Supreme Court Rules All States Must License And Recognize Same-Sex Marriages

[TPreston]

And that has to do with anything I said how? Deciding not to take a job does not constitute discrimination. On the other hand, deciding to destroy someone's liveihood just because you don't like their beliefs is not only discrimination, it's appalling.

Not providing equal access to products and services is discrimination as per the civil rights act.

[DConnell Member]

You don't like the disclaimer that your business doesn't want to deal with the LGBT community, but you feel it's ok to tell them individually when they enter your business? That kinda seems like you don't want everybody to know how you feel. Why is that? Is it shame because you know you are on the wrong side of the debate? Otherwise you would be more open about it, no?

 

How is he on the wrong side of the debate? The place wasn't refusing to serve gays, they declined a job to cater for a gay wedding. Don't people have the right to decide what kind of events they participate in? And catering an event is participating.

[DConnell Member]

Not providing equal access to products and services is discrimination as per the civil rights act.

 

It wasn't that they were refusing to serve gays, thus denying access to services/products. They were declining a catering job! So a business should be required to take every job that's offered?

[HawkMan]

 I don't agree with the lifestyle or decision, but ultimately it doesn't really affect me. It's their life to live as they see fit.

 

My only concern is that this opens the way for priests/ministers/whatever to be forced to perform the ceremonies against their beliefs. gay marriage now has legal recognition in all the states, but that doesn't change the religious aspect of it. And if the church should not have influence on the government, then the government should equally have no say in the teaching and ceremonies in the various churches.

 

Basically, while same sex couples now have the legal recognition of their marriages, I hope that won't mean clergy will have no choice in whether they perform the ceremony.

 

Actually, it in no way does. it just gives gay people the right to be wed and recognized as such. it does not and can not(unless it's a state church which you don't really have) demand that churches marry them. it's up to the individual church if they want to marry same sex couples as per their specific religius interpretation. of a book(s) that's fairly ambiguous. 

[HawkMan]

Considering the flap over the bakery that was forced to shut down over their answer to the hypothetical question of catering a gay wedding, it isn't too much of a stretch to imagine activists crucifying Father Brown and picketing the local church because he won't perform a gay wedding.

 

People boycotting their old church and moving to new churches that fit their personal belief because the church leader is a bigoted hate filled person who hasn't read his book very well, is of course completely different from the church "being forced to wed" same sex couples. 

[Stoffel]

How is he on the wrong side of the debate? The place wasn't refusing to serve gays, they declined a job to cater for a gay wedding. Don't people have the right to decide what kind of events they participate in? And catering an event is participating.

 

But don't you think it is also my right to know who I do business with. I don't want to spend money in a business that refuses to cater gay weddings because of religious beliefs. That is something that offends me. So make it known to everybody and then move along with your business. 

[HawkMan]

The cake decorator wasn't forced to decorate the cake. There is no law on the books stating such.

There is now a law saying they don't have the right to disallow a marriage because the couple are gay.

 

Discrimination, businesses are not allowed to discriminate and that is good. 

 

Religious groups however are allowed to discriminate to a degree. 

[DConnell Member]

People boycotting their old church and moving to new churches that fit their personal belief because the church leader is a bigoted hate filled person who hasn't read his book very well, is of course completely different from the church "being forced to wed" same sex couples. 

 

The individual being a "bigoted hate filled person" is a different issue entirely. My concern is the possible expectation that a church leader go against the rules of the organization of which he is a member. Whether you consider those rules bigoted is up to you, but I don't think a priest should expected to break church law, which in many cases a gay marriage would.

 

But that brings up the question of why a gay couple would request a wedding from an organization whose rules prohibit it, rather than going somewhere with no objection to it.

[HawkMan]

There is no law yet is what I'm getting at.  There was already one lawsuit, more will follow.

 

umm yes there was. anti discrimination laws are universal, you don't need specific sub laws for every specific case of discrimination. just like we never needed laws against cell phone use in cars, as it was already covered under several laws about distractions and attention while driving. 

[Hardcore Til I Die]

The US needs something like the UK's Equality Act 2010, which makes it illegal for businesses and public bodies to discriminate based on people's "protected characteristics" including sexuality, disability, age, sex, pregnancy etc. 

 

It includes a specific example of breastfeeding, i.e. a company cannot discriminate against a woman just because she is breastfeeding. This was presumably in response to businesses asking women to go outside, or into the toilet to breast feed because people got offended. Boo hoo, get over it. The law agrees. 

[TPreston]

It wasn't that they were refusing to serve gays, thus denying access to services/products.

Sure and they were not sued for the times they didn't refuse service just when they did.

 

They were declining a catering job! So a business should be required to take every job that's offered?

Strawman just like the kkk example.

