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.
I think that the wedding venue owners should have booked the couple, but I don't support attempting to shame them in this way for exercising their rights to exclude.
Yes, the couple has every right to shame the venue, but it's not something I'm comfortable with. Never have been.
While I support LGBT rights, it is false to argue that someone who is against a relatively new definition of marriage does so out of animus toward LGBT people. Some (if not most) of them surely do, but that's not the point.
I wish people would stop with the "we didn't expect to ignite controversy by discriminating based on a fairy tale" nonsense.
The business owners made their views known, which they were within their rights to do. The potential customers let everyone else know the owners' views. What's the problem?
If you're willing to turn away business based on a flawed interpretation of an interpretation of an ancient text, then stand by your decision.
Of course, the business owners would say that your interpretation is what is flawed.
Note, regardless of who has the "correct" interpretation, I'll generally always be on the side of more inclusion vs. exclusion.
Status:
"This too shall pass. But possibly, like a kidney stone."
(set 23 days ago)
36,131 posts, read 18,413,257 times
Reputation: 51220
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident
I think that the wedding venue owners should have booked the couple, but I don't support attempting to shame them in this way for exercising their rights to exclude.
Yes, the couple has every right to shame the venue, but it's not something I'm comfortable with. Never have been.
While I support LGBT rights, it is false to argue that someone who is against a relatively new definition of marriage does so out of animus toward LGBT people. Some (if not most) of them surely do, but that's not the point.
What in the world, would be their motive otherwise?
That gay people in general don't pay their bills? That gay people are more likely to trash the venue?
What in the world could their motivation be, for denying access for gay weddings, than "animus"?
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
24,806 posts, read 13,190,302 times
Reputation: 10899
Quote:
Originally Posted by webster
Dress codes are different than discrimination based on factors like race. The difference lies in how the business wants to project its image - by requiring everyone wear a tie for example; a business cannot hold one group to a different standard. Due to the discrimination faced by certain groups of people as a group, that discrimination has been outlawed.
Right now, the owners are in compliance with law. But if the law were to change, no one would be preventing them from operating their business as long as they don't discriminate.
Even if a law is passed that would protect the rights of gays, the right to practice a persons religious beliefs is still protected ... so, who would win in this particular matter? It is likely that since there are probably many other venues where weddings could be held then the wedding venue would win. It is likely that if the wedding venue was the only place where a wedding could be held in that city/state then the two women would win. Probably if the women decided to sue they would not only lose but they would also be creating case law that just might make it difficult for someone else who has a true claim. People need to learn to pick their battles.
Quote:
If they want to discriminate, they can operate it as a church, a hobby or a private club. They can pray all they want, but when it comes to operating a public business, there are some standards which have to be met.
Since social media, YT, FB, Twitter, etc., discriminates against certain people for their political beliefs, should social media be operated as a hobby? Should they lose their tax status and be forced to pay back all of the tax money that they'd received for their startup and operating costs?
Quote:
We regulate religion. Polygamy is outlawed. With the exception of WV, southern and border states have outlawed snake handling in churches.
What in the world, would be their motive otherwise?
That gay people in general don't pay their bills? That gay people are more likely to trash the venue?
What in the world could their motivation be, for denying access for gay weddings, than "animus"?
Some who oppose same sex marriage do so because they believe that marriage is an institution meant for promoting procreation. You may argue that such a view is under-inclusive/over-inclusive as not all heterosexual couples can procreate, etc., but that view isn't inherently anti-LGBT. Similarly, only supporting two person marriage does not mean that one does so out of hatred toward those who believe in polygamy.
Supporting what has been the traditional basic definition of marriage for thousands of years doesn't mean that one does so out of hatred toward gays.
You can be for something or against something without hating others who believe in different things.
Status:
"This too shall pass. But possibly, like a kidney stone."
(set 23 days ago)
36,131 posts, read 18,413,257 times
Reputation: 51220
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident
Some who oppose same sex marriage do so because they believe that marriage is an institution meant for promoting procreation. You may argue that such a view is under-inclusive/over-inclusive as not all heterosexual couples can procreate, etc., but that view isn't inherently anti-LGBT. Similarly, only supporting two person marriage does not mean that one does so out of hatred toward those who believe in polygamy.
Supporting what has been the traditional basic definition of marriage for thousands of years doesn't mean that one does so out of hatred toward gays.
You can be for something or against something without hating others who believe in different things.
I think the word used was "animus", which is "hostility or ill-feeling".
And no, I don't believe you can be against gay marriage without feeling a "hostility or ill feeling" toward homosexuality or gay marriage.
It's the same argument that has been used by racists and segregationists. I don't hate them, we're just following the Bible's teachings that cultures shouldn't mix.
Right. You go into the wine shop, see your favorite wine for a fair price, and take it up to the counter and buy it. In this case, they were told to put the bottle back on the shelf and go elsewhere with their money.
Personally, that's exactly what I would do. Why would I even WANT to give my money to someone like that?
Ultimately, it just galls you folks that the world doesn't revolve around your lifestyle. I don't go into a Ford dealership looking for a Toyota. Seems some people do. Those folks likely knew exactly what would happen when they walked into that place. What they wanted was ten minutes of fame and something to b**** about. And that is exactly what they got.
At this point, what should happen is that government recognized marriages should be abolished. Just as the liberal hippies back in the 1960s and 70s said, it means nothing anyway. And now it means even less because it has been trivialized. It's an archaic religious rite that should be left up to religions. Get the state out of it. A simple signed cohabitation document would suffice for the legal aspects of cohabitation or tri-habitation or multi-habitation. Playing house shouldn't require a "marriage." And, actually, it didn't until a few years back when it suddenly became so VERY important for some reason.
Why? Are we FORCED to not have any freedoms? I don't agree with anyone anti-gay or whatever, but I believe people shouldn't be forced to do anything against their beliefs. If you don't like that business, don't go. Seems simple enough.
Status:
"This too shall pass. But possibly, like a kidney stone."
(set 23 days ago)
36,131 posts, read 18,413,257 times
Reputation: 51220
Quote:
Originally Posted by gg
Why? Are we FORCED to not have any freedoms? I don't agree with anyone anti-gay or whatever, but I believe people shouldn't be forced to do anything against their beliefs. If you don't like that business, don't go. Seems simple enough.
They DID like that business, that's the point, gg. No one is saying customers should be forced to do business with venues they don't like.
If you decide that businesses can pick and choose who they want to serve, and can turn away customers coming through the door with money to spend, we'll be right back in the 1950's where black people weren't allowed to eat at the lunch counter.
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.
