RNS: Ministers who own a chapel sue Idaho city after declining to marry same-sex couple

[Slateman]

1) Just a suspicion, but I suspect that if I walked up to the door of a business, and there was a sign on the door announcing that they don;t allow my kind in their store, I'd feel pretty violated.

2) And your point is that society has the right to protect rights that don't exist in the constitution, if they are physical rights?

1) You would be offended, not violated.

2) My point is that being murdered and not getting to get married in a private business are drastically different.

 

 

Really man?  

Yes, really. Personal liberty or something. As a private business owner I should be able to kick out anyone I want and not provide services to anyone I want. For any reason whatsoever.

[Zguy28]

 

Feel free to keep complaining about how telling someone they can't discriminate is infringing on their right to discriminate.

[Larry]

Considering the fact it's called the Hitching Shack and they are selling weddings, I'd say they are not a church.

 

I think they're called the Hitching Post, and I think I agree with you, I think they're closer to a business than a church.  (Based on the admittedly small amount of information I've got.  If somebody wants to bring more information to the debate, I could easily change my mind.) 

 

I'm just saying that I can see valid arguments for deciding the other way, too. 

 

(Which is one of the reasons why, if you'll notice, slateman and I are both arguing both sides of the issue with each other.) 

[Slateman]

I think they're called the Hitching Post, and I think I agree with you, I think they're closer to a business than a church.  (Based on the admittedly small amount of information I've got.  If somebody wants to bring more information to the debate, I could easily change my mind.) 

 

I'm just saying that I can see valid arguments for deciding the other way, too. 

 

(Which is one of the reasons why, if you'll notice, slateman and I are both arguing both sides of the issue with each other.) 

There are no valid reasons the other way. They are a business. They file taxes like a business. They make a profit like a business. So if EVERY other business is subject to an inane and liberty oppressing rule, then so should they.

[twa]

 

Feel free to keep complaining about how telling someone they can't discriminate is infringing on their right to discriminate. 

 

Feel free to ignore compulsion to violate religious belief is  discriminating against that belief.

 

 

whackadoodle 

[Zguy28]

yes they exist... But this thread is not about them, it's about bigots who refuse to do their jobs.

Actually, I'm the OP and I posted it with the intent it is about both parties: the ministers who want religious freedom and the gov't who plans to jail them for it.

[Slateman]

Actually, I'm the OP and I posted it with the intent it is about both parties: the ministers who want religious freedom and the gov't who plans to jail them for it.

YOu mean the "ministers" who want to use religious "freedom" to make a profit and the government who wants to force an agenda down the throats of the people.

[Zguy28]

Yeah see you in court

Courts forced you to make cakes for black people and marry interracial couples, and they will force you to do this too.

Waa waa i want to discriminate!!!

There is no argument, there are people who want to discriminate and there are people who do not.

Are you against gay marriage? Do not get gay married. Problem solved.

Why do you say "gay marriage" if the law says its just "marriage". Could it be argued that while it is discriminatory, it is not against gay people, but rather the discrimination is against the ceremony itself, therefore... I'm sure others have said that before. Kind of like Denny's must serve all races, but they cannot be forced to serve items not on the menu? In this case, could they publish a "menu" of sorts that says "Traditional Marriage ceremonies only"?

YOu mean the "ministers" who want to use religious "freedom" to make a profit and the government who wants to force an agenda down the throats of the people.

No actually. Do you think that was their intent in being in business?

[Slateman]

Why do you say "gay marriage" if the law says its just "marriage". Could it be argued that while it is discriminatory, it is not against gay people, but rather the discrimination is against the ceremony itself, therefore... I'm sure others have said that before. Kind of like Denny's must serve all races, but they cannot be forced to serve items not on the menu? In this case, could they publish a "menu" of sorts that says "Traditional Marriage ceremonies only"?

No actually. Do you think that was their intent in being in business?

Because marriage is a legal term, not a moral or religious one. It's ironic, but Christians brought this on themselves by insisting that their religious ceremonies be given legal benefits and standing.

[Zguy28]

Because marriage is a legal term, not a moral or religious one. It's ironic, but Christians brought this on themselves by insisting that their religious ceremonies be given legal benefits and standing.

