23
   

The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

 
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Aug, 2013 11:40 am
@joefromchicago,
I also said that this was the beginning of the slope referring to the slippery slope that these things lean on.

Quote:
This was the one thing that I found unacceptable with gay marriage and look, here it is already. A private company being forced by the state to go against their beliefs. This is how the slope starts...


I did not say, imply or implicate these photographers as a religious institution, I said that was my fear. Now we have the first law suit against someone that does not wish to participate in a gay marriage ceremony being sued because they broke a human rights law?! How long before a church is sued for not letting a couple use their facilities?

I really think you had to go pretty far out of your way to stretch what I said to mean what you think it said...
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Aug, 2013 11:47 am
@McGentrix,
Quote:
I also said that this was the beginning of the slope referring to the slippery slope that these things lean on.


Are you quoting Sarah Palin here, McG?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  0  
Reply Fri 23 Aug, 2013 12:03 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:
I really think you had to go pretty far out of your way to stretch what I said to mean what you think it said...

I didn't have to go far at all. It was in your post. You talked about religious institutions, but your example was of a photographer. If you didn't want to equate the two, then why did you mention religious institutions at all?

As it is, there's a very good reason why this isn't an example of the "slippery slope" that will lead to the gays forcing religious institutions to conduct gay marriages. That's because churches, unlike wedding photographers, are protected under the first amendment. Nobody who advocates gay marriage seriously thinks that churches will be forced to conduct gay weddings. That's just a conservative paranoid fantasy.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Aug, 2013 12:57 pm
@joefromchicago,
Out of curiosity: Is there a case in America's legal history where a church refused to marry a mixed-race couple, the couple sued, and the court forced the church to administer the ceremony?
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Aug, 2013 01:16 pm
@Thomas,
I can't think of any. Churches can always pick and choose who they'll marry. Often, a church will refuse to marry a couple unless at least one of the spouses-to-be is a member of that church, and that's not illegal. On the other hand, if a hotel refused to provide rooms to, say, non-Catholics, that would be a big deal.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Aug, 2013 01:19 pm
@joefromchicago,
That's kind of what I thought. And since social mores today would stigmatize a church for refusing such a ceremony much more strongly than for refusing to marry gays, I think it's safe to say that conservative churches have nothing to fear here.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 23 Aug, 2013 01:31 pm
@joefromchicago,
Does that mean a private business should be forced to do something that goes against their beliefs? Let's be honest wouldn't voting with your wallet make a better choice?

If some private business didn't want to take pictures of a gay wedding, then you spread the news about such a business. If they don't want to do a gay wedding then so be it, but let all your friends know about it and I'm sure they will see a drop in business. Gay marriage is going to become a big industry and those who do not support it will not benefit from it. If there are business's that are more than happy to support a gay wedding then they will reap the rewards when word gets out that they are supports. Their business will boom and the others with suffer. Just watch how it plays out.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Aug, 2013 01:32 pm
On a tangent, I'm finding it fun to revisit this ancient thread and see how it's forcing me to mark my former beliefs to value. Take this prediction of mine, for example:

Blatham, citing some newspaper article about the Massachussets' Supreme Court's opinion wrote:
Quote:
[. . .] "For no rational reason the marriage laws of the Commonwealth discriminate against a defined class; no amount of tinkering with language will eradicate that stain. The bill would have the effect of maintaining and fostering a stigma of exclusion that the Constitution prohibits. It would deny to same-sex "spouses" only a status that is specially recognized in society and has significant social and other advantages. The Massachusetts Constitution, as was explained in the Goodridge opinion, does not permit such invidious discrimination, no matter how well intentioned."

The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal," the four justices who ruled in favor of gay marriage wrote in the advisory opinion. The bill that would allow for civil unions, but falls short of marriage, is makes for "unconstitutional, inferior, and discriminatory status for same-sex couples."


The above is, as I'm sure you recognize, from the finding of the Massachusetts SC from last year.

In response, Thomas wrote:
Yes. And I predict it will be overridden within 10 years at most -- either by the Federal Supreme Court or by a change in the Massachussetts constitution.

