Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Hordini wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
International water

First they gays wanted to be in the military, then they wanted to be married and next, they'll want to bet on monkey knife-fights.

It's a slippery slope, bro. Everything is happening just like Lewis Black said it would.

But when can Frazzled finally have his walk down the aisle?

 d-usa wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
International water

First they gays wanted to be in the military, then they wanted to be married and next, they'll want to bet on monkey knife-fights.

It's a slippery slope, bro. Everything is happening just like Lewis Black said it would.

But when can Frazzled finally have his walk down the aisle?

Ouze I have bet on monkey knife fight when I was in Thailand and I leave it at that

 d-usa wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
International water

First they gays wanted to be in the military, then they wanted to be married and next, they'll want to bet on monkey knife-fights.

It's a slippery slope, bro. Everything is happening just like Lewis Black said it would.

But when can Frazzled finally have his walk down the aisle?

Its far too late for me...SAVE YOURSELVES!

Land of the free

Do what we tell you, say what your allowed or else

lol freedom

OgreChubbs wrote:
Land of the free

Do what we tell you, say what your allowed or else

lol freedom

Your freedom ends where other people's freedom begins.

Its called living in society.

PhantomViper wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:
Land of the free

Do what we tell you, say what your allowed or else

lol freedom

Your freedom ends where other people's freedom begins.

Its called living in society.

1. I think gays should be afforded equal protection under the law in regards to marriage rights.

2. I don't believe private business owners should be under any obligation to serve them should they not want to.

3. I don't believe their 'freedom is being infringed upon' because one business owner chooses not to serve them, because they have plenty of other options to be served.

4. I think saying "it's called living in society" is bs because I believe the business owners should have time to respond to the change in policy instead of being threatened with immediate fines. When regulations change within my industry, we have a period of time in which we need to become compliant. I think this business should be afforded the same opportunity if the government is going to force them to do business they're not interested in doing.

 cincydooley wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:
Land of the free

Do what we tell you, say what your allowed or else

lol freedom

Your freedom ends where other people's freedom begins.

Its called living in society.

1. I think gays should be afforded equal protection under the law in regards to marriage rights.

2. I don't believe private business owners should be under any obligation to serve them should they not want to.

3. I don't believe their 'freedom is being infringed upon' because one business owner chooses not to serve them, because they have plenty of other options to be served.

4. I think saying "it's called living in society" is bs because I believe the business owners should have time to respond to the change in policy instead of being threatened with immediate fines. When regulations change within my industry, we have a period of time in which we need to become compliant. I think this business should be afforded the same opportunity if the government is going to force them to do business they're not interested in doing.

2. and 3. If you didn't have those laws in place you'd still have segregation in your country (and in many others, including probably my own). If you are running a public business, then you don't get to discriminate against people based on race, religion or sexual orientation. And also, again, we come to the Rosa Parks case, why was she so upset? She would still be able to arrive at her destination if she had just been willing to seat in the back of the bus instead of the front... This is the exact same thing.

4. The legislation was passed in June 2013, do you think that more than a year is enough time to adapt to the new regulations or not?

PhantomViper wrote:


2. and 3. If you didn't have those laws in place you'd still have segregation in your country (and in many others, including probably my own). If you are running a public business, then you don't get to discriminate against people based on race, religion or sexual orientation. And also, again, we come to the Rosa Parks case, why was she so upset? She would still be able to arrive at her destination if she had just been willing to seat in the back of the bus instead of the front... This is the exact same thing.

Aside from the whole PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION thing. But I'm just splitting hairs, there.

4. The legislation was passed in June 2013, do you think that more than a year is enough time to adapt to the new regulations or not?

For a wedding chapel? A year is probably JUST enough time. As multiple articles indicate, they're going to fulfill their present reservations and then most likely close down shop.

 cincydooley wrote:


1. I think gays should be afforded equal protection under the law in regards to marriage rights.

2. I don't believe private business owners should be under any obligation to serve them should they not want to.

3. I don't believe their 'freedom is being infringed upon' because one business owner chooses not to serve them, because they have plenty of other options to be served.

4. I think saying "it's called living in society" is bs because I believe the business owners should have time to respond to the change in policy instead of being threatened with immediate fines. When regulations change within my industry, we have a period of time in which we need to become compliant. I think this business should be afforded the same opportunity if the government is going to force them to do business they're not interested in doing.

