Government to Ordained Ministers: Celebrate Same-Sex Wedding or Go to Jail

a reply to: tadaman

what you are saying is like going to a Chinese restaurant and asking for a dominoes pizza.

That is a very bad analogy.

To correct your sentence where it works.

What you are saying is like going to a Chinese restaurant and asking for Chinese food.

This is about setting a precedent and you know it.

I think you're right but we may disagree on what precedent is trying to be set.

It seems to me that there are many here in the thread that wish to give exemptions to businesses if the owners are ministers. I read one post where it seemed that was taken even further where they wished to give business exemptions to religious people.

You are right though it is a private business which as far as I know they have to abide by the same laws as all other private businesses unless precedent can be set to exempt them for whatever reason. Be it the owners being ministers or that they are religious but I think that would breach a tenant of the constitution about making laws respecting religion.

It shall be interesting to see how the courts figure this one.

a reply to: tadaman

Nope. You're suggesting that the old "separate but equal" is okay, and the reality is that Americans decided against that solution long ago.

There is no "gay marriage" there is only marriage. It's an agreement between two people available (now) to adult American citizens. ALL American citizens.

This business offered marriage ceremonies for money and members of the public went into the business to purchase that product and were denied for reasons that are against the law in Idaho.

No one went in demanding baptism or holy communion (which might have made your comparison make a little bit of sense).

Why do you keep harping the product being "a blessing" ? It's a kitschy marriage ceremony, just like the ones offered in tourist traps across the country. Not something I would choose, but hey, no accounting for taste, right?

It's a business. The product is marriage ceremonies. There are different packages that are offered for different prices. It's not a religious event.

It's not a "private business" it's a public business. No one asked for any service or product that isn't offered to the public or to be catered to in any special way, like what the business owners are asking for ... they are asking for the laws of Idaho to be set aside for them because they're special.

If the government doesn't enforce the law because they're supposedly "ordained ministers" then the only reason would be giving special treatment and/or protection to a religion, which is unconstitutional in the Establishment Clause.

I personally am for the Constitution; how about you tada ...

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Tangerine

Not to the people who believe in the Bible.

Actually, every one of those authors has a very specific relationship to this issue: all of them wrote fiction about real life.

It doesn't matter if you don't believe in the "truth" of the Bible, or that the facts contained therein are ... questionable.

There are people who do believe, and those people are our co-members here and our fellow citizens in society.

If I have to use their book, and their beliefs to at least try to get through to them, I will.

Ah, but you will fail miserably. However, I suppose you are entitled to take your time reaching the conclusion that you have wasted your time attempting to reason with people who can not reason critically -- even about their own belief system. Of course, I'm not talking about the nominal Christians who show up in church for weddings and maybe on Easter and Christmas (well, probably not Christmas; they're too busy). I'm talking about the fundamentalists who advocate theocracy -- whether or not they can spell it.

a reply to: Gryphon66

It's not a "private business" it's a public business.

No, it a private business. The public doesnt own it. You wont pay a processing fee to the city or state. You would pay a bill of service to a private business.You really can go on and on, but at the end of the day you will only force more social stress on gay culture for being over zealous in their want of acceptance. That takes time. You dont start telling private citizens to respect them or else. Its just a bad approach.

They dont offer gay marriage. Ok. Move on to another. Its not like you NEED them to.

Here is another analogy. KFC doesnt serve bacon in Muslim communities. This is like saying because other KFCs offer bacon on their burgers that you DEMAND to be served a bacon burger in a KFC that is compliant with Muslim dietary restrictions because this community is being treated separate but equal.

Just drive a little further out and find a KFC that offers that product. Dont blame the Muslim community for asking for a business catered to them, find one that caters to you.

EDIT TO ADD:
and it is a blessing. You dont need it to be recognized by the state as a couple. In fact the state offers the service itself at a court house. You go to a chapel for a ceremony. You could ask for a Jewish ceremony, Muslim, christian, what ever. They just dont do gay. Hell start a Gay Religion or open a strictly GAY chapel and offer a gay ceremony.

Would you be pissed if an exclusively gay chapel refused a hetero couple?

a reply to: tadaman

KFC doesnt serve bacon in Muslim communities

Where? Exactly?

The point is, it is against the law for the chapel to discriminate. Don't like it? Change the law.

a reply to: Phage

In Muslim communities. KFC prides itself on catering to Muslim dietary restrictions. Its a selling point for it in Muslim communities. Its corporate policy. They dont even have alcohol based hand wipes in communities that are predominantly Muslim. They use lemon based.

They arent discriminating against non Muslims who want pork. They are providing a service as they see fit for their target customer base.

dont like it? Open your own business. The public doesnt own private businesses. The law has nothing to do with it.

a reply to: tadaman

In Muslim communities.

Like where. For instance.

The public doesnt own private businesses.

But businesses are subject to the law and the law says they cannot discriminate.

a reply to: Phage

lmgtfy.com...

Yes businesses are subject to law. No where does the law dictate what services you must offer. If the service you require doesnt meet the criteria for the business in question you cant force it to change its criteria.

Ever heard of no shirt no service? Same thing. For example, If you are medically required to go shirtless for some time you cant tell a business with that sign to allow you patronage.

a reply to: tadaman
Right. But it does dictate that you cannot discriminate against a group solely because they are part of a group that you don't like.

a reply to: Phage

Like I said before, if you dont fit the criteria for that service, you cant demand that service or for the business to change its policy.

It is a grey area.

If you go to my business with no shirt I will not serve you for instance. Thats my criteria. You could say that its your right, as it is in NYC for women to go topless.... But if you have no shirt or bra I wont serve you. I wont be legally obliged to either. I just cant deny entry or use of facilities that are open to the public like a bathroom.

a reply to: tadaman

If you go to my business with no shirt I will not serve you for instance.