Maybe so, maybe not. Perhaps the gay folks brought on discrimination by insisting their relationships be given legal benefits? Its always convenient to blame the victims.

[Larry]

Observing that I assume marriage has been recognized, in the law, for pretty much as long as there have been laws.

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

1) You would be offended, not violated.

2) My point is that being murdered and not getting to get married in a private business are drastically different.

 

 

Yes, really. Personal liberty or something. As a private business owner I should be able to kick out anyone I want and not provide services to anyone I want. For any reason whatsoever.

No you shouldn't.  How would you like it if the same attitude was taken against you?

[Larry]

No you shouldn't.  How would you like it if the same attitude was taken against you?

Pointing out that a fundamental element of this "legalize discrimination" movement is to loudly and repeatedly proclaim that

1) Discrimination doesn't exist, any more. It ended in the 60s.

2) And, if it did still exist, "the market" will punish people who discriminate, so it ought to be legalized.

The fact that it is blindingly obvious that these statements aren't true does not in any way inhibit people from making them.

[Slateman]

Maybe so, maybe not. Perhaps the gay folks brought on discrimination by insisting their relationships be given legal benefits? Its always convenient to blame the victims.

The victims? There are no victims here. Gay couples simple requested that a legally binding agreement be given equal protection under the constitution.

 

No you shouldn't.  How would you like it if the same attitude was taken against you?

I'd be pissed. I'd then be wondering who wants my business and act accordingly. Being offended is not against the Constitution. It was intended to keep the government from infringing on your rights, not the private sector.

 

In this aspect especially it doesn't make sense. You can go to a judge and get married. The judge, being a government employee, cannot discriminate against you. But they want to do this at a private business because it is their agenda. They want to force  to accept them and their lifestyle. And that is simply retarded.

[Larry]

Being offended is not against the Constitution.

I see we're back to reciting the already-disproven notion that society is not permitted to prohibit things that are not protected by specifically declared Constitutional rights.

[Slateman]

I see we're back to reciting the already-disproven notion that society is not permitted to prohibit things that are not protected by specifically declared Constitutional rights.

Society isn't allowed to prohibit anything. The government is. Otherwise, society would have their way and you could prohibit certain types of people from walking on the sidewalk, drinking from fountains, going to school, and getting married.

 

If society were allowed to prohibit what they want, this article wouldn't be an issue because the vast majority of Americans don't think that people should be forced to provide a service to someone they don't want to.

[Larry]

Society isn't allowed to prohibit anything. The government is. Otherwise, society would have their way and you could prohibit certain types of people from walking on the sidewalk, drinking from fountains, going to school, and getting married.

I'd be happy to replace the word "society" with "government", in my post, if you want.

If society were allowed to prohibit what they want, this article wouldn't be an issue because the vast majority of Americans don't think that people should be forced to provide a service to someone they don't want to.

Wonder how all those anti-discrimination laws got passed, then.

I'm kinda under the impression that a majority of Americans do support laws prohibiting discrimination by businesses. Granted, it's not 100%. Probably more like 60-40. (That's why the "I want it to be legal to discriminate" movement works so well, as a campaign issue.)

But I'm pretty sure it's a majority. At least in some places.

[Slateman]

I'd be happy to replace the word "society" with "government", in my post, if you want.

Wonder how all those anti-discrimination laws got passed, then.

I'm kinda under the impression that a majority of Americans do support laws prohibiting discrimination by businesses. Granted, it's not 100%. Probably more like 60-40. (That's why the "I want it to be legal to discriminate" movement works so well, as a campaign issue.)

But I'm pretty sure it's a majority. At least in some places.

It's how it's worded.

 

"Are you against discrimination?" Of course I am. What am I, a racist/biggot?

 

"Do you think ministers should be forced under penalty of fine or jail time to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples?" Well ... no, that doesn't seem right.

 

Both are the same law. So like I said, either enforce the law for everyone with no exceptions, or get rid of the law. Frankly, I think the law is stupid in invasive of individual liberty.

[Larry]

It's how it's worded.

Which no doubt explains the attempts in this thread to try to relabel what's going on, here, as some evil liberal agenda to attack Christianity.

What is this, like the fifth on the list of excuses people have tried to use, to justify discriminating against gays?

