Ministers threatened with jail and thousands in fines for refusing to marry gays

[Queller]

There is no right to a government recognition of marriage. That's a misconception

Well, when you get the government out of marriage altogether then you can make the argument that homosexuals don't have the civil right to marriage. Until then, they do.

 

[MachZer0]

Well, when you get the government out of marriage altogether then you can make the argument that homosexuals don't have the civil right to marriage. Until then, they do.

NO, they don't. Nobody does

 

[Queller]

If that is the case, it opens a market niche for an entrepreneur who has no problem selling gas to a black person

Which does absolutely nothing for the black person that can't buy gas at the time, does it?

Not to mention that if enough people in the town don't want blacks to be able to buy gasoline, they will prevent any business that would do business with blacks from opening.

 

[Queller]

NO, they don't. Nobody does

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

 

[Queller]

Which is actually the irrelevant point

Religious discrimination is the only point therefore it is relevant.

 

[MachZer0]

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Another misconception

 

[MachZer0]

Religious discrimination is the only point therefore it is relevant.

The point here isn't even about discrimination. It's about forcing people to violate their beliefs

 

[Queller]

The point here isn't even about discrimination. It's about forcing people to violate their beliefs

Forcing practitioners of the Native American Church to perform religious ceremonies without the use of peyote was forcing them to violate their religious beliefs.

 

[Queller]

Another misconception

Easy to claim, impossible to prove. Of course you don't even bother to try, do you?

 

[MachZer0]

Forcing practitioners of the Native American Church to perform religious ceremonies without the use of peyote was forcing them to violate their religious beliefs.

No, they didn't force them to do anything, they prevented them from doing something

 

[MachZer0]

Easy to claim, impossible to prove. Of course you don't even bother to try, do you?

I can prove it with a simple question. If marriage is a right, why can't you marry your sister?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

If a white person doesn't want to sell a black person gasoline, the black person can just find another gas station. If the nearest one is too far to make it on the gas he has, well that's just too bad.

This raises an important point. Widespread discrimination causes serious problems for the minorities discriminated against, and therefore laws against such discrimination are a reasonable way to stop that unfair burden from being imposed on a suffering minority.

Homosexuals looking for wedding cakes might, in theory, be subjected to having to go through extra cake vendors, at cost of time and money; and others might also subject them to the same problem for their wedding rings, their tuxedos and/or gowns, and so forth. They might be caused to look harder for satisfactory living quarters. There is no logical reason for them to have to be burdened in that way.

So let's think of this issue from another point of view. If a member of your church decided to bake a cake from their commercial bakery shop for a homosexual couple's ceremony, would you criticize them for doing that?

 

[Spaceman_Spiff]

I can prove it with a simple question. If marriage is a right, why can't you marry your sister?

Bearing arms is a right. Why can't you own an anti aircraft gun or a nuke?

Because even rights have limitations as you full well know.

 

[MachZer0]

Bearing arms is a right. Why can't you own an anti aircraft gun or a nuke?

Because even rights have limitations as you full well know.

You can make a case for the state's compelling interest to not allow citizens to own anti=aircraft guns and nukes. But what is the state's compelling interest in not allowing you to marry your sister?

 

[AztecSDSU]

By that logic, heterosexuals don't have the right to government recognition of marriage either.

They don't, there are a lot of heterosexual marriage arrangements that the government won't legally recognize. Ask Mormon fundamentalists about that.

 

[super animator]

You can make a case for the state's compelling interest to not allow citizens to own anti=aircraft guns and nukes. But what is the state's compelling interest in not allowing you to marry your sister?

which has nothing to do with two people of the same gender from marring each other.

 

[Colter]

God is the Father of gay people to, let them marry and adopt children.

 

[AztecSDSU]

which has nothing to do with two people of the same gender from marring each other.

Actually, it's very on point. The complaint of gays is that they have a fundamental right state recognition of their behavior regardless of what other people think of it. If that is indeed the case then people engaged in incestuous, polygamous, ect relationships also have a right to government recognition of their behaviors.

 

[elliott95]

Gay rights is all about wedding cakes these days.

 

[MachZer0]

which has nothing to do with two people of the same gender from marring each other.

But it does have to do with "rights' which is what we were discussing