Stephanie Slade:
According to the Pew Research Center, half of Americans think business owners should be required to provide their services for same-sex weddings even if doing so violates their religious beliefs. In a September poll from the group, respondents split down the middle on the following question:
If a business provides wedding services, such as catering or flowers, should it be allowed to refuse those services to a same-sex couple for religious reasons, or required to provide those services as it would to all other customers?
The number saying businesses should be required to provide such services included a majority of Catholics, noteworthy given Rome’s stance on “traditional” marriage. This all seems to suggest a large segment of the population is fine with the idea that people can be compelled to do a job even if they feel it goes against their beliefs.
Not so fast—issues like this are tricky to poll on. Even small, seemingly inconsequential tweaks to wording can completely upend the results of a question. Take for example the contraception mandate issue decided earlier this year by the Supreme Court in Hobby Lobby v. Burwell. In February 2012, a CBS News/New York Times poll asked the following question:
And what about for religiously affiliated employers, such as a hospital or university—do you support or oppose a recent federal requirement that their health insurance plans cover the full cost of birth control for their female employees?
The response was overwhelming—by a 2–1 margin, respondents supported the requirement. But when the same two outlets tweaked the question a month later, they got the opposite result. Worded as follows, a full majority—57 percent—said the employer should not have to cover contraception:
What about for religiously affiliated employers, such as a hospital or university? Do you think their health insurance plans should have to cover the full costs of birth control for their female employees, or should they be allowed to opt out of covering that based on religious or moral objections?
By explicitly noting that the employers have religious or moral grounds for objecting to the mandate, the question elicits a radically different response.
@Tom:
Ah, but you would agree that there are more homosexuals in San Fran than Riyadh, right? Maybe ‘choice’ is involved. If they are distributed by nature, they would exist equally, right?
“Ah, but you would agree that there are more homosexuals in San Fran than Riyadh, right? Maybe ‘choice’ is involved. If they are distributed by nature, they would exist equally, right?”
Stupid FOOL.
Gays migrate to San Francisco from hateful places like Texas. Yeah, they CHOOSE to migrate. That’s why San Francisco has so many gays. Because it WELCOMES them.
How could ANYONE be dumb enough to NOT know that?
IDIOT.
@George+Wells:
In Houston alone, not counting Austin, there are more gays than there are in San Francisco.
Yes, you are.
@retire05 #103:
Wrong yet again, ignorant one.
Ranked by TOTAL number of gay residents:
#4. San Francisco
The capital city of California is notable for its gay population not only because of its sheer size amounting to 94,234 residents but also for the high percentage the gay community which makes up 15.4% of the total city population. No other city in the country can claim to have as vibrant and politically-aware a gay community as San Francisco. Here a history of liberal activism since the 1950s has led to the emergence of a sophisticated and informed gay population. Bernal Heights is one of the most notable gay neighborhoods in San Francisco while the city’s gay hub Castro is located at the intersection of Castro, 17th and Market streets and includes countless hip shops, restaurants, bars, nightclubs and even gay accommodations. Other trendy neighborhoods frequented by gays include The Mission, SoMa as well as the Haight and Hayes Valley.
#6. Houston
This hi-tech city does not figure in many lists of gay-friendly cities since its gay community makes up only 4.4% of the city’s whole population. However at 61,976, the gay population in Houston is the six-largest in the country. The most visible gay hub in Houston is the busting Montrose neighborhood even though Oaklawn and Highland Village are among other popular choices for gay residential areas.
Yawn.
Don’t you ever give up with the lying?
@George+Wells:
Do you ever get tired of being an asshole? Oh, that’s right, you’re all into assholes, aren’t you?
@retire05 #105:
“Do you ever get tired of being an asshole?”
I’m being an asshole for calling you on your frequent lies?
I get tired of having to correct all of your public lies.
If you don’t like getting caught lying, why don’t you STOP LYING?
What is it with you and Redteam, anyway?
You both just make up stuff for the fun of it?
Republicans think that they can just INVENT facts and get away with it?
Republicans think that if they REPEAT their lies often enough, people will believe them?
All that stuff I’ve been posting – those are FACTS. The TRUTH.
Pick up on that and stop embarrassing yourself.
And while you’re at it, you might try being a little less DISGUSTED with REALITY.
One more thing:
If you don’t like getting your nose rubbed in your own boo-boos, remember that I’ve extended the olive branch to you several times, and each time you spit in my face.
What goes around, comes around.
@Redteam:
What? I think I’ll defer to George 102 on responding to that. You got spanked, buddy.
I do hope Pete will respond.