Round and round. Laws are created to serve the prevailing moral environment of the citizenry; whether you agree with a law or not doesn't matter, as a citizen you are required to comply, this is what creates an ordered society and staves-off anarchy.

1. In this particular case, there was a city ordinance that was passed which made it illegal for businesses to discriminated for any reason, even homosexuals.
2. The pastors had arranged for their marriage chapel to be registered as a business, not as a religious organization.
3. Thus they were required to comply with the local ordinance.
4. Religious organizations are exempt from this ordinance; I suppose that it's ok to discriminate if you God hates particular groups (even this is questionable if you actually read the bible in the original Aramaic and Greek and don't think a 80 year old translation is the word of God).
5. On October 6, the pastors in question reorganized their business as a religious organization.
6. Much ado about nothing now.

Those are the facts. As to having time to adjust, this is a city ordinance; if they changed your local ordinances to require that your yard be no taller than 6" and it's been 8", you have no "grace" period, you have to comply. We're not talking about the automobile industry here where tens of thousands of workers and multiple, mega-corporations are involved; we're talking about a municipality and a small one at that. The ordinance was passed long ago, they had ample time to adjust or reorganize but they waited until the media and far-right organizations latched on to the story to do so. It was a simple paperwork issue, not the reorganization of thousands of workers and multiple locations.

The ordinance didn't apply to the business in question until the past week or so when a court decision created a "right" that doesn't actually exist anywhere in the state or federal constitution and is contrary to the will of the people of the state. The same sex marriage ban was overwhelmingly approved by the state's legislature and citizens in a vote. Not sure those commenting earlier that you should just abide by the will of the community really want to hold to that principle.

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:
The ordinance didn't apply to the business in question until the past week or so when a court decision created a "right" that doesn't actually exist anywhere in the state or federal constitution and is contrary to the will of the people of the state.

Wasn't the ordinance passed via the elected representatives of the city, who were elected in free and fair elections?

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:
The same sex marriage ban was overwhelmingly approved by the state's legislature and citizens in a vote.

IIRC, isn't Idaho on the list of states who's same-sex marriage bans are being reviewed/overturned by the various SC cases around the country?


Also, FWIW, Cor d'elane (however its spelled) was, at one point known as the "Western Capital" of the KKK, so it's always been a bastion of acceptance and tolerance of others and their views

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:
Not sure those commenting earlier that you should just abide by the will of the community really want to hold to that principle.

No one said that AFAIK, what you do have to do is abide by the LAW. The "will of the community" is often times a pretty awful thing to abide by.

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
International water

First they gays wanted to be in the military, then they wanted to be married and next, they'll want to bet on monkey knife-fights.

It's a slippery slope, bro. Everything is happening just like Lewis Black said it would.

But when can Frazzled finally have his walk down the aisle?

Its far too late for me...SAVE YOURSELVES!

I support the right for gays to be just as miserable as everyone else

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I support the right for gays to be just as miserable as everyone else

Yep, speaking as a married man, that is the fastest and surest way to stop gay people having sex: let them marry!

 d-usa wrote:

 easysauce wrote:


its like you dont even read the posts... did you miss the part of my quote you cut out where I stated in THIS SPECIFIC CASE its not applicable?

Awesome. Good thing that I'm not just talking about THIS SPECIFIC CASE.

I'm talking about EVERY SINGLE CASE in which someone decides to take advantage of state laws to get a license, take advantage of state laws to form a business to get legal protections by separating their business from themselves, take advantage of state laws to get tax benefits, take advantage of state funded infrastructures to make money only to then turn around and decide that all over sudden state laws should no longer apply to them.

Want the benefit of the state, follow the laws of the state. That is in no way shape or form an attack on my religion.

I'm licensed by the State of Oklahoma to practice the full scope of Nursing. I don't get to decide that I don't want to take care of my patient because he is gay. I don't get to decide that I don't want to take care of my patient because he is Muslim. I don't get to decide that I don't want to take care of my patient because they had premarital sex. I don't get to decide not to take care of my patient because they are a drug abuser. I take my state issued license and I provide the same service to anyone even if their lifestyle conflicts with my religious beliefs.

