Gay marriage

[Lurker66]

Should muslims be allowed to practice their religon, sharia law and all?

Yes, same as Amish.

 

[RickN]

Let me put it to you this way guys, if somehow a hard religious person was elected and managed to load the courts with the same, and they passed a law that you had to go to church every week. It did not matter what religion as long as you went, would you think that is right and that it overrides your beliefs?

The fact is that there are laws and safeguards for religious people too. The clash between what the government says a religious person has to do, has just not made it to the Supreme Court yet. When it does I expect it to come down very similar to the Hobby Lobby ruling in that a small business or close held corp does not have to violate their beliefs on gay marriage as long as they do not discriminate in day to day business.

Heck even Patrick Stewart does not think religious people should be forced to go against their beliefs for a gay wedding.

 

[Hobbes]

Let me put it to you this way guys, if somehow a hard religious person was elected and managed to load the courts with the same, and they passed a law that you had to go to church every week. It did not matter what religion as long as you went, would you think that is right and that it overrides your beliefs?

The fact is that there are laws and safeguards for religious people too. The clash between what the government says a religious person has to do, has just not made it to the Supreme Court yet. When it does I expect it to come down very similar to the Hobby Lobby ruling in that a small business or close held corp does not have to violate their beliefs on gay marriage as long as they do not discriminate in day to day business.

Heck even Patrick Stewart does not think religious people should be forced to go against their beliefs for a gay wedding.

Have you told Muhammad Ali about this?
Sounds like a great defense of his objection on religious grounds to the draft.

 

[caojyn]

Heck even Patrick Stewart does not think religious people should be forced to go against their beliefs for a gay wedding.

well if Jean-Luc Picard says it must be so...

 

[donner]

Let me put it to you this way guys, if somehow a hard religious person was elected and managed to load the courts with the same, and they passed a law that you had to go to church every week. It did not matter what religion as long as you went, would you think that is right and that it overrides your beliefs?

The fact is that there are laws and safeguards for religious people too. The clash between what the government says a religious person has to do, has just not made it to the Supreme Court yet. When it does I expect it to come down very similar to the Hobby Lobby ruling in that a small business or close held corp does not have to violate their beliefs on gay marriage as long as they do not discriminate in day to day business.

Heck even Patrick Stewart does not think religious people should be forced to go against their beliefs for a gay wedding.

So what is the solution to the issue of religious freedoms vs the rights of others? Do the rights of one trump the other?

Scenario 1: gays are denied the right to marry because of fear they will demand things from religious people

Scenario 2: the right to equal protection under the law is acknowledged, gays are allowed to marry and there is a push for access to businesses that object on religious grounds.

Without getting into the fact that 'religious grounds' have been used before in our country to deny certain groups equal access, i'd just say that it seems far better to start from equal footing (i.e. Everyone has the same protected rights) and take the next step as it comes (as you noted with the court challenges). Rather than denying part of the population equal protections because it *might* infringe on the rights of business owners (who are already operating with legal restrictions when they can refuse service).

Both sides need to take a step back and relax. The gays pushing the issue are wrong, but so are the people who denied gays the legal benefits that marriage provides.

Having been around the wedding business for 10 years, i can tell you there are many ways to get out of dealing with clients you don't want to work with without it being about the orientation of the couple. The ones who are making news are doing so because they felt the need to make a scene about how their religious views play into it (again, not attacking their views, just the need to tell someone you disagree with their lifestyle when there are other easier ways out of it).

Finally, i don't buy the whole 'baking a cake' as being part of the wedding. It's stupid. Few here would support the notion that a gun shop was part of a mass shooting because it sold the gun to the shooter. So why would a cake baker be 'part' of the wedding for simply providing a good to the couple? Ministers i can understand, but that then makes me wonder why you'd want someone at your wedding who didn't want to be there to support and celebration your marriage.

No one here is wholly right or wrong, but starting from a place of equal access/protections is the first step. We can address the issues that arise as they come.

 

[farmerbyron]

So what is the solution to the issue of religious freedoms vs the rights of others? Do the rights of one trump the other?