@George+Wells:
I don’t lie. Get that through your thick head.
You mean like:
I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinski.
If you like your health care, if you like your doctor, you can keep them, period?
I will have the most transparent administration in our history (while it actually is the least transparent)?
I will not have lobbyists in my administration?
Republicans want you to die?
I learned about (name the event) in the press just like you did?
Benghazi was due to a video?
Shall I go on with the lies told by Democrats?
Why are you not honest about why you post here? You picked up the banner for your friend when he got run off due to his comments about heterosexuals on his own blog. You are here for one reason; to push your agenda. But you continue to deny that, time after time after time. So who’s being the liar, George?
I stopped posting on this tread simply because you were working so hard to keep it alive. I wish Redteam had done the same. This thread needs to die its deserved death. But you continue to hijack every thread you post on with your agenda pushing. That act alone speaks loudly about you.
Now, you can push your fairy tale that I’m a liar, but I am through with you. You’re the most dishonest person that posts here, George, and that’s saying something when we have the other progressive trolls hanging around.
@George+Wells: 102
Awww Georgie, is name calling an identifier of those that are born gay or gay by choice?
The subject of 101 was ‘choice’, not the city, and I actually thought you would recognize that, but perhaps you would benefit much more than I had given you credit for if our (mine and yours) intelligence were averaged out.
@Tom:
Nope, don’t participate in those gay activities.
I will point out to you, as I did George, that he didn’t even recognize the subject of 101 at the time he commented in 102. Go back and read up to that point and you might see that. But maybe not.
@George+Wells:
George, I’m gonna point this out to you, but you’re gonna miss the irony of the whole thing.
San Francisco is NOT the capital city of California. Not yet anyhow.
@George+Wells:
Yet you’ve never been able to produce one single lie that you claim I’ve made up.
I’ve certainly never tried to tell anyone that San Fran is the capital of California. You really think that just because a few gays live there increases the importance of the city.
@George+Wells:
So are you gonna repost the lie that San Francisco is the capital of California in hopes it will convince more gay people?
@Redteam #113:
Fool.
The post about San Francisco was quoted in its entirety (including the erroneous attribution of the State capital to show you that I wasn’t manipulating the content) for the published numbers of gays in that city as opposed to the SMALLER number of gays living in Houston. THAT was the purpose of the post – to prove that Retire05 had lied about Houston having more gays than San Francisco. Had nothing to do with which city was California’s capital. Check other population sources if you like. I did, and they all confirm the same thing – that Retire05 was wrong.
Every time anyone here on FA makes an honest mistake, they are accused of lying. That’s a shame, isn’t it?
I’ve made mistakes, and I’ve apologized for them, but that didn’t stop Retire05 from calling me a liar. So when she makes an honest mistake, like when she said Houston has more gays than San Francisco, I called her a liar, too. Tone down the absurd rhetoric, and I’ll return the favor and be civil henceforth. Otherwise, you’re just wasting your time complaining.
And so you are now trying to wiggle out of that “distribution-of-gays” remark? The one in which you said:
“If they (homosexuals) are distributed by nature, they would exist equally, right?”
What the F did THAT mean? “…exist “EQUALLY”???
Now that you’ve been caught in the mistake, wiggle some more.
@retire05 #108:
“Why are you not honest about why you post here? You picked up the banner for your friend when he got run off due to his comments about heterosexuals on his own blog. You are here for one reason; to push your agenda.”
I have told you many times before that I post here because I like to argue. I find it stimulating to the mind, and at my age, I need mental stimulation. After living with Paul for 40 years, there’s not much left to argue about. Anyone who has a lick of sense knows that this explanation rings true.
They would also be able to tell by the uniqueness of my particular perspective on gay rights and how they are being won that I do NOT follow any so-called “gay agenda.” While I think that the goals of the gay rights movement are worthy, I do NOT think that they are well-served by the haste in which they are being pursued. But I’ve explained all of this before. You just didn’t get it.
Sure Democrats have lied. So have Republicans. What’s that got to do with the price of tea in China?
Irrelevant argumentation.
Like this painfully obvious “misstatement”:
“I stopped posting on this tread…”
NO. You DIDN’T.
LOL.
You keep saying that I’m dishonest, but you can’t point to a lie like your ” I stopped posting on this tread” can you?
NO. I didn’t think so.
And how do you think YOUR fans react to that?
When you’ve told the truth, I’ve agreed with you. Plenty of times. But when you err, I correct. It kind of cancels out the damage that your mistakes might otherwise cause.
The truth will set you free.