Shirtless people are not a group. You are not being descriminated against because of who you are, you are being refused service because you're a slob. Put a shirt on and you'll be fine. I guess you think that gays can just turn straight?

The chapel has stated that they will not provide service to gays, no matter how they are dressed. That is against the law.


How you doing on those KFC locations?

a reply to: Phage

Shirtless people arent a group, yet there are feminist groups in NYC that lobbied their right to go topless. They are then a group legally. Women who choose to go topless.

If I have a sign that reads no shirt no service you cant say that it is targeting those feminists.

This isnt against male gay couples, or lesbian couples, or transgender specifically. That would be discriminating against a group.

Being gay isnt a group either sir, Its a life style, like going topless to remove the shackles of male imposed coverings.
Being a lesbian makes you part of group within a life style. Being transgender-ed makes you a part of a group within a life style.

If this business said only lesbian couples but not males you could argue this. It simply doesnt support a lifestyle it sees as not being compatible with the services it offers. Did anyone check to see if they even offer non religious ceremonies?

I understand that they offer ceremonies in a cheapo tacky wedding chapel setting, but do they only offer religious ceremonies? That is a huge factor here. How can they offer a Jewish wedding if the Jewish faith doesn't condone gay marriage? Wouldnt they be guilty of false advertising since no Jewish authority will recognize the ceremony? How is it then a real Jewish ceremony, or a christian one if no one in that faith will recognize it?


EDIT TO ADD.
I am not against gay marriage mind you. I have gay family. I am just against private citizens using our legal system to force other private citizens to do something they are ideologically opposed to. I also think this is counter productive towards gay acceptance.

a reply to: tadaman

Shirtless people arent a group, yet there are feminist groups in NYC that lobbied their right to go topless.

Tell me, are these topless women a legally recognized group?

Being gay isnt a group either sir Its a life style

Ah. Got it. People choose to be gay. They can stop being gay just like putting a shirt on. They just don't want to.

Alrighty then, now I see your point of view. Never mind. See, the law disagrees with you there too. Don't like the law? Change it. But you might not like the results.

a reply to: Phage

Yes, women who choose to go shirtless are a legally recognized as a legally protected group in NYC.

I never said its a choice. Its a life style. I dont understand why you take issue with that statement. You can be part of a group within that life style. You arent part of group just for being gay. That is separating gay people from society if anything was.

If you think that gay is a group different than you or me you are saying that they are separate from us.

EDIT TO ADD:
My cousin is gay. He doesnt really live a gay lifestyle but his sexual preference is his same sex. He isnt part of any group within gay culture. Not a butch, or fem or anything. His sexuality has nothing to do with who is to the world. He could be asexual and still be himself. In fact he doesnt even see people as male or female. To him there are no different sexes, just different organs.

a reply to: tadaman

Yes, women who choose to go shirtless are a legally recognized as a legally protected group in NYC.

No. Women can go topless without being arrested. That's not quite the same thing. It is gender equality. Men can go shirtless in public, so can women. Places of business still are allowed dress codes because they do not say "men have to wear shirts but ladies...nah."

If you think that gay is a group different than you or me you are saying that they are separate from us.

No. I'm saying that it is illegal to discriminate against them just because they are gay.

a reply to: tadaman

I'm really not sure that I like your subtle call for us to return to the old days of segregation.

Do you want gays to drink out of a separate water fountain, also? Is that alright with you?

a reply to: Phage

Like I said, are they denying non religious ceremonies? Or do they only offer religious ceremonies? What if a minister loses his authority to perform religious ceremonies because he doesnt comply with the criteria for them?

How can he offer a Jewish ceremony if the Jewish faith doesnt allow for a gay couple to be wed?

Also, women are a group within the human race. This legal protection is for their equal rights. Correct. I still dont have to serve you in my business, male or female if my criteria doesnt accommodate your shirtless-ness.

Just like if you dont wear a tie and blazer in a nice restaurant that requires it. You can be of a faith that requires you to only wear a certain type of garment, and I could refuse service if you dont wear a tie and blazer I provide for you.

a reply to: tadaman
This is not a synagogue we are talking about. This is not a church we are talking about.

This is a marriage chapel. They sell marriages...to some people...not all people...no matter how they are dressed.

a reply to: Phage

yes, but do they only offer RELIGIOUS ceremonies?

How can you force a minister to perform a non religious ceremony if he doesnt want to?

Go to someone who just has the legal authority to wed you. If you want someone with religious training and a certification he can lose over deviations and who offers only religious ceremonies then you must follow the criteria for that ceremony.

EDIT TO ADD:
If you NEED a religious ceremony and its blessing then the legal way to go about this is to find a religion in which you fit into the criteria for a wedding ceremony or make one and have people get certified in that. Its still their choice if they want to be ordained in that religion or not though.

It would be a good business either way.

a reply to: SomePeople

No of coarse not. I never even said that. Do you want to go back to certain people telling others what to do?

I know you dont. SO why force people to do something that they dont want to?

EDIT TO ADD:
Another way of seeing this;

If you want to be an alter server as a female christian you could become a protestant and be an alter server. The Catholic church doesnt allow for female alter servers or female priests. You cant tell them they are discriminating against women for it, though I think it would be a sound argument. You just join a religion that accommodates you according to its criteria. You arent Catholic anyways if you feel so strongly about female priests or alter servers. You are probably a natural protestant. Why force the Catholic church to do something it ideologically opposes?

Whats next? Tell Catholics that if they dont allow female priests that they will go to jail for discriminating against women?