None of the examples you listed are anywhere close to being infringement on your religious beliefs. The personal choices and behaviors of your patients have no bearing on your ability to practice the religion of your choice. An actual infringement on your religion would be if you were a Muslim and the hospital refused to allow you to fast during ramadan. providing care to patients as a nurse wouldn't impact your religious beliefs unless your belonged to a religion that had prohibitions against providing people with medical assistance, in which case you wouldn't have chosen to be a nurse anyway. Neither your employer nor the state has the right to compel you to take actions that violate your religious beliefs, that right is codified in law and has been upheld by the courts.

PhantomViper wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I support the right for gays to be just as miserable as everyone else

Yep, speaking as a married man, that is the fastest and surest way to stop gay people having sex: let them marry!

Agreed 100%

 Frazzled wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I support the right for gays to be just as miserable as everyone else

Yep, speaking as a married man, that is the fastest and surest way to stop gay people having sex: let them marry!

Agreed 100%

Why do we want to stop gay people from having sex? Are we afraid they'll eventually find a way to reproduce?

Oh contraire I have been warning for some time to be careful what you wish for.

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:
The ordinance didn't apply to the business in question until the past week or so when a court decision created a "right" that doesn't actually exist anywhere in the state or federal constitution and is contrary to the will of the people of the state.

Freedom of speech and the right to bear arms were not immediately enshrined in the Constitution (at least absent Amendments*), and neither of those were rights that States necessarily had to respect.


*And, as we know, change is bad.

Prestor Jon wrote:
An actual infringement on your religion would be if you were a Muslim and the hospital refused to allow you to fast during ramadan.

I'm pretty sure, though I may be wrong, that most hospitals WILL feed you, even against your will/religion if you are fully admitted into their care, Ramadan or not.

Though, as I'm not a medical worker, I would love to hear from d-usa or other nurses/doctors on this one.

On admission we always ask "Are there any religious or cultural beliefs that you have which may affect your care?"

Being in BFE, Iowa, well...99% of the time its been "No"...population here is hugely white and Christian.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
On admission we always ask "Are there any religious or cultural beliefs that you have which may affect your care?"

Being in BFE, Iowa, well...99% of the time its been "No"...population here is hugely white and Christian.

Heh, sounds like when we went for our first OB/GYN appointment for the baby.

Doctor says something along the lines of, "there are few genetic tests we can do, but quite honestly we don't have many people on this side of town do them."

I live in a fairly Catholic area. And by fairly I mean immensely.

Hah.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
An actual infringement on your religion would be if you were a Muslim and the hospital refused to allow you to fast during ramadan.

I'm pretty sure, though I may be wrong, that most hospitals WILL feed you, even against your will/religion if you are fully admitted into their care, Ramadan or not.

Though, as I'm not a medical worker, I would love to hear from d-usa or other nurses/doctors on this one.

Ramadan is just the month of fasting wherein Muslim don't eat between sunrise and sundown, but they still eat. It's like the employee would be a prisoner on a hunger strike that gets forcefed. I just used it as an example because if a nurse or doctor or any hospital employee was fasting for ramadan and for some reason the hospital demanded that he/she eat lunch that employee could refuse on the grounds of their religion and be legally right in doing so. It's not a great example but there really aren't a lot of plausible instances where an employer or the state would force somebody to do something that clearly violates their religious conscience.

PhantomViper wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:
Land of the free

Do what we tell you, say what your allowed or else

lol freedom

Your freedom ends where other people's freedom begins.

Its called living in society.

But by ending there freedom there it contradicts what the second party wants.

I want to hate they say hate wrong, I need to accept but in order for someone to accept you, you need to accept them. So they fail to give the exact thing they say they are not giving.

Long story shot hypocritical

OgreChubbs wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:
Land of the free

Do what we tell you, say what your allowed or else

lol freedom

Your freedom ends where other people's freedom begins.

Its called living in society.

But by ending there freedom there it contradicts what the second party wants.

I want to hate they say hate wrong, I need to accept but in order for someone to accept you, you need to accept them. So they fail to give the exact thing they say they are not giving.

Long story shot hypocritical

Except this summary is completely wrong, because nobody has to accept anybody.