 

I mean, we tried the "They're out to grab your kids, and turn them gay" one.

We tried the "well, gays can't reproduce without aid, so we should discriminate against them, because of that" one.

Then there was the "it's a choice (and discriminating against choices is just fine)" one.

And now the "it's an infringement of my religion to tell me that I can't discriminate against people who my religion doesn't tell me to discriminate against, but I want to, anyway" at least seems to be winning some people.

However, I will observe that you (and others, in this thread and out in The Real World) haven't just been arguing in favor of making it legal to discriminate against gays who want to get married, but also to discriminate based on race, religion, or gender, and in all businesses.

 

----------

 

Now, yes, I think it's clear that a majority of society (including myself) thinks that churches should be exempt from anti-discrimination laws. 

 

(That's why they specifically write exceptions for churches, into those laws.) 

 

But, they wrote the exception in, for churches.  And I will observe that you are far more adamant than I am, about declaring that The Hitching Post is not a church. 

 

Perhaps what's needed, here, and what might resolve this debate, is some local debate in the county/state (whichever one it is, where this law was passed) and maybe tweak the language about exactly which kinds of businesses are exempt from the law. 

 

----------

 

I will also observe that you seem to be hopping back and forth between whether we're discussing whether ministers should be compelled to perform gay marriage ceremonies, and whether cafes in Montana should be allowed to announce that redskins aren't allowed in their dining room. 

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

How bought there is no separation of Church and state then.  Just have one law governing all where nobody can claim X,Y and Z infringes upon their religious beliefs.  It can't be both ways.  Of course, I don't want this, it's sarcasm (thought I'd throw in that disclaimer before people read too much into it).

 

 

By law, you can't discriminate against what people you don't want to offer services to and hide behind your beliefs if you are a for profit business.  That's the law, period.  

 

If you want to provide a business in the United States, then you have to abide by the laws in place at all levels, including state.  In Idaho, gay marriage was passed.  You own a business in Idaho that provides services to the public, whether it is a bakery, general store, wedding ceremonies, etc., by law you cannot refuse sale of services to anyone based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

 

It's pretty cut and dry, it's part of being a business owner.  You don't have to like it, you have to obey it or not obey it and face the consequences.  At the end of the day, nobody is telling anyone they have to approve or like homosexuality, etc.  You just have to provide services to everyone equally.  Doesn't mean you cant be angry about it, if you fall into that category.

[No Excuses]

Racists were probably really mad when they had to provide services to colored people back in the days. Some of them are probably still mad too.

 

Homophobes will get over it eventually.

[Slateman]

The simplest, easiest solution has always been the civil union. If you want the legal benefits, you get a civil union agreement from the government, consisting of a power of attorney, pre-civil union agreement, and so forth.

 

Of course this doesn't happen for two reasons

 

1. The right wing doesn't like the idea of churches no longer able to conduct a legal ceremony

2. The extreme left doesn't like that they can't get married, forcing the rest of the nation to accept them.

 

So, that which makes the most sense and would be the most fair doesn't happen for political reasons.

[twa]

How bought there is no separation of Church and state then.  Just have one law governing all where nobody can claim X,Y and Z infringes upon their religious beliefs.  It can't be both ways.  Of course, I don't want this, it's sarcasm (thought I'd throw in that disclaimer before people read too much into it).

 

 

By law, you can't discriminate against what people you don't want to offer services to and hide behind your beliefs if you are a for profit business.  That's the law, period.  

 

 

 

 

the law is rarely ever period......keeps things interesting 

 

the simplest thing would be to do away with ministers functioning as gatekeepers to civil marriage, get your license from the clerk and you are hitched

[twa]

Racists were probably really mad when they had to provide services to colored people back in the days. Some of them are probably still mad too.

 

Homophobes will get over it eventually.

 

 

nice

 

but then if you don't consider marriage a holy bond instituted and blessed by God I can see where ya might consider it simply a service rendered or wrongfully denied.

[Slateman]

nice

 

but then if you don't consider marriage a holy bond instituted and blessed by God I can see where ya might consider it simply a service rendered or wrongfully denied.

If that's what it is, and I don't believe it is, then there should be no legal recognition of that religious institution.