Scenario 1: gays are denied the right to marry because of fear they will demand things from religious people

Scenario 2: the right to equal protection under the law is acknowledged, gays are allowed to marry and there is a push for access to businesses that object on religious grounds.

Without getting into the fact that 'religious grounds' have been used before in our country to deny certain groups equal access, i'd just say that it seems far better to start from equal footing (i.e. Everyone has the same protected rights) and take the next step as it comes (as you noted with the court challenges). Rather than denying part of the population equal protections because it *might* infringe on the rights of business owners (who are already operating with legal restrictions when they can refuse service).

Both sides need to take a step back and relax. The gays pushing the issue are wrong, but so are the people who denied gays the legal benefits that marriage provides.

Having been around the wedding business for 10 years, i can tell you there are many ways to get out of dealing with clients you don't want to work with without it being about the orientation of the couple. The ones who are making news are doing so because they felt the need to make a scene about how their religious views play into it (again, not attacking their views, just the need to tell someone you disagree with their lifestyle when there are other easier ways out of it).

Finally, i don't buy the whole 'baking a cake' as being part of the wedding. It's stupid. Few here would support the notion that a gun shop was part of a mass shooting because it sold the gun to the shooter. So why would a cake baker be 'part' of the wedding for simply providing a good to the couple? Ministers i can understand, but that then makes me wonder why you'd want someone at your wedding who didn't want to be there to support and celebration your marriage.

No one here is wholly right or wrong, but starting from a place of equal access/protections is the first step. We can address the issues that arise as they come.

Just stop it with all that reasonable talk. Don't you know the gays will force you to like anal sex?


http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6999832

 

[Glock 'em down]

Absolutely.

This means that my nephew will now be able to marry his boyfriend and I'll have another damned relative that I'll hafta act like I care about during holiday get togethers.

 

[farmerbyron]

Let me put it to you this way guys, if somehow a hard religious person was elected and managed to load the courts with the same, and they passed a law that you had to go to church every week. It did not matter what religion as long as you went, would you think that is right and that it overrides your beliefs?

The fact is that there are laws and safeguards for religious people too. The clash between what the government says a religious person has to do, has just not made it to the Supreme Court yet. When it does I expect it to come down very similar to the Hobby Lobby ruling in that a small business or close held corp does not have to violate their beliefs on gay marriage as long as they do not discriminate in day to day business.

Heck even Patrick Stewart does not think religious people should be forced to go against their beliefs for a gay wedding.

Luckily this was addressed in the majority opinion.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2015/06/26/breaking-supreme-court-upholds-state-bans-on-gay-marriage-n2017268

The question that now remains is how the Supreme Court will balance religious freedom, which is protected under the First Amendment, with this ruling on future cases. Kennedy touched on this point in his opinion.

"Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same-sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex," he said

.

 

[Hobbes]

Ya know, if I baked cakes for my profession and someone I didn't like asked me to make them a cake I think I would just sneeze a few times, scratch my ass, pick my nose and say sure,... I would love to make you a cake.

 

[Dave70968]

You missed the point. Nothing requires them to operate businesses that accommodate the public; they have the option of finding jobs elsewhere that don't require them to make such moral judgments. Unless, of course, selling gasoline to gay people is also against their beliefs. Or groceries. Or being a clerk at the electric company that has gay customers.

I get the argument that a business should be free to do business or not do business with anybody it pleases. I agree with it, in fact. But to say that their only choices are to follow their faith and be fined into bankruptcy, or to operate their business on terms they find objectionable, overlooks the highly-relevant fact that other jobs exist. Ergo, false dichotomy.

So your OK with forcing them to give up the small business they worked so hard for? You think anyone with religious beliefs should just fire all their employees, close their business and find new jobs?

If you're going to quote me, you might try reading the whole thing first. The bit in boldface specifically answers your question: no, I am not okay with it. I merely said that alternatives do exist, refuting your claim that the faithful only have two choices.

Besides, isn't the Bible full of stories of how people's faith is tested? It's easy to be faithful when everything is going well; this is their chance to show how strong their faith really is. We've seen several clerks resign rather than issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. I disagree with their position, but I have to respect them for having the strength of their convictions. I suspect they won't end up on welfare, either; they'll simply find jobs compatible with their faiths.