I've made some pretty good calls in my life on A2K, but this is certainly not one of them.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Aug, 2013 01:44 pm
@Baldimo,
Baldimo wrote:

Does that mean a private business should be forced to do something that goes against their beliefs?

Businesses don't have beliefs. They're legal fictions. Business owners have beliefs, but then they also have to obey the law. In New Mexico, apparently, photographers are classified as "public accommodations." Frankly, I find that a bit unusual, but that's what the New Mexico legislature said and so that's the law that wedding photographers have to follow. If they don't want to follow that law, then they'll need to find another profession.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  0  
Reply Fri 23 Aug, 2013 01:55 pm
@Baldimo,
Baldimo wrote:
Does that mean a private business should be forced to do something that goes against their beliefs?

If the private business is also a public accomodation, then yes. An old-fashioned Mormon inn-keeper may well believe, consistent with the Book of Mormon, that "a skin of blackness" is a curse that god casts upon people of bad character. Nevertheless, because his inn is a public accommodation, he can't refuse service to Blacks and Native Americans. The wedding photographers here are a public accomodation, and have never contested that they were. So they can't discriminate any more than inn keepers can.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Aug, 2013 02:44 pm
And in the news yesterday, the county clerk of Dona Ana county in New Mexico decided on his own that same sex marriage was now constitutional and started issuing licenses to same-sex couples. without consulting anyone higher up. Forty couples were married. The state has no plans to contest the marriages.
0 Replies
 
jcboy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Nov, 2013 01:51 pm
These Christians can't even stand a play that has nothing to do with them, has nothing to do with their religion or anything but they just can't help themselves from infringing on the rights of those who aren't Christian which is WHY I fight to not have to live in a world with these people who infringe my rights by constantly making my life their battles and having to live under the thumb of a majority dominance of laws created for them by them. I’m I angry? You ******* betcha! If I wasn’t angry I’d be a coward, or a bigot, or a gay that has Stockholm syndrome.

SALLY KERN'S HUSBAND ARRANGES PRAYER PROTEST OF GAY-THEMED PLAY IN OKLAHOMA

Quote:
The Oklahoma City Theatre Company will be releasing a production of "The Most Fabulous Story Ever Told" to run December 5-22, and some of the pastors in the area are taking offense. The play tells the story of Adam and Steve, who leave the Garden of Eden to encounter the Earth's first inhabitants, a pair of lesbians named Jane and Mabel. Reverend Steve Kern cannot abide what he is calling an "open display of intolerance, irreverence and disrespect for the faith of the majority of citizens of this city,” and has organized a prayer protest to take place on December 6 outside the theater.

Rev. Kern, husband of the reprehensible Sally "Gays are worse than terrorists" Kern, insists that it will be a peaceful, quiet protest with no "yelling or screaming anything." What Kern is precisely protesting is uncertain, particularly since the nudity has been removed from this production, but the fact that the play has any sort of positive gay theme seems to be enough. Without a trace of irony or ounce of self-awarness, Kern said, “I just feel like we as Christians need to begin speaking out publicly about things like this. We've been silent for far too long.”

The theater company's artistic director Rachel Irick is unfazed by all the hoopla. In fact, she finds it all interesting as they've "never been protested to this extent." While the prayer vigil doesn't bother her in the slightest and will have no impact on the show proceeding as planned, she did have a rather insightful remark: “Have they considered Christ's words in Matthew 6:5? Christ never spoke against homosexuals, but he did condemn praying on street corners for the purpose of being seen.”



http://towleroad.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c730253ef019b0137ae5a970d-pi
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Nov, 2013 02:53 pm
@jcboy,
Neat photo and naturally I agree with your view of the Kerns.
0 Replies
 
tsarstepan
 
  0  
Reply Fri 22 Nov, 2013 02:44 pm
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Fri 22 Nov, 2013 07:29 pm
@tsarstepan,
Looks like Joe Rogan needs some Rogaine.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New York New York! - Discussion by jcboy
Prop 8? - Discussion by majikal
Gay Marriage - Discussion by blatham
Gay Marriage -- An Old Post Revisited - Discussion by pavarasra
Who doesn't back gay marriage? - Question by The Pentacle Queen
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/07/2020 at 03:45:11