... Here's another logical answer to the question: have a law declaring that marriage is between a man and a woman. That's what many states have tried to do. But it's been called unconstitutional. ...
Can you define equality in a way that does not apply to homosexuals?
I get the following:
I'm not interested in discriminating against homosexuals as I've said a million times already. ...
But you are drawing a line between homosexuals and heterosexuals, and that is de facto discrimination.
Any time you do "them" vs "us" you are discriminating.
Equality is about treating everybody the same ("correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability. ...").
However, the answer to your question is that, given the current climate of legal opinion, there is no way to provide a legal basis for Christians to refuse to honor gay weddings. And that brings us back to the situation I keep describing. Christians will refuse to serve gay weddings because it is a violation of God's law, and the fascist state that denies us our religious rights will have to punish us.
It is a state where the social norms are decided by the people not by one religion, where secular values are honored in government free of dominance by one religion.
If that means denying you the "right" to be a bigoted biased discriminating fundamentalist using religion as a crutch, then boo hoo.
The same line I would draw between pedophiles and nonpedophiles. Homosexuality is ...
Between consenting caring adults, while pedophiles harm children, so no it is NOT the same line.
A closer parallel is a heterosexual couple living together without being married -- I'm sure you also classify that as a "sin" in your holy world, and yet we have laws recognizing that a common law couple have the same rights as married couples. There are lots of adults living in caring consenting relationships with other adults,
And you didn't define "equality" so that you can exclude gays ... wonder why?
And I would much rather live in a world defined by equality than one defined by petty biases and bigotry based on fantasy.
People, states, governments, yes, even courts, often will not do what they ought to do, what they should do, until you hit them in the head with a clear, unambiguous, undeniable 2x4.
Idealism aside, this is the only way the system, all of it, has ever been known to work.
What I find potentially amusing is that an unintended consequence of these religious-free-to-be-a-bigot laws is that they may result in expanded civil rights to include implicitly the rights of the LGBT community.
quote:The amendment to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act approved Thursday by both chambers prohibits service providers from using the law as a legal defense for refusing to provide services, goods, facilities or accommodations. It also bars discrimination based on factors that include race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or United States military service.
quote:(For a primer on religious freedom acts what they do and don't mean, NPR's Domenico Montanaro has this post from Wednesday)
Lawmakers meeting in Indianapolis on Thursday are debating a proposed amendment to the law to include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes. If approved, it would be the first time either category had received such recognition in the state.
Brandon Smith of member station WFYI in Indianapolis writes that the compromise also "adds language to clarify that the law does not 'authorize a provider to refuse to offer or provide services, employment and housing to any member of the general public.'"
Meanwhile in Arkansas, Gov. Asa Hutchinson says he wants the Legislature to either recall the bill passed Tuesday or to pass a follow-up measure making it hew closely to a 1993 federal religious freedom law. Besides Indiana, 19 other states have similar laws, but in many, sexual orientation is already a protected class.
views expressed in this thread do not necessarily represent the views of the company
Not exactly. It is not a matter of bound to help but rather the fact that the business is printing or cake making or space rental and the business is not censorship.
And yes, the boundaries are fuzzy and mutable and will depend on the total conditions of the particular incident when it comes to where the legal/illegal line lies. The function of a print shop or bakery or meeting hall rental is not to make the judgements beyond what is reasonable based on the available knowledge at the time.
There is nothing that prevents you from adding a disclaimer to the cake\banner\rental agreement\etc
So the baker can add writing on the cake that the views expressed on the cake are not the views of the baker.
relative sin, aiding and abetting sin, sin in the eye of the beholder
... thats why successful countries have separation of religion and state. So laws are written on what society needs not what religion dictates. And one of the things society needs is a free market, excluding 10% of the population from that market is not a free market.
agreed, and I don't think anyone would like it if this were applied to other scenarios, such as the selling food to the glutton or ... guns ... because selling a product is not participating in what that product is used for:
If we wanted to take it to the most reductionist ridiculous level we would ask: does the person who sells shoes to a murderer participate in murder?
So when you glean out all these other applications of the purported reasons for the law what are you left with?
Prejudice. Pure and simple prejudice.
Now you might argue that it is not the product so much as it is knowledge of what it is going to be used for: the shoes aren't (normally) being used as a murder weapon (although they can be thrown at presidents), and guns can be used for other purposes. The seller doesn't necessarily know it is going to be used for murder ... unless the purchaser tells him.
If the purchaser tells the gun seller that he is going to "murder his boss" then the seller has a clear cause to refuse to sell the gun -- and he has cause to notify the police.
But if the purchaser tells the shoe seller that he is going to "murder his boss" then the seller does not have a clear cause to refuse to sell the shoes -- but still has cause to notify the police.
Likewise if the purchaser of a cake tells the cake seller that he is going to "murder his boss" then the seller does not have a clear cause to refuse to sell the cake -- but still has cause to notify the police.
You can replace "murder his boss" with "rob a store" or "kill his neighbors cat" with the same results.
In these cases the seller has knowledge that the gun purchaser is going to use the gun to commit a crime, and thus he has a public safety cause and a cause not to aid and abet a crime for refusal of service.