@Tom:
Respond to what? I have been busy in my NICU all.weekend and haven’t had a chance to run through the entire thread…or.even really check what is going on at FA much in the last 36 hours.
I did notice a story on Hotair just now that a couple of Christian ministers are being legally harassed for not performing gay weddings in Idaho. I don’t know if that is what you are wanting me to comment on…
@George+Wells:
Let me get this straight now. You posted an article that you knew the entire basis of the story was a lie, to prove something else was a lie?
“Gay” thinking, I guess……
@Richard Wheeler:
You write as if those who consider homosexuality sinful don’t consider priests molesting boys – by definition homosexually – also sinful. It was absolutely reprehensible that certain members of the church hierarchy covered up the acts of the molesters, and those responsible should be held.accountable. Ultimately, the sinfulness of the molesters and those who covered for them does not negate the religious definition of homosexual acts as sinful, within the context of religious belief.
@Tom:
Tom, pardon my delay in addressing your post. As I said earlier, it has been a busy weekend in my NICU.
George has presented a number of statistically based references that seem to indicate a genetic predisposition towards homosexual tendencies. They do not, however, prove that homosexuality is genetic, anymore than there is any medical proof that bipolar disorder, or borderline personality disorder are genetic. When you read these studies, they also refer to environmental factors. If the “cause” of homosexuality were primarily genetic, one would expect the monozygotic twin studies to show a much higher incidence than 52% of both twins exhibiting homosexual behaviors, given these twins having the same genetic code. Using a monozygotic twin paradigm, the way to answer the “nature vs nuture” question would be to take a statistically sufficiently large number of monozygotic twins possessing the previously mentioned genetic coding at Xq28 (I believe that was the gene locus George had presented) and raise them in separate home environments long enough for them to exhibit sexual preferences. If the number of these seperately raised/nurtured monozygotic twins displaying homosexual traits turned out to be 95% or greater (the common percentage used in medical research to show it statistically unlikely to be the result of random chance) then one would be on solid ground for claiming a specific, solely genetic cause for homosexuality. I am sure you can see the great ethical difficulty in performing such a study.
All that being said, I do not believe there is not a potential genetic predisposition towards homosexual behavior under certain environmental (nurtured) conditions. But I do believe this argument misses the point I have been trying to make in this little debate. There are all kinds of conditions for which science has determined a genetic cause, but that does not equate to “normalcy”, nor does a characterization of a condition as “abnormal” justify persecution of those afflicted with a particular condition. As I stated in an earlier post, we do not encourage people afflicted with diabetes to engage in behaviors that are known to be harmful in the context of that condition. So what sense does it make for a physician, knowing the data regarding the dangers of homosexual acts, encourage those afflicted with the condition of homosexual tendencies to engage in harmful behaviors? The question of whether or not such tendencies may have a genetic predisposition is irrelevent.
One could argue, from a purely genetic standpoint, that it is “normal” and beneficial from the standpoint of proliferation of the species, that males should go around impregnating as many different females as possible. From a societal standpoint, most would agree that such purely biologically based behavior is irresponsible and potentially dangerous. The ability to control our base urges is a hallmark difference between humans and animals.
I hope that answers your question. If not please let me know.
@Pete: Good writeup Pete. George seems to miss the point that for a condition to be determined as scientific that it has to be repeatable. Such as the example I gave, that if you combine H and O in the same correct proportions at the same temperature that you will ‘always’ get water as a result. It won’t produce water 60% of the time and something else the other 40% of the time. Therefore, if identical twins are ‘in fact’ identical including all their genes, then if the genes are the cause of homosexuality, then both of them will either be homosexual or both of them will not. If one is and one is not, then the cause has (scientifically) to be something other than genetic, such as nurture. I’m still waiting for George to tell me that when a homosexual adult approaches a minor and attempts to seduce him that it is a condition that should be dealt with by society and not condone it as ‘normal’.
@Redteam #120:
God knows I’ve tried to explain this to you before:
Homosexuality occurs at a rate of approximately 2% in the entire population. You OK with that?
If homosexuality occurs at a rate of 10% in all males who have a specific gene sequence such as the one at the Xq28 location, then that means that this gene combination is influencing homosexuality.
If you don’t believe this, ask Pete. He’s been trying to dance around this, but he cannot dispute the fact that researchers have replicated Hamer’s initial findings, which DID establish a genetic involvement.
You seem to be fighting the fact that there IS more than one cause of homosexuality. There are multiple causes of cancer and multiple TYPES of cancer, right? Tell me why homosexuality should be any different.
Like I said: Ask Pete. I think that he has enough professional integrity to give you a straight answer.
