By governmental definition, it needs to be equal to all. By a religious definition, it never will be.
FWIW, I've supported doing away with the term marriage in laws for a long time as it would have been the simplest way to make this whole E36 M3show from the last decade plus a non-issue. The only reason that could never gain traction was due to the fact that both sides of the political isle knew that money would pour in hand over fist, so they made sure to keep it an issue. 
It's not about service. Any one should be served and treated with repect. It is more to do with a marriage ceremony for religous people I think. And no, it's not just fear, but really happening. The SC will have to rule on the 1st Amendment to make it fair for all people.
Fletch1 wrote: It's not about service. Any one should be served and treated with repect. It is more to do with a marriage ceremony for religous people I think. And no, it's not just fear, but really happening. The SC will have to rule on the 1st Amendment to make it fair for all people.
Examples?
Churches can already deny a couple to get married in their church. Heck, for ME to get married in a Catholic Church, I was forced to take classes. If I didn't do that, they would say no, because I'm not Catholic.
That doesn't change today, and probably never will.
While it's possible that a Presbyterian to a Baptist could get married in a Muslim Mosque, I doubt the mosque would let it happen.
Just like atheists have no church to get married in.
alfadriver wrote: Just like atheists have no church to get married in.
Well that's not always true either. SWMBO got married in a church, by a pastor(really cool guy BTW). She was technically(and still is) a member of the church, although she hasn't attended for years, but I never attended once. Surprisingly enough to some of my friends & family in attendance, it didn't burn down either. 
In reply to alfadriver:
This is a big one. Woman had a long-time gay friend and customer. He was getting married and she kindly said she couldnt it. She served him the best she could until it violated her beliefs and conscience. Well, he didn't like that.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/20/living/stutzman-florist-gay/
As complex as the current system and the rights that along with marriage, I think this is a simpler path than trying to completely back out all federal and state governments out of the marriage process.
Fletch1 wrote: In reply to alfadriver: This is a big one. Woman had a long-time gay friend and customer. He was getting married and she kindly said she couldnt it. She served him the best she could until it violated her beliefs and conscience. Well, he didn't like that. http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/20/living/stutzman-florist-gay/
Being that the SCOTUS has already ruled that corporations don't have to do something that's against their key beliefs (see Hobby Lobby), there must be more to this story.
It's not unconstitutional to do what she did. That will have to get worked out.
On a personal note- it's funny that a person can be friends with people who act out against her beliefs, and even do business with them. But getting married had to be the tipping point. Interesting.
Flight Service wrote: As complex as the current system and the rights that along with marriage, I think this is a simpler path than trying to completely back out all federal and state governments out of the marriage process.
I'm not sure it's possible to have the government get out of the marriage process. To many legal things are mixed in with marriage.
Fletch1 wrote: In reply to alfadriver: This is a big one. Woman had a long-time gay friend and customer. He was getting married and she kindly said she couldnt it. She served him the best she could until it violated her beliefs and conscience. Well, he didn't like that. http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/20/living/stutzman-florist-gay/
And here is another.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newswidget/christian-family-farm-gay/2015/06/25/id/652303/?Dkt_nbr=125BD-1&nmx_source=Telegraph_Media_group&nmx_medium=widget&nmx_content=96&nmx_campaign=widgetphase2
Two items: first, it's pretty mind boggling that "religious" types have chosen homosexuality to be the thing they get wrapped around the axle about out of ALL the proscribed activities written about in their big books of superstions. I mean berkeleying seriously people, if you want to judge someone for where they put their naughty bits but not for breaking the sabbath, cutting their side locks, consuming shellfish, tolerating a heretic, etc, etc, ad infinitum Well that's just absurdity.
Second item. You know how your brain fills in words from just the first bit of it, shape of the word, whatever? Well in this thread every time I see SCOTUS my brain fills in "scrotum" which is wrong but in a wrinkly way kind of accurate....
