Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What about a church that rents out its facilities for weddings? While many churches will only allow their pastors to marry people who subscribe to a certain set of beliefs, they will allow other clergy to perform weddings in their facilities. They usually charge the couple a fee for the use of their church building. That starts to sound like a public accommodation. Would a church that opposes gay marriage be required then to rent its facilities to a gay couple for their marriage? It seems like they would. If not, what's the case law behind that?
churches are not required to rent out their facilities to those whose beliefs they disagree with. This was one of the fears/arguments against gay marriage, and I believe churches are protected against doing so. I can't quote the law right now as I'm in my iPad. Churches have their own set of rules, regulations & case law. I'm sure you are aware they are non-501(c)3 tax exempt....so different standards & regulatory bodies.
Absolutely not. There are plenty of businesses that do cater to LBGT (many more that do than don't), and I'm thoroughly convinced that militant members of the LBGT community intentionally seek out businesses that look to uphold Biblical and family values for the sole purpose of destroying their business, causing controversy, and filing lawsuits. It is their way of waging war back in return for their perceived persecution.
I have no personal issues with the LBGT community, but I know malicious when I see it.
You obviously have personal issues with people being themselves since you unnecessarily type "biblical and family, and "perceived persecution."
It is the people with "family values" that are attempting to wage war with normal citizens of this country. These business owners are just as guilty of discrimination as the ones in the 1950's discouraging the patronism of the negro population.
It is not immoral and against God's law to be black. Your comparison is absurd.
God has nothing to do with Federal or State governing bodies. We are a religiously free nation, the confines of your God should not infringe upon any citizen of the Unites States of America.
Morality is subjective. Hitler thought killing Jews was moral.
Yes, they should, because when I walk into a business I assume that they treat everyone equally, and if they don't I want to know so I can go somewhere else.
Or,
If a business shouldn't be required to serve everyone, then, as a consumer, I want notice before I patronize them (maybe a sign outside their business?) so that I can go somewhere else.
Chick-Fil-A's business has increased greatly in the area where I live in the months after the gay protest. Many people will support businesses who stick to their convictions.
Why are they talking about practicing their faith? That had nothing to do with it; as follow-ups with the bakery revealed, they were happy to provide cakes for Atheist events, for a divorce, for many
"non-Christian" affairs. They only had a crisis of faith when gays became involved. So, no. You've not had your practicing of your faith attacked - you ran afoul of anti-discrimination laws because you were discriminating against people. Your problem was your inability to properly run a business. This is evident to everyone with a brain.
I think if they're in buisness, they're there to serve customers. People's personal life should be nobody's buisness. Obviously making money is second on their list. If they want to loose buisness because of someone elses preference, then they get what they deserve for being mean.
As a hobbyist photographer who has done a couple of weddings for friends as a courtesy, while I don't consider myself skilled at the trade enough to do it professionally, I can tell you that performing photography for someone is not the same as making a hamburger for them at McDonald's. The latter is a very mechanical thing one can do no matter their level of skill with "real cooking," the former requires inspiration & feelings of appreciation regarding the event you're covering in order for you to do it with any level of decent performance. Gently refusing to photograph a wedding you can't be inspired to cover is NOT the same as denying someone a meal at a restaurant, it's not even 2% the same thing.
Most people I know who get into photography either as a professional or as a hobby, they do so because they like to photograph certain subjects & they derive their joy from taking photos of what they LIKE to take photos of, and in offering their services as a professional they're offering their services for events they LIKE covering, for people who need those services. You can no more ask a wedding photographer to enjoy and be good at, say, photographing a political event as a photojournalist if that's not what gets them going anymore than you would, say, expect Alan Jackson to perform a rap music song or Jay-Z a bluegrass song. Alan Jackson's country, Jay-Z is rap, and that's that. If a particular wedding photographer enjoys photographing weddings but not political events, then that's that--that they don't care for such ensures that they're being pressured to do something that is not their cup of tea and also ensures the results, by default, will be inferior, and not due to any maliciousness nature on their part, but just because that's how it works with artistic endeavors.
So, asking a wedding photographer to photograph a gay wedding that they disagree with is inherently wrong, it's asking a photographer to be artistically expressive of something that doesn't "do it for them," when such is absolutely a requirement for successful photography. Making someone photograph something that doesn't inspire them is a violation of all that being a photographer is & is nothing less than trying to redefine the very profession of photography itself. It's not the same as denying someone a McDonald's hamburger, people HAVE to eat and one's ability to make a McDonald's hamburger doesn't hinge on how much they like or dislike the person eating it, because all you do is follow the directions in a very much "2+5=7" kind of way, and it's done. Inspiration, morals, feelings towards the end consumer have nothing to do with it.
My interpretation is that, under Minnesota statutes (363A.26 (1)), a pastor maintains the right to refuse to perform a wedding ceremony.
If, as you say, a church accepting a fee for the use of its facilities becomes a public accomodation, how is a pastor accepting a fee for performing the service different? They are both accepting a fee in connection with the wedding.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