And ask him if a mother’s hormones can influence sexual orientation. See if he dances around that one, too.
“I’m still waiting for George to tell me that when a homosexual adult approaches a minor and attempts to seduce him that it is a condition that should be dealt with by society and not condone it as ‘normal’.”
I’m not sure that I haven’t already addressed this question. Here’s my answer again, for the record:
Whenever an adult engages in sexual behavior with a child who is under the “age-of-consent” in the state where the behavior takes place, the behavior is illegal – a “crime.” In most – if not all – states, an ATTEMPT to commit an illegal behavior is ALSO a crime.
Some states distinguish between these sort of crimes on the basis of sexual orientation, punishing adult homosexual pedophiles more severely than corresponding adult heterosexual pedophiles. I suspect that the number of states that make this distinction is declining (I haven’t looked it up) but I support a state’s right to set punishments as it sees fit – as I have already noted that I believe that a society has a right to execute homosexuals if that is what it wants and if that is consistent with that society’s constitution or whatever other documents of law the society follows.
I told you before that the adult who propositioned you broke the law. Whether the behavior was “normal” or not doesn’t enter into the question of the legality of the proposition. And since I’ve already explained ad-nauseam that neither homosexuality nor homosexual behavior is “normal,” your question about “normalcy” is moot.
I cannot see what other point you are attempting to have me concede.
What is your point?
@George+Wells:
George, how am I dancing around a potential genetic component to homosexuality…by referring to the potential for a genetic predisposition to homosexuality? I even acknowledged the twin study you mentioned, stating it seems to show a trend towards a genetic predisposition towards homosexuality. You have to admit it is not conclusive, even as I agree it shows a trend.
And I would agree with your reference to a potential maternal hormone impact on the development of homosexual tendencies, though I believe it likely has more to do with a fetal genetic predisposition to a heightened sensitivity to female hormones on fetal brain development than merely a function of the concentration of said hormones. I say this not based on any particular study, but based on the fact of women who have given birth to more than one boy, yet having some of her male children develop homosexual tendencies while other male children have heterosexual tendencies.
Regardless, as I have already stated, any genetic predisposition towards homosexual tendencies does not by the potential for existing make such tendencies become a “normal” human condition, from a biological perspective.
@Pete:
While I thoroughly enjoy your posts, you’re wasting your breath (so to speak), Pete. George is not really interested, nor does he care, if people are “born gay”, or it truly is a mental disorder. He is here for one reason; to tell us all he’s here, he’s queer and there is not one thing you, or anyone else can do about him and his ilk and if you have any objection to homosexuality, even based on your religious beliefs, you are nothing more than a religious bigot and he, and his fellow queers, will continue to shove their abnormality down our throats until we are too afraid to even speak against their sodomist ways.
Now, George is not unusual in that agenda. Harvey Milk felt the same way, and GLAD has pushed that philosophy for years. George just tries to hide the real reason he is here, claiming it is because he likes to “argue.”
Not debate, not discuss, ARGUE.
So you, Redteam and others, feel free to “argue” with him, but for me, that little bit of enjoyment has expired its shelf life. Frankly, if I want to debate a defensive queer, there are others who are much more intelligent, and much more interesting, than George.
Something else the left lied about.
http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/9364
A pair of ministers in Coeur d’Alene Idaho have been ordered by the Government to perform same-sex weddings, under threat of jail.
REMEMBER:
Churches don’t perform ceremonies, people do. In this case it is people, Christian ministers, being forced under threat of jail to perform gay ceremonies.
Borrowed from a physicist:
Everything not forbidden is now compulsory.
Gays who are liberals, lied.
There are many gays who oppose this totalitarian ideal.
@Pete #122:
I agree with what you said here. It was my intention for you to restate it, as Redteam seems to think that this means that there is NOT any evidence of a genetic component to the cause of homosexuality. I have told him that replicated research shows such a genetic link, but he does not believe me. I am not a teacher and not a doctor, and in his eyes being an analytical chemist means nothing. Thanks for your voice of reason.
I will no further address your comment about “normal,” as this is not my argument regardless of how many Republicans attempt to make it thus.
@Pete: Pete, I think you and I have been under the impression that George has enough sense to understand simple statements. Clearly we are wrong in that presumption. I certainly agree with what you said in 122, but George can’t understand what I’ve said and asks you to substantiate some convoluted version of what I’ve said that bears little relation to what I said. At no time have I said that homosexuality is or is not genetic, but I have said that if it is, and if you are talking about identical twins and if the genes are the ONLY thing causing the homosexuality, then identical twins have to be either both homosexual or straight because if both have the same genes, then it will cause homosexuality in both boys, not just one of them. Now if they have identical genes and it is nurture or nature that causes homosexuality and NOT genes then it is certainly possible for one to be and the other not. I am not referring to people that are not identical twins, or twins of any manner.