Basil Exposition wrote:Fletch1 wrote: In reply to alfadriver: This is a big one. Woman had a long-time gay friend and customer. He was getting married and she kindly said she couldnt it. She served him the best she could until it violated her beliefs and conscience. Well, he didn't like that. http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/20/living/stutzman-florist-gay/And here is another. http://www.newsmax.com/Newswidget/christian-family-farm-gay/2015/06/25/id/652303/?Dkt_nbr=125BD-1&nmx_source=Telegraph_Media_group&nmx_medium=widget&nmx_content=96&nmx_campaign=widgetphase2
Simple litmus test: replace "gay" with "interracial" or "Muslim". Does their stance sound bigoted if you change the adjective? Then it's bigoted if you don't. Would it be illegal to deny service on other social grounds? Then it should be illegal to deny it for sexual orientation grounds.
"Do you make wedding cakes?"
"Yes."
"Okay. I'd like this to have a passage from the Quran about love and fidelity on it."
"Wait... is this for a Muslim wedding?"
"Yes. We're Muslim."
"I can't make a cake for a Muslim wedding. It's against my religion."
So Mr. Takei says: Hey, you're free to have your religious beliefs. Have them all you like. I have mine, too. But you can't impose your religious values on to others.
(But Mr. Takei and his group can impose their beliefs on you all day every day or you will lose your business.) You honoring your religion... You own a bake store, to give an example. A gay couple walks in; wants a cake. You say, "Sorry, my religion forbids supporting gay marriage." That's the end of your business. That couple's going to walk out, go somewhere, come back with an army of lawyers, and you're finished.
Instead of just going someplace that will bake them a cake, they're going to focus on the place that wouldn't because of religious freedom. This is not about joining. It's not about being accepted. It's about overthrowing. And Mr. Takei has just admitted so. "Hey, you're free to have your religious beliefs all day long. I believe in religious beliefs," he says. "I support them. But that doesn't mean you can impose them."
How is somebody who owns a business, minding their own business, a gay couple comes in and wants a cake or a picture taken or what have you: "Sorry, can't." How is that marriage, that gay marriage, being imposed upon? A baker refusing to bake a cake is not stopping the wedding. A baker refusing to bake the cake is not preventing the couple from being in love and they're not preventing them from going out and finding another cake. They're not preventing them from anything.
This group just doesn't want to bake the cake. There are plenty of other places that will. But they don't go there. They stay focused on the place that won't and they get put out of business or try to. Now, who is imposing on who? Mr. Takei says we're not stopping. Religious liberty is next. There isn't going to be any. Because, folks, religious liberty is the target here, or religion is the target, ultimately that's what this is really all about. That's why I say this is far more about politics than policy. Here's more proof: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/26/same-sex-marriage-is-legal-now-what.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thedailybeast%2Farticles+%28The+Daily+Beast+-+Latest+Articles%29#
"Gay Marriage is Not enough" I thought it was about two people getting marriage just like any other two and having the same rights? It should be over now right? "We must not only advance policy, we must also accelerate acceptance of the LGBT community.." GLAAD President and CEO. told The Daily Beast that they have a unique role to play in promoting this acceptance in the context of U.S. churches, particularly within Christianity.
“As we look ahead to a movement beyond marriage equality, we know that the work of affirming Christians is not yet finished. It’s now time for churches to move beyond simply accepting what we understand, to affirming LGBTQ people as they are,” the organization said in a statement.
Alongside religious advocacy efforts, changing the internal culture of families and schools seems vital but similarly impossible to achieve through legislation and Supreme Court rulings alone.
Fletch1 wrote: ...How is somebody who owns a business, minding their own business, a gay couple comes in and wants a cake or a picture taken or what have you: "Sorry, can't." How is that marriage, that gay marriage, being imposed upon? A baker refusing to bake a cake is not stopping the wedding. A baker refusing to bake the cake is not preventing the couple from being in love and they're not preventing them from going out and finding another cake. They're not preventing them from anything...
I agree with you. That is completely absurd and clearly not the intent of the law.
You have to admit though, it is pretty ironic that the reason all this has come about is exactly BECAUSE similar religious people DID try (and were successful for a long time) to prevent others from doing something (imposing their beliefs on them).
None of this B.S. would have been necessary at all (as with many things) if people were not being a-holes. Now... the balance of a-hole power has just shifted.
Sadly, this is how ISIS celebrated:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/06/isis-celebrates-lovewins-by-tossing-4-gays-from-roof-of-building/#!
