If someone can tell me why protection for gays is significantly different from protection for women, Jews, the elderly, blacks, Catholics … I'd love to hear it. Because all of those groups — hell, pretty much every group you can pin a label on — has been on the outs in some religious-based opinion or another. Letting someone run a public business and exclude gay customers because it makes them feel icky and God told them not to is no different from doing the same for Mormon customers, mixed-race couple customers, or Irish customers. No different.
Only the target varies, and if you let one group be a target, then every group is a target.
Reshared post from +George Wiman
Illinois' new gay-marriage law "protects" churches from having to officiate same-sex marriages. But the Chicago Tribune worries; " similar safeguards aren't spelled out for pastry chefs, florists, photographers and other vendors who, based on religious convictions, might not want to share a gay couple's wedding day."
Equality in public accommodations, jokers… look it up. If you want to run a church, then run a church. Otherwise serving the public means serving the public.
Religious protections on gay marriage in doubt
Illinois’ gay marriage bill that awaits the governor’s signature doesn’t force religious clergy to officiate at same-sex weddings or compel churches to open their doors for ceremonies. But similar safeguards aren’t spelled out for pastry chefs, florists, photographers and other vendors who, based on religious convictions, might not want to share a gay couple’s wedding day.
A lot of Christians can live with LGBT people being equal. As long they can still legally discriminate against them.
I understand not forcing the clergy to perform a wedding (religious ceremony) for same-sex couples if their religion disagrees with the idea, but I apparently missed something somehow because I don't see what any of the other stuff really has to do with this. Maybe I'm too tired to comprehend the entirety of the article, but whatever… I don't understand what all the rest of the stuff was about. A church or clergy member refusing to perform a ceremony that disagrees with their religion is not the same as a baker discriminating. Most churches that I'm aware of refuse to marry opposite sex couples if they don't conform to that churches specific beliefs. That's not discrimination, it's a religion. Religions are built around excluding people and elevating one group of "right" people.
When my husband and I got married, we lied to the minister at the little chapel we wanted to get married at so that we could get married there. He and I are both atheists and that particular minister was pretty strict on the "you must be practicing Christians" rule. We told him we were Catholic and attended the church my parents attend. Luckily for us, both sets of parents were pretty set on us confirming in high school, so we had that to "prove" we were practicing Christians. However, if we had wanted to get married in the Catholic church, we would have been required to attend a class for a few months, attend mass weekly, and do some other things to prove that we were a good match, basically.
I don't know…. I'm really tired and I think I lost my train of thought in there. All I can say is that, while I think religions are just tools for controlling people, government shouldn't have the right to force them to perform marriage ceremonies that go against their beliefs. That's why we have non-religious ceremonies.
FYI The reason for getting married in a Christian chapel when we clearly are non-believers? The chapel was cute and it was much cheaper than renting a hall or even just paying a justice of the peace to come out and perform the ceremony in a nice looking location. :-p
+Alysha DeShaé Terry No one's disputing the right of clergy to marry or not marry someone for whatever reason they want. Personally, I couldn't care less if a florist wants the "religious liberty" to not cater to a same-sex wedding. But I'm not sure how that differs from the "religious liberty" to do all sorts of nasty things.
I think I missed something in that article then… I'm sorry. I thought I understood it, but I'm about half asleep (but just can't fall asleep) and probably shouldn't have commented in the first place since I knew I was probably missing something. 🙂
+Alysha DeShaé Terry Nobody (except in the paranoid dreams of religious zealots) is talking about forcing ministers to perform a religious ceremony against their will. I mean, even though the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of religion, nobody I'm aware of has been able to walk into a Catholic church and say, "Yeah, we're Jewish, but we insist on you marrying us." NOr is anyone suggesting that, even though they are a Baptist, they have a legal right to be hired as the next rabbi at the local temple.
SO the First Amendment means I can say anything I like, as long as it isn’t against the Kikes, Niggers, Chinks and arse bandits?
@LH There are no special restrictions on speech in general, and political speech in particular. As an employer, your speech is restricted to the extent needed to avoid a hostile work environment.