George said:
Hogwash. It means nothing, unless of course that if any person having any other gene combination is homosexual, then the reason can’t be attributed to that( Xq28) gene. Why would the gene combination influence 10% of a pool and have no effect on the other 90%? Has to be something else. Barking up the wrong tree. H20 at 60 degrees and atmospheric pressure is ALWAYS water. Not 10% of the time or 99% of the time, it is always exactly water at those conditions 100% of the time.
So, I’ll restate my position again, it is most likely that homosexuality occurs in individuals that have had exposures early in development or after birth that lead them that way, or they have a reason to choose to want to be that way. There is, to date, no genetic evidence that ‘proves’ to be the ’cause’ of homosexuality.
@Nanny G #124:
My understanding is that the Knapps are operating a “for-profit” business that they happen to call “The Hitching Post Wedding Chapel.” The Government of Coeur d’Alene took their tax status to indicate that they were not operating a “church.” I think that the government acted lawfully in this case, and that thus far, no “church” has been legally threatened to marry gays “or-else”.
This is not to say that I necessarily agree with what is happening. City ordinances prohibiting discrimination must have boundaries and limitations. If not, then such ordinances are absolutely meaningless, because anyone who wants to discriminate can do so by simply evoking a religious objection to the individual or class of individuals that they want to discriminate against. Can you see this from this direction? Does a KKK member who worships the Grand Dragon get a pass to discriminate against Black customers at the restaurant the KKK member serves food to other customers at?
I believe in the separation of Church and State. In cases where churches don’t WANT to marry gays, that’s enough, as long as we’re talking churches and not 7-11’s that just happen to sell marriage certificates.
@George+Wells:
Say that again George. Which part of the constitution guarantees one person the right to make another citizen repudiate his religious beliefs? Each and every person has the right to have whatever religious beliefs that they desire to have.
If those people are ‘forced’ to perform a ‘ceremony’ that is against their religious beliefs, then it should go something like this.
Homosexuals and friends of homosexuals, we are gathered here today in the presence of Satan to violate the commands of God. These people want to ‘claim’ they are married and the law says that I have to perform a ceremony that is against God’s stated words and proclaim that these people are married. So let’s cut out all the BS and just do the deed. In the eyes of Satan, you are hereby pronounced as 2 quote married unquote gay guys living within the delights of Satan.
I’m pretty sure the words said within the ceremony are not dictated by the ‘state’ are they?
Why, in God’s name, would two homosexuals want to ‘demand’ that a religious person violate their religious beliefs just so they can claim they are married?
Whether a person makes money off of religion doesn’t have a damned thing to do with it. Every preacher I know gets paid.
@Redteam:
For the same reason that a lesbian couple called the openly Christian owners of a farm that rented out their barn, which they lived in on the third floor, to rent the barn for their “wedding” and reception. When declined during the phone call the lesbians were recording (it was the first and only phone call) the farm owners were sued.
For the same reason that the organizers of the Lexington Gay Pride Festival contacted a t-shirt printer, who advertised themselves online and publically as a “Christian Outfitter”, and when the t-shirt printer refused to print an objectionable design on a t-shirt, but recommended another t-shirt printer, they were also sued.
For the same reason that a baker, who refused to bake a “wedding” cake for a same sex couple because it would require delivery of the cake to the ceremony site, and felt they would therefore be participating in an event they had religious objections to, was sued.
I have never claimed to be some ultimate authority on the medical or genetic aspects related to homosexual behavior, and I certainly do not profess to being a theological expert on the topic either.
I do have – at the risk of sounding arrogant – a unique perspective. Before my son’s ( and later children) diagnosis of cystic fibrosis motivated me to become a physician, I was an armored cavalry officer possessing an undergraduate degree in acting and film making. As you might imagine, I have many friends who exhibit homosexual tendencies. You may choose to disparage me for uttering what sounds like a cliche, but I have already mentioned the person – my friend – who I asked to be my best man at my first wedding was, and still is, flamboyantly gay. Despite knowing my personal opinion on homosexuality, he still agreed to be my best man. When I was earning my degree, I was cast too many times to count in roles portraying homosexual males. (The Shadow Box being the one that I still remember). Despite the line coming from far too many in the homosexual lobby, I do not hate gays, nor am I a closeted homosexual in denial, simply because I oppose the political effort to portray homosexuality as “normal”, natural, or beneficial. Opposition does need to equate to hate or persecution, but conversely a desire not to persecute does not mean my only path to being able to deal with the fact that some people are afflicted with homosexual tendencies requires that I sacrifice my principles in order to get along.
