Government to Ordained Ministers: Celebrate Same-Sex Wedding or Go to Jail

a reply to: beezzer

I support gay rights to the fullest extent, But I too think that is a harsh punishment.

Heres a thought... Forget about having a priest or minister preside over you wedding, why not get a justice of the peace, or ANYONE else that has the ability to marry a couple. Im sure you can find some one who can do it.

Just forget about the biggots folks. No matter where you go there will always be supporters that would be happy to help.

a reply to: beezzer
Would you get married in a Satanist church just to prove a point?
This is pretty stupid. Plenty of judges and ministers (like me) are willing to marry same sex couples.
If you can't find a minister within your own religion willing to marry you, maybe it's time to reconsider your religion.
This isn't a slam on gays who are christian or catholic or anything else, it's about having the support of those you support, regardless. They say f-u, then f them. simple. Doesn't mean you have to change your beliefs, just your "peers."

There are double standards and basic realities of human existence (often ignored by religions) at play here.

If a religion was preaching hate for black people - saying we should kill all blacks - would it not be the societies and governments responsibility to stand up against that backwards thinking?

Freedom of speech is fine and all, but people can;t go around preaching hate/ ignoring scientific and biological realities. If an institution wants to intentionally ignore science in pursuit of archaic religion/beliefs, I think it's perfectly acceptable for the society to step in and force them to adopt modern truths. If your religion does not fit biological reality then, well, how accurate could your religion/ god have been to begin with?

IMO religions are leftover remnants of ancient man when he was scared and frightened by the world around him. When basic science appeared to be magic. As humanity and society (hopefully) evolves over the coming thousands and millions of years, I believe religions will be abandoned. I mean if we ever wanted to achieve a utopia we would need to all adopt one belief and abandon all these wars and consequent fighting over archaic and false religions.

My 2 cents.

originally posted by: Hefficide

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Gryphon66

The law is not being applied equally.

It is targeting Christians who do not want to participate in same-sex marriages.

It is discriminating based on a person's religious preference.

So you're selective in who gets discriminated against based upon your personal preferences? You don't see it as gays being discriminated against at all?

It's not discrimination.

Gays can still get married. Gays are NOT being denied the opportunity to marry.

The ministers simply don't WANT to participate in officiating gay unions.

originally posted by: snypwsd
a reply to: beezzer

I support gay rights to the fullest extent, But I too think that is a harsh punishment.

Heres a thought... Forget about having a priest or minister preside over you wedding, why not get a justice of the peace, or ANYONE else that has the ability to marry a couple. Im sure you can find some one who can do it.

Just forget about the biggots folks. No matter where you go there will always be supporters that would be happy to help.

Exactly.

Gays are not being denied the opportunity to marry.

But there appears to be an element that is stressing the issue and forcing those that do not wish to participate, into participating.

This is a different case.
Alliance Defending Freedom: OK Court Clerks Don't Have To Violate Beliefs

TULSA COUNTY, Oklahoma - Despite the recent ruling that made gay marriage legal in Oklahoma, court clerks do not have to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples if it violates their personal beliefs.

It looks like Alliance Defending Freedom is defending the Knapps'.
Ministers who own a chapel sue Idaho city after declining to marry same-sex couple

On Friday (Oct. 17), an Arizona-based religious liberty group, Alliance Defending Freedom, filed a lawsuit requesting a temporary restraining order, arguing that applying the ordinance to the Knapps’ situation would be unconstitutional and would violate Idaho’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

In Oregon there is an issue on the ballot next month.

It's for the legalization of pot.

If it is made legal, I still won't participate. But like this issue, many here would want me to participate (because it is legal) regardless of my thoughts in the matter.

originally posted by: beezzer
In Oregon there is an issue on the ballot next month.

It's for the legalization of pot.

If it is made legal, I still won't participate. But like this issue, many here would want me to participate (because it is legal) regardless of my thoughts in the matter.

That's twisting things around a bit. If pot is legal and you choose NOT to smoke it, that's one thing. But if you say that nobody in your community should smoke it because YOU don't like it?

That's more what I am seeing here.

a reply to: beezzer

Do you have a wedding chapel business open to the general public and are refusing to serve members of the public?

Do you have a wedding cake bakery open to the general public and are refusing to serve members of the public?

Do you have a wedding planning business open to the general public are refusing to serve members of the public?

