Denying service for gay marriage compared to

[Brant]

As I have posted in other threads I myself am a gay man. What is my take on al this? I really could care less. Even though I am gay, I don’t allow it to identify me. Meaning, I am a person who has a personality and being gay is a very small part of who I am. I am a Christian with a deep love for Catholcism. I have a deep relationship with our lord as I do believe being gay is my cross to carry until I die. You won’t find me on the front lines of gay rights activists it’s not because I don’t believe I shouldn’t have the same rights as my neighbors I just dispise the spectacle that gay rights activists put on and gives the gay community a very bad name.

In regards to the whole cake fiasco. It’s simple, at least in my mind. If a baking establishment doesn’t want to bake me a wedding cake because of there beliefs, then I will take my business elsewhere. No need to fuss or fight or cause a scene. I respect everyone’s beliefs, and I would never pressure my beliefs on another.

 

[Ricky_C]

What if someone goes to a photographer and wants them to record a pornographic film? Will they be able to say no because of religious objection? Will they be called haters?

With the current law, they’d definitely be allowed to say no for religious reasons. As for the “will they be called haters” thing, that doesn’t matter. We shouldn’t care about what people say about us when it comes to this, so whether or not we are called haters for these decisions, that has no effect on us.

 

[_Abyssinia]

How would you respond to this?

You state: It’s acceptable to deny service to a gay marriage on the basis that your beliefs are that same-sex marriages are immoral, and participating in one by offering a service is immoral. Forcing someone to provide a service for a gay wedding against their religious beliefs is wrong.

• They state: Then you must agree that a person can deny an interracial couple service for their wedding because they believe it’s immoral to support an interracial marriage.

I think you have to explain why interracial marriage conforms to what marriage is and why homosexual ‘marriage’ does not. There are numerous articles that go through the differences. Here is an excerpt from:

7 Reasons Why the Current Marriage Debate Is Nothing Like the Debate on Interracial Marriage

1. Support for marriage as the union of man and woman has been a near human universal. Great thinkers throughout human history—and from every political community up until the year 2000—thought it reasonable to view marriage as the union of male and female, husband and wife, father and mother. That belief is shared by the Jewish, Christian and Muslim traditions; by ancient Greek and Roman thinkers untouched by these religions; and by various Enlightenment philosophers. It is affirmed by canon, common and civil law and by ancient Greek and Roman law.

1. Bans on interracial marriage and Jim Crow laws, by contrast, were historical anomalies. These bans were aspects of a much larger, insidious movement that denied the fundamental equality and dignity of all human beings and forcibly segregated citizens. When these interracial marriage bans first arose in the American colonies, they were inconsistent not only with the common law inherited from England, but also with the customs of prior world history, which had not banned interracial marriage. These bans were based not on reason, but on prejudiced ideas about race that emerged in the modern period and that refused to regard all human beings as equal. This led to revisionist, unreasonable conclusions about marriage policy.

1. Great thinkers—including champions of human rights—knew that gender matters for marriage, and none thought that race does. Searching the writings of Plato and Aristotle, Augustine and Aquinas, Maimonides and Al-Farabi, Luther and Calvin, Locke and Kant, Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., one finds that the sexual union of male and female goes to the heart of their reflections on marriage but that considerations of race with respect to marriage never appear. Only late in human history do political communities prohibit intermarriage on the basis of race. Bans on interracial marriage had nothing to do with the nature of marriage and everything to do with denying dignity and equality before the law.

1. Even cultures that embraced same-sex relationships did not treat them as marriages. Far from having been devised as a pretext for excluding same-sex relationships—as some now charge—marriage as the union of husband and wife arose in many places over several centuries entirely independent of, and well before any debates about, same-sex relationships. Indeed, it arose in cultures that had no concept of sexual orientation and in some that fully accepted homoeroticism and even took it for granted. Bans on interracial marriage, by contrast, were the result of racism and nothing more.

