We might agree with what government is telling people to think now, but what about when we don't? Will you still support the power of government to target minority opinions for special penalties? How will you feel when your opinions are in the minority?

 

[Skylar]

As Skylar has pointed out before- Churches are by nature discriminatory.

...'no one else does' - public accommodation laws only apply to business's- not to individuals not engaged in business, not to Churches.

Ok. Bigots are by nature discriminatory too. Why to business owned by bigots get targeted but churches do not?

Because we've decided they don't.

And yup, we prioritize one form of discrimination over another.

And?

Does that seem anything at all like equal rights to you? We might agree with what government is telling people to think now, but what about when we don't? Will you still support the power of government to target minority opinions for special penalties? How will you feel when your opinions are in the minority?

If you want government free marriage, you've got it. Just have a ceremony without any government involvement.

For those who do want the protection of legally recognized marriage, that option is available to them.

Seems like a win-win to me.

 

[dblack]

As Skylar has pointed out before- Churches are by nature discriminatory.

...'no one else does' - public accommodation laws only apply to business's- not to individuals not engaged in business, not to Churches.

Ok. Bigots are by nature discriminatory too. Why to business owned by bigots get targeted but churches do not?

Because we've decided they don't.

And yup, we prioritize one form of discrimination over another.

And?

Does that seem anything at all like equal rights to you? We might agree with what government is telling people to think now, but what about when we don't? Will you still support the power of government to target minority opinions for special penalties? How will you feel when your opinions are in the minority?

If you want government free marriage, you've got it. Just have a ceremony without any government involvement.

For those who do want the protection of legally recognized marriage, that option is available to them.

Seems like a win-win to me.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Were you responding to someone else's post perhaps?