Claiming that my medical opinion is out of step with the “majority” medical opinion is irrelevant. Medical and scientific data is not, from a pure standpoint of validity, on precepts of democratic majority rule. I have mentioned in other threads the history of multiple instances where the majority medical opinion has been proven wrong. (the number of lobes in the human liver; the miasma theory of disease; the spontaneous generation of disease theory; and the discovery of the bacteria H pylori as the cause of the vast majority of cases of stomach ulcers, despite the majority medical opinion that it was impossible for bacteria to live in the highly acidic environment of the stomach – which was the opinion as late as the 1980s) Science is never completely settled, and Truth is not concerned with majority opinion.
All I can do is call things as I see them, and give people my honest opinion based on my interpretation of the data I have seen. What someone else chooses to do with my interpretation of the data is solely up to them.
@Redteam #128:
“Say that again George.”
I only told you what my understanding of the law is. I don’t personally agree with asking people to do something that they don’t want to do. I don’t like it when it happens to me, and I can understand why other people don’t like it either.
I’ve said this before, but since you want me to “say that again”: I don’t think it’s smart for gays to force this issue. They ARE forcing the issue in places where the law lets them force the issue.
Don’t like it? CHANGE THE LAW!
Coeur d’Alene has an “anti-discrimination” law that covers this case. The Knapps were ORDERED by the city government to marry gays if they ask to be married. If the Knapps think that the government was misinterpreting the law, they should sue the government for damages. But if the law is on the books and they choose to break it, that’s THEIR fault.
Don’t blame me. I didn’t write the law.
You got a gripe with the law? Tell it to the judge.
In fact, I hope it goes all the way to the supreme court, and religious exemptions get upheld. That way, all of this B.S. will be over and done with for another 50 years, and y’all will stop blaming me for what I never wanted in the first place.
(Stupid “gay-agenda” B.S.)
Two questions, Retire05: You WANT public discrimination? Where does it end?
@George+Wells:
Let’s say you go into a shop that sells Jeans. that is their business. They are doing it for profit, not as a charity.
Now let’s say that: ” Coeur d’Alene has an “anti-discrimination” law that covers this case. The Knapps are ORDERED by the city government to sell jeans if they ask to buy jeans.”
Now let’s say you have tried on every pair of jeans in the store and can’t find any that fit. One size does not always fit all. In this case, are the Knapps still ‘required to supply what the customer wants’?
Is a store allowed to ‘not have’ what the customer wants? Does the customer have to buy what the vendor is selling? Do gays have to buy a ‘gay ceremony’? Can the vendor supply his own ‘version of a gay’ ceremony? Does customer have to buy that version? Let’s say that selling jeans that don’t fit the customer could be bad for the vendors business, should the vendor be ‘required’ to sell shoddy merchandise, at the risk of hurting their business?
i’d think a business would be allowed to only do business that they consider good for business.
@Redteam:
So Store #1 doesn’t sell jeans that fit me when I try to buy jeans there. But I do have access to Store #2 that does so I have to make an extra trip to Store #2 to get jeans. Do I have the right to sue Store #1, a jeans supplier, because they don’t have my fit and they advertise they are a jean store?
@Redteam #132:
(And Retire05, bless her heart…)
This case (or the one in Texas that ALSO involves a “for-profit” wedding business) will likely make it all the way to the Supreme Court. It should, because there are important conflicts between religious freedom and non-discrimination laws that need to be resolved.
Although there ARE some illuminating examples that will likely be introduced in the coming court battles, I seriously doubt that your “jeans merchant” scenario will be one of them.
There ARE some important factors that the courts will consider. One of them is “harm.” Justices will ask “What harm did the plaintiff suffer from this discrimination?” and “Was this “harm” sufficient for the state to intrude upon the defendant’s right of religious freedom in order to prevent the harm caused by that discrimination?”
Let’s consider a case where the harm would be considerable. Lets consider a gay man who has a particularly rare and likely fatal tumor on the heart, and there is only ONE surgeon who has ever successfully removed this type of tumor. When the surgeon learns that the patient is gay, he refuses to operate on the grounds that doing so would violate his religious objection to homosexuality – his religious freedom. The harm here is very easy to understand, while the harm in either the wedding chapel cases or your jean merchant example is not particularly demonstrable.