1. Marriage must be color-blind, but it cannot be gender-blind. The melanin content of two people’s skin has nothing to do with their capacity to unite in the bond of marriage as a comprehensive union naturally ordered to procreation. The sexual difference between a man and a woman, however, is central to what marriage is. Men and women regardless of their race can unite in marriage, and children regardless of their race deserve moms and dads. To acknowledge such facts requires an understanding of what marriage is.

1. Jim Crow laws were meant to divide the races, but marriage law unites men to women and children to their parents. Marriage has everything to do with uniting the two halves of humanity—men and women, as husbands and wives and as fathers and mothers—so that any children born of their union will know and be loved by the man and woman who gave them life. This is why principle-based policy has defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The argument over redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships is one over the nature of marriage. Same-sex marriage is the result of revisionism about marriage.

1. The Supreme Court was correct in striking down bans on interracial marriage but it should not redefine marriage. In Loving v. Virginia, the Court found bans on interracial marriage to be premised on “the doctrine of White Supremacy.”The Court found “no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification.” Indeed, earlier this summer, Judge Paul Niemeyer of the 4th Circuit Court explained that “Loving simply held that race, which is completely unrelated to the institution of marriage, could not be the basis of marital restrictions.” But this does not require redefining marriage. Niemeyer concludes: “To stretch Loving’s holding to say that the right to marry is not limited by gender and sexual orientation is to ignore the inextricable, biological link between marriage and procreation that the Supreme Court has always recognized."

 

[unstoppable_II]

Discrimination of any type is evil.

So if I buy one make of car over another because I perceived a difference, I have committed evil?

 

[unstoppable_II]

I think you have to explain why interracial marriage conforms to what marriage is and why homosexual ‘marriage’ does not. There are numerous articles that go through the differences. Here is an excerpt from:

7 Reasons Why the Current Marriage Debate Is Nothing Like the Debate on Interracial Marriage

Loving v. Virginia was a case of a state law banning interracial marriage, and that is as far as most people are informed. I don’t know what race has to do with homosexual “marriage” at all. It is a faux argument because homosexual acts are chosen whereas race is not. By equating race with homosexual acts, homosexual activists base their deficient legal argument on an inaccurate understanding of what the miscegenation law at issue in Loving actually outlawed.

Many people incorrectly believe that the unconstitutional Virginia law banned everyone from having an interracial marriage, but it did not. It banned only white people from having an interracial marriage. Therefore, an African American man could marry a woman of Asian descent in Virginia. Although this would be an interracial marriage, it would have been a legal marriage under the Virginia law, because the man and woman would not be white people. The Supreme Court looked at this racially lopsided law that obviously promoted white supremacy, and rightly declared it unconstitutional.

The law must treat people equally who are in substantially similar circumstances. Homosexuals are not, repeat NOT, in similar circumstances in any respect with heterosexual couples who wish to marry. To see that, you have to ask what the public purpose of marriage is. If it weren’t for children, marriage would be unnecessary. Society has a compelling interest in heterosexual sex which produces the next generation; it has NO interest in sodomy , which is solely a personal desire, sorta like a woman who wants to get married to get out from under her mother.

Until gay activists 'fess up and tell us what the public purpose of marriage is, we are going no where with this debate.

 

[estesbob]

How would you respond to this?

You state: It’s acceptable to deny service to a gay marriage on the basis that your beliefs are that same-sex marriages are immoral, and participating in one by offering a service is immoral. Forcing someone to provide a service for a gay wedding against their religious beliefs is wrong.

• They state: Then you must agree that a person can deny an interracial couple service for their wedding because they believe it’s immoral to support an interracial marriage.

There is no equivalence between race and homosexual behavior.

 

[Lucretius]

As I have posted in other threads I myself am a gay man. What is my take on al this? I really could care less. Even though I am gay, I don’t allow it to identify me. Meaning, I am a person who has a personality and being gay is a very small part of who I am. I am a Christian with a deep love for Catholcism. I have a deep relationship with our lord as I do believe being gay is my cross to carry until I die. You won’t find me on the front lines of gay rights activists it’s not because I don’t believe I shouldn’t have the same rights as my neighbors I just dispise the spectacle that gay rights activists put on and gives the gay community a very bad name.