And here in America it's the LGBT attacking Christians as the one's that hate. C'mon man! Funny thing is in other country's, Christians and LGBT's get treated about the same. Beat and beheaded. Or in this case, thrown off buildings.
aircooled wrote:Fletch1 wrote: ...How is somebody who owns a business, minding their own business, a gay couple comes in and wants a cake or a picture taken or what have you: "Sorry, can't." How is that marriage, that gay marriage, being imposed upon? A baker refusing to bake a cake is not stopping the wedding. A baker refusing to bake the cake is not preventing the couple from being in love and they're not preventing them from going out and finding another cake. They're not preventing them from anything...I agree with you. That is completely absurd and clearly not the intent of the law. You have to admit though, it is pretty ironic that the reason all this has come about is exactly BECAUSE similar religious people DID try (and were successful for a long time) to prevent others from doing something (imposing their beliefs on them). None of this B.S. would have been necessary at all (as with many things) if people were not being a-holes. Now... the balance of a-hole power has just shifted.
We've gone from tyranny of the majority to tyranny of the minority. It is still tyranny, no matter which self-righteous group exercises it.
it makes sense that the LGBT would take on the "Christians" as the most vocal opponents have been those who claim to be Christian. Notice I said "claim".
Except for the old testament, Which Christ was supposed to relieve his followers from, do I see any mention of a problem with "laying with another man as he would a woman". That is Old Testament and Torah, not Christ's teachings. If the "Christians" truly followed his teachings, they would welcome the LGBT community into the fold as brothers and sisters.
I personally think that anybody who has serious issues with Gays, Lesbians, or the like needs to examine their own feelings very carefully... glass houses and all that
In reply to Fletch1:
Private business refusing to serve people on moral grounds.
In reply to Fletch1:
Of course it's not just about equal right to marry. Not any more than the Civil Rights Movement was about getting to pick your seat on the bus or eat at any particular lunch counter. Both movements were and are about respect and equality.
In reply to mad_machine:
Christ relieved us from ceremonial and scarifical laws, not moral laws. Our spiritual lives are governed not merely by an external code, but by God’s grace, which operates in us to fulfill the righteous requirements of the law (Rom. 8:4). Grace teaches us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires, and to live sensibly, righteously, and godly (Titus 2:12). And grace empowers us to live holy lives.
“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’ Matthew 19:4-5- Jesus Christ
For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. Matthew 15-19- Jesus Christ
Truly I say to you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city. Matthew 10:15- Jesus Christ
I'm sure you won't listen. But you are trying to take Jesus out of context. I feel the need to share the truth.
In reply to Fletch1:
Your truth from your church.
There are Christian churches that are marrying lbgt's. Which suggests that your version isn't as applied there.
To Fletch:
But see, here we have a problem. The Flying Spaghetti Monster has no problem whatever with homosexuality so my belief system cancels yours out.
In reply to Fletch1:
I will concede to your quotes.. I cannot argue against them.
Datsun1500 wrote:Beer Baron wrote: In reply to Fletch1: Private business refusing to serve people on moral grounds.Can a Muslim business refuse to serve me pork? Why or why not?
A Muslim business can refuse to serve pork in general. A business can not selectively decide to serve pork to one group, but not to another. Our brewery has a tap room. I can refuse to serve Bud Light or Gluten Free beer, but I can't decide that we will serve Bud Light... but not to men with beards.
A business can decide what goods or services it will and will not offer. But it must offer those services equally to all people.
alfadriver wrote:Flight Service wrote: As complex as the current system and the rights that along with marriage, I think this is a simpler path than trying to completely back out all federal and state governments out of the marriage process.I'm not sure it's possible to have the government get out of the marriage process. To many legal things are mixed in with marriage.
exactly. I think the no government marriage process would be the most complicated thing possible. More so than the tax code itself.
Datsun1500 wrote: So as long as I refuse to make rainbow flag cakes at all, I'm good? If I just say, sorry, we don't sell rainbow flag cakes, I can't get sued? Wanna bet?
The question then becomes why you don't make rainbow flag cakes. Do you not make custom cakes at all? Do you not have the ingredients, equipment, or skill to make a particular design? Or do you have personal feelings against a particular group?
You should get in just as much trouble as if you said, "I don't make cakes with black people on them," or "I don't make cakes with the Star of David on them."
You'll need to log in to post.