I think that the courts will find a middle ground in cases like these. They will side with the plaintiffs when the harm is considerable, and they will side with the defendants when the harm is trivial. That’s called “compromise.” So in this case, I think that the court will side WITH the Knapp’s wedding chapel and AGAINST the city of Coeur d’Alene.
I will remind you of the KKK example I gave earlier, and ask again: Where do you draw the line when you evoke religious freedom as an excuse to discriminate? Do you consider “harm,” as I have suggested the courts might? Or are you willing to let people to die to protect your “right” to not serve them? If you grant unlimited religious exemptions to anti-discrimination laws, you effectively render such laws useless and void.
@retire05:
Well, seems as if you would certainly be able to sue them to make them sell you jeans that look terrible on you, even though selling poor fitting jeans might be ‘bad’ for business, I think you can force them to do it. Remember, only customers have rights in the US.
@George+Wells:
If a baptist church doesn’t want any black members, do they have the right to exclude them? Suppose in your case, the surgeon uses the excuse that the surgery is so unlikely to succeed that he doesn’t want to do it? Suppose you used a similar example where the surgeon was in danger of catching a deadly disease, would you still ‘force’ him to do it?
I’ll agree that many examples can be thought of that fit the situation and don’t fit but, one that doesn’t fit at all is that a marriage chapel should ‘be required to perform a ceremony’ that is against their religious principle. Shouldn’t the person desiring to have the wedding be required to show that there was no other simple example that would result in them being married? Suppose there are two wedding chapels adjacent to each other and one has a sign, gay weddings done here, and the other has a sign, No gay weddings done here. Should that one be required to do the wedding?
@Redteam #135:
When you have nothing at all useful to contribute, your silence might be more respectable that a silly attempt at a bad joke.
You seem to not like where this country is obviously headed. Planning a move any time soon?
I’ll send you a few bags of that free cash Obama has “redistributed” to loyal Democrats, to help defray your cost of moving all of your science books and those drums of righteous indignation that you keep stored in a cool dark place.
@Redteam #136:
“Shouldn’t the person desiring to have the wedding be required to show that there was no other simple example that would result in them being married? Suppose there are two wedding chapels adjacent to each other and one has a sign, gay weddings done here, and the other has a sign, No gay weddings done here. Should that one be required to do the wedding?”
Did I not make myself clear? Let me hold your hand and walk you through it:
The Knapps should win.
Did you not get that the first go-around?
Did you take away NOTHING from what I said about “harm?”
Militant gays do themselves and the cause great harm by pushing to hard for too much, too fast.
Like Japan did on December 7 at Pearl Harbor, these gays risk awakening a slumbering giant, in this case it being the heart of bigotry in America. Best that be left undisturbed.
Re. the issue of relative harm: again, this will be the determining factor in the courts resolution of this conflict. Doctors MUST treat or risk losing their licenses to practice. Yes, there are untreatable cases. But in cases where the failure to treat can be shown to be baldly discriminatory, the courts have ALREADY spoken.
@George+Wells:
Where was my attempt at any joke?
You got a lot of that Omamamoney stored somewhere?
@Redteam #136:
“If a baptist church doesn’t want any black members, do they have the right to exclude them?”
I’m not sure about this one. The Baptist Church isn’t a “public accommodation,” so anti-discrimination laws would probably not apply to it. I would think that there would be a terrible stink about such an exclusion, but it may be legal on separation of church and state grounds (as in the government shall not establish a state religion…)
@Redteam #139:
“You got a lot of that Omamamoney stored somewhere? ”
Three off-shore numbered accounts, three different islands. Hint: exceptional pina coladas.
@Redteam:
Oh, my. But tell me, Redteam; do you remember when George was bragging how being married allowed him to get on his partner’s federally funded health insurance and that was because he didn’t want to pay the premiums he would have had to pay due to a “pre-existing” condition?
So now Mr. 3 Off-Shore Numbered Accounts is leeching off the taxpayer while he could afford not to?
Ask me if I’m impressed with his fiduciary conscience.
@retire05 #142:
LOL. Silly Girl! It was a JOKE!
The only islands I’ve ever been to are the Hawaiian islands – good ol’ USA. My mom made several trips to Caribbean islands and said that they were on the whole rather impoverished, and as I’ve worked jobs in Africa and seen REAL poverty, I’ve never had any urge to pay to see more of it. Besides, I wouldn’t want to pull one of those Natalie Holloway disappearing acts, now would I?
Oh, and the country of Sao Tome, off of the coast of Gabon, is also an island, since it isn’t a continent. Been there. Very VERY poor. And for that matter, the Cape Verde islands, too. But nothing much there other than an airport, which we did not leave.