In regards to the whole cake fiasco. It’s simple, at least in my mind. If a baking establishment doesn’t want to bake me a wedding cake because of there beliefs, then I will take my business elsewhere. No need to fuss or fight or cause a scene. I respect everyone’s beliefs, and I would never pressure my beliefs on another.

God Bless you Brant, for you have resisted the world for the sake of the Kingdom.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Ben_Carmine]

I think you have to explain why interracial marriage conforms to what marriage is and why homosexual ‘marriage’ does not. There are numerous articles that go through the differences. Here is an excerpt from:

Just to point out, those 7 points boil down to “It’s still discrimination, it’s just not exactly the same”.

It is accurate to compare the law saying that two consenting adults can’t get married to each other with the law saying that two consenting adults can’t get married to each other.

 

[estesbob]

Just to point out, those 7 points boil down to “It’s still discrimination, it’s just not exactly the same”.

It is accurate to compare the law saying that two consenting adults can’t get married to each other with the law saying that two consenting adults can’t get married to each other.

About as accurate as saying it is discrimination to not allow men to become pregnant

 

[seaton2005]

So if I buy one make of car over another because I perceived a difference, I have committed evil?

Not relevant to this discussion. This discussion is about human beings. We don’t discriminate against someone just because of their sexuality, gender, race, etc. What’s so hard about that.

 

[unstoppable_II]

… those 7 points boil down to “It’s still discrimination, it’s just not exactly the same”.

The law does not and cannot treat all persons – young and old, weak and strong, rich and poor, male and female, and so on – as equal in all regards. The very purpose of law is to classify (discriminate among) people for different treatment; for example, John cannot marry his sister, but Bill, who is not related to her, can.

It is accurate to compare the law saying that two consenting adults can’t get married to each other with the law saying that two consenting adults can’t get married to each other.

This sentence doesn’t make sense. What does it mean?

 

[Loly_Maria]

About as accurate as saying it is discrimination to not allow men to become pregnant

Well, if cis men ever evolve to the point where they can become pregnant, it would be discrimination to say that they weren’t allowed to…

Either way, if a baker is paid to make the cake, then they should make the cake. It’s none of their business what it’s for, or who’s getting married. The couple don’t want the baker’s opinion, they just want the cake. Same goes for any other type of service.

 

[estesbob]

Well, if cis men ever evolve to the point where they can become pregnant, it would be discrimination to say that they weren’t allowed to…

Either way, if a baker is paid to make the cake, then they should make the cake. It’s none of their business what it’s for, or who’s getting married. The couple don’t want the baker’s opinion, they just want the cake. Same goes for any other type of service.

That’s the point-they didn’t pay him for a cake. He refused to profit off an immoral event-as is his right.

And BTW- why should we be constricted by your narrow,bigoted definition of what being pregnant is? That is the unfortunaley matriarchal attitude of the cis pregnant

 

[unstoppable_II]

…
And BTW- why should we be constricted by your narrow,bigoted definition of what being pregnant is? That is the unfortunaley matriarchal attitude of the cis pregnant

In modern liberal thought, isn’t pregnancy a social construct anyway?

 

[Jeanne_S]

Well, if cis men ever evolve to the point where they can become pregnant, it would be discrimination to say that they weren’t allowed to…

Either way, if a baker is paid to make the cake, then they should make the cake. It’s none of their business what it’s for, or who’s getting married. The couple don’t want the baker’s opinion, they just want the cake. Same goes for any other type of service.

This is the most ridiculous argument yet!Are you serious?

 

[estesbob]

In modern liberal thought, isn’t pregnancy a social construct anyway?

Its a social destruct!

 

[Loly_Maria]

That’s the point-they didn’t pay him for a cake. He refused to profit off an immoral event-as is his right.

And BTW- why should we be constricted by your narrow,bigoted definition of what being pregnant is? That is the unfortunaley matriarchal attitude of the cis pregnant

It might be a right to turn people away, if it’s a small business, but it doesn’t mean I agree with them doing it.

I have no idea what you are even trying to say in the second paragraph.