[123456789A]

I'm confused. If I was running a church, shouldn't I be able to say which wedding we're going to perform? The government can now force me to serve everyone? While I support the supreme court decision, I don't support forcing people to do something against their beliefs because that's just going to lead to more divisiveness. There are plenty of churches out there that already do same sex weddings.

 

I mean I understand that the point of this thread is that the marriages are legal and recognized across the US now, but isn't it another thing entirely to force every church to perform same sex weddings? Or maybe I'm just reading the thread wrong and that's not the case. Please let me know.

[HawkMan]

May not be a choice to be gay, it is definitely a choice to be intolerant of other's beliefs. If you can't deal with the fact that some people do not want to be around homosexual couples and rituals then that's on you, not them. Tolerance goes both ways, and forcing people into situations where they do not want to be does not help matters.

 

Gay people aren't forcing priests to marry them, they just the right to be married by priests that aren't bigoted and close minded or civil marriage. 

 

the bigots are the ones trying to prevent this right. 

[DConnell Member]

Sure and they were not sued for the times they didn't refuse service just when they did.

 

Strawman just like the kkk example.

 

First line: Again, this time in English?

 

Second line: You were clearly stating that the bakery had no right to refuse the job. I wasn't setting up a strawman, I was asking for elaboration. It certainly sounds like you're suggesting that a business has no right to turn down any job. You're still overlooking the fact that this job involved participation in an event with which the business owner was not comfortable. Not a refusal of basic service, but a choice to not be part of an event. The owners should be forced to go anyway? How would that have been good for either party?

 

I admire your dedication to your principles, but I think you're letting them overshadow the practical realities here.

[Stoffel]

I don't have any issue with a church declining to wed a gay couple. It's a religious institution they have their 'rules and laws'.

But a business is something completely different.

[HawkMan]

The individual being a "bigoted hate filled person" is a different issue entirely. My concern is the possible expectation that a church leader go against the rules of the organization of which he is a member. Whether you consider those rules bigoted is up to you, but I don't think a priest should expected to break church law, which in many cases a gay marriage would.

 

But that brings up the question of why a gay couple would request a wedding from an organization whose rules prohibit it, rather than going somewhere with no objection to it.

 

Priests generally(catholics exempted) have a lot of freedom in how they run their church. hence why you can see Christian churches under the the same higher priest or whatever he's called, having different stances, some doing gay weddings others not. the higher ups will sometimes comment on how they support and don't support the decisions of each priest but as long as they stay within that groups interpretation of the text, they leave them be. 

 

so no one is being forced to do anything. 

 

The issue may come up in cases where thy want to be wed in very old churches/cathedrals that are owned by the state. but these usually have multiple priests anyway and if not they can usually bring in another priest if none of the ones who work there are willing. 

I'm confused. If I was running a church, shouldn't I be able to say which wedding we're going to perform? The government can now force me to serve everyone? While I support the supreme court decision, I don't support forcing people to do something against their beliefs because that's just going to lead to more divisiveness. There are plenty of churches out there that already do same sex weddings.

 

I mean I understand that the point of this thread is that the marriages are legal and recognized across the US now, but isn't it another thing entirely to force every church to perform same sex weddings? Or maybe I'm just reading the thread wrong and that's not the case. Please let me know.

 

The churches are not being forced to wed gays, gays just have the right to be wed. be that in churches that do SSM or civilian at the court house. 

[TPreston]

Second line: You were clearly stating that the bakery had no right to refuse the job. I wasn't setting up a strawman, I was asking for elaboration. It certainly sounds like you're suggesting that a business has no right to turn down any job.

They can turn down jobs but they cannot discriminate ie refuse service because of the clients sexual orientation and no renaming the product to "gay " doesn't get around this.

Not a refusal of basic service, but a choice to not be part of an event. The owners should be forced to go anyway? How would that have been good for either party?

I admire your dedication to your principles, but I think you're letting them overshadow the practical realities here.

Ill also support the same action against anyone who refuses service based on religion.

[Rippleman]

Got any evidence (or data) otherwise?

 

I'm not going by my opinion - but hard data.  You may not like it - heck, I have my qualms with it - however, the hard data says otherwise.

 

Basic social development. Moist basic hardcore example: In history, murder is frowned upon in every signal culture that has existed, UNLESS done for religious reasons. This is not a moral action. Murder has happened throughout history, but like minded individuals seen that, since they don't want to be murdered, they stick with other people who don't want to be murdered and protect each other should the need arise. Through religious belief systems, sometimes groups of people were fooled into thinking blood-sacrifice was a way to please supernatural deities. This is not moral. Moral would NOT be killing if no need for it.

 

There are hundreds of other examples. If anything, religions have created the worst moral systems in the world and sadly those systems still exist.

[DConnell Member]

Ill also support the same action against anyone who refuses service based on religion.