The gay couple can hate religious folks and think that they are a bunch of bigoted homophobic Bible loving idiots who are dumb enough to believe in a magical sky-creature who has complete control over them.
The religious folks can hate the gay couple and think that they are a bunch of [insert whatever gay insult you want] who are sin incarnate and who all should get shipped to a concentration camp and exterminated because their gayness will destroy America.
(Edit: obvious hyperbole is obvious I hope)

Both groups can completely and utterly hate and despite each other. Nobody is saying that they can't do that.

The only thing the law says is that the two groups cannot use their hate to treat each other unfairly. The gays can't turn away the religious folks from their business. The religious can't turn away the gays from their business. They are free to have whatever hate they want inside of them, they never have to accept each other, but they cannot use their hate to discriminate against the other. Because that is the line where their freedom (the freedom to hate) crosses into the other parties freedom (to not be discriminated against).

It is truly amazing that in 2014 this is still such a difficult concept.

Imagine the reaction from the right if a gay-owned business tried to refuse service to people for their religion.

 d-usa wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:
Land of the free

Do what we tell you, say what your allowed or else

lol freedom

Your freedom ends where other people's freedom begins.

Its called living in society.

But by ending there freedom there it contradicts what the second party wants.

I want to hate they say hate wrong, I need to accept but in order for someone to accept you, you need to accept them. So they fail to give the exact thing they say they are not giving.

Long story shot hypocritical

Except this summary is completely wrong, because nobody has to accept anybody.

The gay couple can hate religious folks and think that they are a bunch of bigoted homophobic Bible loving idiots who are dumb enough to believe in a magical sky-creature who has complete control over them.
The religious folks can hate the gay couple and think that they are a bunch of [insert whatever gay insult you want] who are sin incarnate and who all should get shipped to a concentration camp and exterminated because their gayness will destroy America.
(Edit: obvious hyperbole is obvious I hope)

Both groups can completely and utterly hate and despite each other. Nobody is saying that they can't do that.

The only thing the law says is that the two groups cannot use their hate to treat each other unfairly. The gays can't turn away the religious folks from their business. The religious can't turn away the gays from their business. They are free to have whatever hate they want inside of them, they never have to accept each other, but they cannot use their hate to discriminate against the other. Because that is the line where their freedom (the freedom to hate) crosses into the other parties freedom (to not be discriminated against).

It is truly amazing that in 2014 this is still such a difficult concept.

lol your so biest you can't even see the 50 so your point is moot. But I am walking away form this slope before I get pulled down with the rest.

Anyone consider a double standard here. one can sue a business for discrimination of this nature but state laws prohibit marriage of same sex laws....just saying

I don't think this conversation is about what the law is, but rather what it should be. So saying that's the law, tough isn't really a meaningful response.

Suppose a creepy Christian (i do not mean to suggest that all Chrisians are creppy, I am one, but would say that this particular "Christian" is creepy) went to a shop he knew to be owned by a gay man and asked him to design and print t-shirts that stated "F****** will all burn forever." Should that shop owner be required to make the shirt? I don't think so. Lets reverse that an suppose the customer is a gay person who wants the other to create a shirt that says "Gays are wonderful". Should the owner be required to make the shirt? Again I say no.

I don't think a gay minister should be forced to marry a straight couple that want to use the ceremony to bash on gays, and I don't think a straight minister should be forced to marry a gay couple when the process is a repudiation of the minister's beliefs.

The argument that people should be forced to participate in activities they don't agree with since they are public is one I find to be appalling and contrary to freedom and liberty. You are essentially saying that people with religious beliefs should be banned from a host of employment opportunities and businesses which means that because of their beliefs they should be denied an opportunity to make a living in a profession of thier liking or choosing. Again in some contexts this makes some sense. If a doctor will refuse to administer emergency treatment based on religion or sexuality, he shouldn't be a doctor. The farther you get from the basic necessities of life, the less justification there is for forcing people to provide a service to someone when doing so violates their conscience.

I don't think people should be forced to do business with someone when doing so forces them to violate their conscience or directly or indirectly support an idea or belief with which they disagree, especially for a non-essential service. There is a difference between refusing to sell food to a person because you don't like them for some reason, and not wanting to participate in their wedding ceremony.