Why stop same-sex marriage for non-Christians in the United States?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alexjpr53
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is what I’m struggling with. As someone who was denied a room in a motel in Georgia in the 1960’s because we were Jewish, I really am conflicted between the rights of a public facing business and the owners rights to define his business customers.

MarthaSo same answer though the deli just doesn’t carry ham at all. They don’t deny kosher sandwich’s to non kosher keepers. I so think a business shouldn’t be forced to carry every product available but if they DO carry a product, it should be served to everyone.

kainosktisis I am still looking into this one. If what I have read so far is accurate, it is absurd. No one is being jailed but are being heavily fined for expressing their views though I am having a hard time figuring out what the context was that this took place…as I said, I’m still reading about this. I fully believe that anyone has a right to express their beliefs no matter if some others consider it hateful or not. I do not support my right to freely speak but deny yours because I find it offensive. Any offense felt is on the one feeling it.
 
Offense and denial of service are two separate things. That being said, while I don’t think any baker, for instance, should be allowed to refuse service to a gay person (any more than they should be allowed to refuse service to an African-American or Jewish person), the issue is about a baker, in the recent examples, being forced to write a message ON a cake that goes against his religious conscience, and while it’s a fuzzy line in some ways, I do not believe anyone; cake baker, greeting card maker, newspaper editor, and so forth, should ever be forced to be the agent to relay a message which violates their religious conscience.
 
I agree. I thought the Colorado case was ridiculous and I live here! The bakery didn’t refuse to sell him a cake, he just refused the message. On the other hand, I do think businesses should make clear what services they will not perform…I am unsure about making that requirement a law vs a best practices policy. Not illegal but expected?
 
Maybe they’ll have to change their name to reflect that it’s a “Christian” bakery? I wonder if that would help them not be targeted.
 
I’d rather see a voluntary sticker in the window stating that they support all LGBT . Maybe a rainbow flag in the window. I don’t think any business should have to identify their religion or other practices unless they want to. And some do!
 
Why would a Christian bakery who refuses to write a message promoting something that goes against their conscience, as in the recent case, put a rainbow flag on their window stating they support lgbt?? That would go against their conscience as well.
 
Last edited:
No! Just the opposite! Sorry I was so unclear…Bakeries that will do those types of messages would display a rainbow flag so LGBT customers would know who would fulfill their requests. Perhaps bakeries that do want to refuse certain messages could display a Christian flag sticker to show that they follow the tenets of their faith. I can’t imagine a Christian baker being forced to make a Satanic cake either but unless these issues are clarified, I fear that’s coming too.
 
MarthaSo said:
It’s interesting. The Jewish deli’s don’t serve ham, but it’s a business, not a religious organization. I wonder if there is a difference in them and a baker not selling certain verbiage on their cakes. Ive not heard secular society outraged at the ham being omitted even though it’s a business, not a religious organization. Do you think that’s on its way or is ham not a hot enough topic for it to matter.
Click to expand...
There is no requirement that any business serve a particular food. If there was such a requirement, I could go to a steakhouse and get mad and sue them because they wouldn’t serve me a peanut butter sandwich.

The legal issue is not with what goods are provided, but whether the business owner is discriminating against a protected group of people by not letting them have goods he provides to others.
 
Last edited:
Right, Patty mentioned that. I wonder then how can Christian bakers be protected from their religious beliefs that go against a protected class when they too have a protected right to their religion(?).
 
Last edited:
It’s a collision of two protected rights, and legally the courts have to decide to what extent one right is more important than the other.

The rights of people to receive food and services were historically so that people who needed to eat, have shelter, other necessities could get them. You had whole groups of people who could not get food or a hotel room when they traveled in certain parts of the country, and it was a problem, so the laws were changed. It wasn’t so that people could get the services of a particular artist to design their wedding cake; that’s not a necessity, especially when there’s many other artists ready, willing and able to design the cake.
 
Thanks. That’s interesting to know, I appreciate that information from history.
 
Thom18 said:
Homosexuals have the same rights as anyone else in the US, and some might say even more, considering the direction of our country. They had the right to marry before the Supreme Court forced it’s will on the nation- they could marry someone of the opposite sex, even if they chose not to exercise that right.
Click to expand...
That’s like someone saying in 1967 that white people and black people had the same rights to get married as anyone else before the Supreme Court forced its will on the nation when it struck down laws banning interracial marriage. If a white person was in love with a black person, they could both always marry someone of the same race instead even if they chose not to exercise that right.
 
Last edited:
Marriage between men and women of different races was possible in most of the world before the Southern states existed. Those states imposed a whole series of laws that restricted common activity not prohibited by the Natural Law, but their own unique political preference.
This was “positive” law only, strictly man made, intermarriage law and much else, thrown out by the Supreme Court.

This is totally different from throwing out legislation based on the Natural Law. The family, and marriage, predated government.
 
Last edited:
Lots of people believe “natural law” is manmade, too. That is why it is so critical to keep church and state separated.
 
Nothing you’ve said addresses the silliness of telling a gay man that he can always marry a woman if he wants to get married. For many gay men who are, say, a six on the Kinsey Scale, it would be a false option since the man would have to have some sexual attraction to women for such a marriage to be consummated.

And as for so called “natural law,” there is nothing scientific about it. It’s not like Newton’s universal law of gravitation. “Natural law” belongs instead to the realm of philosophy and is nothing more than a philosophical moral theory.
 
Last edited:
Thorolfr said:
40.png
Thom18:
Homosexuals have the same rights as anyone else in the US, and some might say even more, considering the direction of our country. They had the right to marry before the Supreme Court forced it’s will on the nation- they could marry someone of the opposite sex, even if they chose not to exercise that right.
Click to expand...
That’s like someone saying in 1967 that white people and black people had the same rights to get married as anyone else before the Supreme Court forced its will on the nation when it struck down laws banning interracial marriage. If a white person was in love with a black person, they could both always marry someone of the same race instead even if they chose not to exercise that right.
Click to expand...
Ummm no, that’s not the same thing.
A law that bans a man and a woman from marrying is absurd. We simply had grossly unjust laws in place that were founded on prejudice and fear.

Like @Thom18 said, the Courts redefined marriage. Marriage has always had a unique ontological content,right? Only the union of a man and woman can procreate new life and be a nuclear family. Is that up for dispute?

The question then becomes "should civil law respect that common sense (or that natural law), or make a false equivalency that violates nature and reason ". And the court decide to redefine a basic institution that refers to human nature.

And if you ask me, that is the problem with this issue. It’s not that same sex or any other couple has has inheritance rights and other civil privileges. It’s the deception at work.
 
Last edited:
What about a man and four wives as is available to Muslim men in many parts of the world? Or what about Solomon and his 700 wives? Would such arrangements still fall into the category of a “nuclear family” which according to you is part of the “ontological content” of marriage?
 
Last edited:
Thorolfr said:
What about a man and four wives as is available to Muslim men in many parts of the world? Or what about Solomon and his 700 wives? Would such arrangements still fall into the category of a “nuclear family”?
Click to expand...
What do you think…Why are you asking me? I think you know I support Christ’s vision for marriage.
 
But you said that “marriage has always had a unique ontological content.” But it’s obvious that it has not always been “one man one woman” and their children.
 
Last edited:
goout said:
Only the union of a man and woman can procreate new life and be a nuclear family. Is that up for dispute?
Click to expand...
It is up for dispute now. Between artificial insemination, IVF, and adoption, to name a few options a traditional relationship between a man and a woman is no longer required for a homosexual couple to raise a family. So yes, it is up for dispute.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top