Public safety is not involved with selling shoes or cakes; aiding and abetting a crime is not involved with selling shoes or cakes.
Now posit that the announced purpose is "to celebrate a gay wedding" in a state where gay marriage is legal:
Does the gun seller refuse to sell the gun (to be used to shoot blanks in the air at the reception after the wedding is completed)?
Does the shoe salesman refuse to sell the shoes (to dance at the reception after the wedding is completed)?
Does the cake salesman refuse to sell the cake (to be cut at the reception after the wedding is completed)?
Marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman. We will not celebrate the travesty of a homosexual "marriage."
Amusingly, making such a fuss over a simple ceremony actually raises it's prominence in the media and society in general, such that a lot more people that favor gay marriage will celebrate it.
And be willing to see laws passed that make it legal for gay marriage, which will now be reviewed by the Supreme Court to see if it becomes the law of the land.
Re: relative sin, aiding and abetting sin, sin in the eye of the beholder
I don't participate in a murder by legitimately selling someone a gun which I regard as useful for self-protection. I would be guilty of participating in a murder, however, if I knew the gun was to be used for murder.
So you agree that you should refuse service if you know the gun is going to be used for an illegal purpose: murder; but that it is legitimate to sell the gun if you know (or are allowed to assume), that it is going to be used for a legal purpose.
Now how about shoes: if the buyer says they are going to kill their boss and wants new shoes to dance on his body, are you proscribed from selling him the shoes? Whether or not you notify the police of his intent is a different matter -- do you or do you not sell the shoes?
I don't like Al because he hates lgbts's I don't like Bob because he hates blacks I don't like Charlie because he hates latinos I don't like Don because he hates Muslims I don't like bigots, Sam-I-am
The Christian business owners who are being driven out of business don't hate anybody.
They are not being driven out of business, Faith, they are choosing to go out of business rather than serve a certain group of people that they don't hate ... but just won't do business with ... because they don't hate them ... but just choose not to do business with them ... not because they hate them ... but because they choose not to serve a certain group of people that they don't hate ... but just won't do business with because they don't hate them ... but just choose not to do business with them ... not because they hate them ... but because they choose not to serve those people that they don't hate ... and just won't do business with because they don't hate them ... but just choose not to do business with them ... not because they hate them ... but because they choose not to serve thatgroup of people that they don't hate ... but just won't do business with because they don't hate them ... but just choose not to do business with them ... not because they hate them ... but because they choose not to serve a certain group of people that they don't hate ... but just won't do business with because they don't hate them ... but just choose not to do business with them ... not because they hate them ... but because they choose not to serve a certain group of people that they don't hate ... but just won't do business with because they don't hate them ... but just choose not to do business with ... not because they hate them ... but because they choose not to serve a certain group of people that they don't hate ... but just won't do business with because they don't hate them ... but just choose not to do business with them ... not because they hate them ... but because they choose not to serve them people that they don't hate ... but just won't do business with because they don't hate them ... but just choose not to do business with them ... not because they hate them ... but because they choose not to ...
No, it's not hate not at all, it's that Christian overflowing love ... riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Typical propaganda-type lie, RAZD. Lies really do help to get the uninformed in a rage against people the establishment hates. Nazi Germany did it particularly well, and this picture is right down that alley.
quote:A Prattville minister arrested after offering to perform a same-sex wedding inside the Autauga County Courthouse in February pleaded guilty Monday to misdemeanor disorderly conduct.
Anne Susan DiPrizio, 44, was sentenced to 30 days in the Autauga Metro Jail, which was suspended in lieu of six months unsupervised probation, the Montgomery Advertiser reported. She was ordered to pay a $250 fine and other court costs. minister arrested.pngAnne Susan DiPrizio (ACSO)Erin Edgemon | eedgemon@al.com
According to reports, DiPrizio, a Unitarian minister, offered to marry a lesbian couple on Feb. 10 in the Autauga County Probate Office and wouldn't leave the office when asked by probate office officials.
Probate Judge Al Booth had stopped holding marriage ceremonies in his office on Feb. 9.
A Christian minister jailed by state for practicing religious freedom -- there's an example for you Faith ...
I'm far more interested in obeying God and honoring His law, far more interested inwhat's good for my soul and my eternal life than what's good for my business or even my general wellbeing in this life, and all true Christians feel this way.
In other words not fit to be elected to any government position where you pledge to uphold the constitution and the laws of the land ...
Now personally I think wearing a countries flag as part of your apparel -- especially when you get to underwear and shorts -- or when you make objects to sit on -- chairs, etc -- is more disrespectful to that flag than wearing it upside down.
In college one classmate used a flag as a bedspread, and several in the dorm thought that was disrespectful, and this was long before jingoists started wearing it.
Second I support the rights of anyone to wear this t-shirt as their free speech, especially if other wear per above is permitted without dispute.
Third I note that an international sign of distress at sea is to raise a flag upside down.
But the issue here is :: should people be allowed to prevent a store from offering a product made by someone else?
™ Version 4.2
(1)