Regarding the fiduciary consequences of gay marriage, up close, I’d call it a draw at best. Paul and I gained when he included me on his federal health insurance policy, but that benefit expires when I go on Medicare next year, and that short-term benefit is more than offset by the “marriage penalty” that we both must pay each year to the IRS, and that doesn’t expire. It is the very long-term benefits that ultimately make the difference. Rights pertaining to the transfer of marital property (as in “marital exemptions” for tax purposes), inheritance, survivors benefits and the like are the real clinchers, and the fact that our doctors and hospitals now finally have in their possession incontestable documents that they are required by law to honor doesn’t hurt, either.
I do hope that you get some of the religious exemptions that you seek. They are deserved, and are also in the best interests of everyone, including gays. There will always be skirmishes at the legal boundaries of this issue, as there are surrounding all complex issues, and these will continue long after we are both dead and gone. But I lived to see the day. I got what I wanted all along but never expected. It is truly a remarkable time. God Bless America!
@retire05:
I was/am under the impression George is 65 or older, now, and should be on Medicare. Don’t know what time frame it was when he needed to get on partners healthcare.
Note: this was after 142 and before I read 143.
@Redteam #144:
“I was/am under the impression George is 65 or older, now, and should be on Medicare.”
You won’t find anything posted by me that would have given you that impression. I told you before about going on ObamaCare’s “Preexisting Conditions Insurance Plan (PCIP), which would not have been applicable had I already been on Medicare. And when Paul and I married in May of 2013, I explained that I would now be covered by Paul’s Federal Employee Health Benefits, which ALSO would not have applied had I already been on Medicare. I am now 5 months shy of my 65th birthday, and I am beginning to get solicitations for Medicare Supplemental Insurance – a reminder that there are decisions to be made soon.
I can’t help but wonder why it interests you, but it’s nice that you are thinking of me.
@George+Wells:
Just recently you and I had a discussion about you having diabetes and your partner having sleep apnea and I recalled (and this is not a quote) that you said you were both in your mid 60’s. If that recollection is true, that would put you about 65.
@Redteam: post 530
On this thread:
So excuse me for aging you a year or so.
@Redteam #147:
Thank you for acknowledging that I did not misrepresent my age. I retired at age 46, having taken my father’s advice that men in our family rarely reach 60 and never 70, because of the unusual sort of “skinny diabetes” we have that does not respond well to conventional therapies.
Paul is still working, but plans to retire at 62. We DO plan to travel more than we’re currently able to, but not terribly much, as we’ve made our 2 acres nice enough to like being here. I have a big garden, and Mom was just by to pick up tomatoes, lettuce, radishes, spinach, eggplants and Swiss chard. (She doesn’t much like the jalapeño peppers.) It was a very good growing season, and with luck, we’ll have some of those crops through the winter, as we did last year. (When the spinach freezes, it doesn’t die.)
@George+Wells: Maybe you were lucky enough to have inherited your longeveity genes from your Mom. All I know about diabetes is thank the Lord I don’t have it and that it is a terrible disease. I was convinced I wouldn’t live long either since my Dad dies early 60’s but I’ve been in ‘relatively’ good health up to 74. Starting to slow down now.
I do like the Jalapeno peppers, but then I live in Louisiana. You definitely need to stay off those carbs.
@Redteam #149:
I think that what really saved me was that when I developed diabetes ay age 50, I immediately took the Atkins approach. His low carb diet was originally developed for diabetics who were having trouble controlling their blood sugar. It worked for me. My Father developed the disease at the identical age – 50. He was skinny, just like me. But he followed his doctor’s suggestion that he eat “normally” and use drugs to control his blood sugar. He had two massive strokes at age 56 and was dead a few years later. Never DID get his blood sugar down. Doctors don’t know everything. Oh, and as you might suspect, I was VERY nervous when I reached 56, because I didn’t know if Dad’s strokes were “pre-programmed” or a result of being “high” (blood sugar) so much. But after over 14 years with the disease, there is still no neuropathy, no retinopathy, no poor circulation, no kidney issues – in short, OK so far. I do what works. All I seem to have gotten from Mom was her rock-hard teeth. Never had a cavity, and still have one of my baby teeth, which had no adult tooth under it to push it out. Even THAT never got a cavity. Not real white, though. Dad’s were snow white and soft as chalk. By the time he died, he had nothing but crowns and bridges from one side of his mouth to the other. But you have to remember that no matter what happens, you go out like you came in – with nothing. It’s all about what you do while you’re here.