Most of you are missing the most basic, and fundamental, issue here -- the argument which I am hearing-- via citation of examples which highlight
individuals being forced to provide service(s) they do not wish to serve; this is not about marriage, rather, it is blatant homophobia spurred up by a
The fact is, these individuals are not 'married' when asking a photographer to take pictures of them. These same individuals are not 'married' when
asking for a cake to be baked. Clearly this is not an issue about marriage. In fact, I would venture to declare that if a single gay man--or
woman--were to go into any of these, previously mentioned, places of business, they would still be denied service; individuals discriminating on other
individuals' lifestyle choice(s) conducted either overtly or covertly. What I have just described happens all the time in America. In example, housing
communities often do not rent to minorities and will make up excuses, such as, being at capacity; however, such behavior does not make discrimination
acceptable or constitutional. In fact, as I see it, the posturing on this issue is religiously fueled, extremist in nature, and entirely out of touch
with generational sociological development. A minority in America is attempting to deny public service to American men and women -- some of whom have
fought and bled for this country. Despicable.
Let's stop for a moment and consider the law.
Businesses, which provide a public service, are taxed separately from organizations with closed membership policies. As such, if a business owner is
declaring themselves a public business, they then must provide said public service to everyone and can be held liable for denying that service on
grounds of discrimination. Therefore, hypothetically speaking, if I were to walk into a Mexican bakery and was refused service, because of the color
of my skin, that would be discrimination. If I owned a public pool and did not allow African-Americans entry, that would be discrimination. If I
wanted to ride, on a public transit system, in a gentrified part of a city, and was not allowed to ride -- that would be discrimination. More so, the
501c3 (Tax-Exempt status which churches take advantage of) specifically prohibits any church of organizing opposition to anything that the government,
through public approval, has made legal. Therefore, any church which is taking advantage of the American taxation system, by avoiding taxes and
promoting descent on this issue, are, in-fact, in violation of this clause. Furthermore, individuals who attend these churches and then turn to the
public to spread said misinformation, are, in fact, violating the very establishment they believe they are fighting for. Although religious freedoms
are protected by the constitution, the economic rights, associated with churches, are not divine. A tax exempt status is a privilege which must adhere
to specific guidelines-- necessary to avoid flourishing fanaticism.
Our society is constructed, in this manner, in order to sustain our judicial system-- which protects citizens rights who have served time for crime--,
minorities and gender. This is not an argument based on what America was founded on, or what it could be -- this is the America we live in today.
The OP, and supporters, promote discrimination within our society. If you are going to operate, financially, in the public markets, then you need to
own up to the responsibilities of being an American business owner -- in a country with hundreds of belief systems, different sexes and lifestyles. I
hope I am not being to hard on the OP, but realize that they are quite upset with the way things are. You still have a choice. This great country has
allowed you the opportunity to voice your concern and rally support for your cause. May I suggest, rather than promoting descent and discrimination,
Take the homophobic businesses, limit their interactions to private membership-- exclusivity-- and tax them appropriately. Any 'extremist' church--not
just Christian--which wishes to promote ideology that incites dissent on established principals upheld by the American legal system, should be
stripped of their tax-exempt status and forced to adhere to the same economic standards as any [other] business promoting exclusivity. Let's see how
well free-market capitalism works when fanatic ideology gets in the way of financial law and American constitutional-ism.
a reply to: ketsuko
As I said, there is a financial system in place that essentially nullifies your 'personal' interest as a business owner-- it's the American tax code.
If you're going to operate, in America, as a public business, you must provide those services free of discrimination -- otherwise you are breaking the
law. You have the right to operate a business 'how' you wish to, but your services cannot be exclusive on the grounds of another individuals lifestyle
choices, race or religious belief. This supports my right to get a haircut at a black barber-shop, eat at international delis and participate in
public events. Suggesting this behavior is 'ok' is supporting discrimination and entirely un-american. Failing to acknowledge the financial
responsibilities, to America, that businesses must adhere to, and obligations to the IRS, essentially will paint you as ignorant and entirely unable
to comprehend issues larger than political/religious banter. I have already stated what the solution to this issue was, above, in my post.
edit on 24-5-2015 by kavsir because: (no reason given)