 

And they have that right. If someone doesn't want to provide services - i.e. participate - in a particular religious event, I'd say they're within their right to decline the job. Now regular on-site stuff, that' s  different situation. But nobody should be required to work in an environment/take a job they aren't ok with. That's the distinction I'm making - refusing to serve someone based on religion or sexuality, I agree that's wrong. But nobody should be required to take a job that puts them into an environment they're not ok with.

[Memphis]

Although I disagree with the lifestyle choice, same sex marriage does not affect me personally one bit. Everyone should have the opportunity to see just how hard a marriage really is.

If I remember your black right? You mean like the lifestyle choice you made to be black right? Or am I missing something /s

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

A step forward for humanity.

 

And I now await some great YouTube clips over the next few days from the crazy religious American meltdowns. The Atheists were stealing Christmas, now the Gays are stealing our husbands and wives!!!111

[Emn1ty]

I'm not forcing anybody to do anything they don't want to do. But they should be up front about it so I can avoid your business.

If a certain store doesn't want to allow black people in, I want to know, because I would avoid that store even though i'm not black.

I would do the same with a store that doesn't want to cater to LGBT people. It only seems fair you come out to everybody if you are a business.

 

Well, that's all well and good if the people who denied catering were leading the couple on before finally just going, "Oh wait... you're gay. NOPE." I don't think they were at all impolite about it. Especially since it's not a lack of tolerance for gays they are displaying, but a lack of interest in their ceremonial practices. No different than a Mosque declining to host a Christian wedding. It's not personal, in fact it's entirely understandable. Would you like to be forced to an abortion clinic when you're pro-life? I don't think so, and this is the whole point. We can't impose our ideals on others like people are trying to do with that case.

 

Where was all this care when you were trying to keep gay people second class citizens 

 

You were the one who defined them as second class, not me. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it on your high horse.

 

Gay people aren't forcing priests to marry them, they just the right to be married by priests that aren't bigoted and close minded or civil marriage. 

 

the bigots are the ones trying to prevent this right. 

 

Well, if you read what I was replying to you'd know I wasn't talking about that. They didn't force priests to do anything, this law doesn't even force priests to marry. All it did was prevent states from legally banning gay marriages. This hopefully means that private institutions can choose to marry or not marry people as they see fit while public institutions must provide the services. That's in the best interest of everyone.

 

One of the fallouts of this might be tax exempt status though for many religious non-profits since by taking a stance against same sex marriage they are technically partaking in a political opinion now (and if I recall politically aligned non-profits lose many of their tax exemptions).

 

 

If I remember your black right? You mean like the lifestyle choice you made to be black right? Or am I missing something /s

 

Unlike being black which is a physical appearance, you can choose to partake in a gay lifestyle or not. Just as a pedophile can choose to touch children or not. Or someone with some weird fascination with rape can choose not to rape people. We are human beings, we are above our urges be it sexual or romantic. To say that because you're born with an attraction to a specific sex or appearance means you can't choose to act contrary to that is ignorant at best. If this were the case, "coming out" wouldn't be a thing.

[ctebah]

Unlike being black which is a physical appearance, you can choose to partake in a gay lifestyle or not. Just as a pedophile can choose to touch children or not. Or someone with some weird fascination with rape can choose not to rape people. We are human beings, we are above our urges be it sexual or romantic. To say that because you're born with an attraction to a specific sex or appearance means you can't choose to act contrary to that is ignorant at best. If this were the case, "coming out" wouldn't be a thing.

 

I'm hoping that there's a sarcasm tag that was forgotten otherwise that's the most ridiculous thing I've read in a long time.  Humans don't choose to be homosexual, they are born that way.  And I don't think you understand what the meaning of 'coming out' is...

[theholmboy]

Great news, well done USA!

 

Just waiting for the haters and bible bashers now to warn us that God is angry.

They won't need to now, since you just said it (with a hint of intolerance, I might add)...

[Hardcore Til I Die]

Unlike being black which is a physical appearance, you can choose to partake in a gay lifestyle or not. Just as a pedophile can choose to touch children or not. Or someone with some weird fascination with rape can choose not to rape people. We are human beings, we are above our urges be it sexual or romantic. To say that because you're born with an attraction to a specific sex or appearance means you can't choose to act contrary to that is ignorant at best. If this were the case, "coming out" wouldn't be a thing.

 

Is it really a choice though? 

 

Whatever your sexual orientation is, imagine that liking the opposite sex to the one you're attracted to was the norm. Why should you be forced to like that sex just because that is what society views as normal, rather than the sex you actually do like. Yes, you could force yourself to do it, but you would be desperately unhappy in doing so. 

 

Comparing homosexuals to paedophiles and rapists is absolutely ridiculous by the way. Clearly the glaring difference between the first and the latter two is the issue of CONSENT.