How is it that you think any here want you to participate in weddings that you don't agree with?

a reply to: TC Mike

From your link:

"If they find it contrary to their conscious to issue a license to a same-sex couple they have the ability to refer that obligation to someone else,” said attorney, Kellie Fiedorek.

So a gay couple can still walk into the office to obtain a license. They don't have to go somewhere else to get the license, due to someone's "ick" factor.

The same method of accomodation can be used for the Knapps situation. They can hire someone else to do gay weddings. The extra revenue, and the tips, will pay for the "new guy's" salary. Win/Win

originally posted by: Hefficide

originally posted by: beezzer
In Oregon there is an issue on the ballot next month.

It's for the legalization of pot.

If it is made legal, I still won't participate. But like this issue, many here would want me to participate (because it is legal) regardless of my thoughts in the matter.

That's twisting things around a bit. If pot is legal and you choose NOT to smoke it, that's one thing. But if you say that nobody in your community should smoke it because YOU don't like it?

That's more what I am seeing here.

Bull poop.

The ministers aren't saying gays should never marry, they just don't want to participate.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: beezzer

Do you have a wedding chapel business open to the general public and are refusing to serve members of the public?

Do you have a wedding cake bakery open to the general public and are refusing to serve members of the public?

Do you have a wedding planning business open to the general public are refusing to serve members of the public?

How is it that you think any here want you to participate in weddings that you don't agree with?

The state is forcing people to participate in an activity that they feel is against their religion. They are being forced to participate or go to jail.

a reply to: beezzer

And if "the ministers" were picked out at random at home, or while worshipping in whatever church they attend, or while standing out in a field being amazed by the glory of god ... and forced to marry anyone, you'd have a point.

But if they refuse to serve members of the public in a place of public accommodation that exists to perform marriage ceremonies in a state where same-sex marriage is legal and discrimination against gays, lesbians, et. al. is illegal, then, yes, they are breaking the law and will be held accountable.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: beezzer

And if "the ministers" were picked out at random at home, or while worshipping in whatever church they attend, or while standing out in a field being amazed by the glory of god ... and forced to marry anyone, you'd have a point.

But if they refuse to serve members of the public in a place of public accommodation that exists to perform marriage ceremonies in a state where same-sex marriage is legal and discrimination against gays, lesbians, et. al. is illegal, then, yes, they are breaking the law and will be held accountable.

Churches also perform marriages.

Why aren't you attacking churches and forcing them to participate in same-sex unions?

a reply to: beezzer

But, their religion does not forbid selling marriage services.

My religion teaches that ultimate personal freedom and concomitant responsibility is the highest good.

If I started breaking people out of jail because I believe that human captivity is a sin, and the state stopped me, is it discriminating against my beliefs, or enforcing the same standard of law that everyone must obey?

a reply to: beezzer

Because churches are not places of public accommodation.

A church is private property.

And churches are protected under the First Amendment.

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: snypwsd
a reply to: beezzer

I support gay rights to the fullest extent, But I too think that is a harsh punishment.

Heres a thought... Forget about having a priest or minister preside over you wedding, why not get a justice of the peace, or ANYONE else that has the ability to marry a couple. Im sure you can find some one who can do it.

Just forget about the biggots folks. No matter where you go there will always be supporters that would be happy to help.

Exactly.

Gays are not being denied the opportunity to marry.

But there appears to be an element that is stressing the issue and forcing those that do not wish to participate, into participating.

They are the ones that are always causing the trouble and giving the rest of us a bad name - they're the westboro baptist church of gays.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: beezzer

Because churches are not places of public accommodation.

A church is private property.

And churches are protected under the First Amendment.

Wrong.

Religion is protected under the 1st Amendment.

You know what? I have a great idea. Actually a very Conservative idea that Republicans should love.

How about we take away the tax exempt status of Churches, as it was emplaced to begin with because back in the day Churches were the only real form of social services - which is no longer the case... So let's take away that tax exemption and make them compete for their money just like businesses do.

Then we'll see how many turn couples away, gay or not.

a reply to: Gryphon66

But it hasn't anything to do with equality anymore - it's just an element of the community that just pushes and pushes and won't stop. I have no idea why anyone would want a person to perform and wedding ceremony that doesn't want to!

it's just so utterly ridiculous that it's not wonder some people don't bloody like us.