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.
Having the state become the official determiner of what a holy book says when there are thousands of religious denominations that disagree on many points of the same translation just seems wrong.
Well, that's a lot of questions. Let me start by saying I'm a devout Christian, the kind that loves others. The kind that says those who are without sin should cast the first stone.
I'm also the kind of Christian who knows Jesus Christ never said one word about gay people. That was old testament. The testament that said stuff about not working on the Sabbath, women not wearing the clothing of men, and not having leavened bread during Passover.
Additionally, I have a very close family member who is gay and I'm sick up to here with businesses discriminating against them and haters hating.
So. Yes. I think businesses who deal with the public should have to do business with every person who is pursuing a legal transaction, that they would happily provide for other customers, regardless of whether that business likes that customer personally or not.
So should a Jewish business owner have to do business helping Nazis organize a meeting? Or do your principles only apply to those whose beliefs coincide with yours?
Agreed. If this is the case, then there should be a way to revoke the preferential tax treatment if they're going to discriminate. I don't agree with what this venue is doing, but beyond that, if they're receiving tax benefits for supposedly offering a public benefit (such as economic development) but that burden has to be made up on other taxpayers' dimes, then there can and absolutely should be strings attached for getting that.
So you would change the tax code based on what beliefs you support? You people are totalitarians and anti-American.
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
You are right, you aren’t saying that. What you are saying is a business owner should be forced to do a type of business they don’t like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClaraC
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.
I am trying very hard here to not get too annoyed.... because lady, I lived through the real deal.
There is absolutely no comparison to the desperation of being told you can not take care of bodily functions with nowhere else to go for miles and being told they won’t hold a particular type of party.
There is a world of difference between discrimination based on something you can not alter or disguise if you are desperate and being discriminated against something you can decide to tell people or not - because I could not just cover my skin in order to be allowed to eat.
And, finally, these things can induce legitimate agony when you know not one other business in a 50 mile radius has a different policy so you better just hope you aren’t arrested for indecent exposure while peeing behind a tree; while having to drive 5 miles up the street to a business thrilled for the opportunity to serve you is a minor annoyance.
At most their feelings are hurt, so stop comparing that to the literal danger we faced just trying to put food in our belly. The bottom line is they need to find a place and person to marry them in a reasonably convenient, affordable location, they want to get married at that particular venue.
Their wants should not negate the PRIVATELY OWNED business owner’s rights.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
I agree that it’s completely unacceptable for these businesses to deny same sex couples a wedding venue & services. That said, I also believe that if someone’s religious beliefs are unaccepting of same sex couples, and if we value freedom of religion, which like freedom of speech may involve things we don’t want to see & hear, then the couple should go elsewhere. It’s up to them if they want to publicly denounce the venue. If there is a law that prohibits this exclusionary treatment, then it should be enforced. But as someone said, and I have often thought, why doesn’t the venue just say the dates are not available? Not ideal, of course, but this is a no win situation.
I wish people these days would stop with the "we didn't expect to ignite controversy with our social media venting" nonsense. The reason why people post these things on social media these days is precisely because they expect and want their drama to become viral, and to shame the business.
This couple is out of luck though. As the article mentions there are no state protections in North Carolina or federal legislation banning anti-LGBTQ discrimination in public accommodations. Just find another venue and go on with your lives.
And this is why little churches in Podunk towns across the country are worried. There WILL be an example of some couple that decides they just LOOOOOOOVE the little country church, or their great-aunt Sally used to attend there, so they want to be married there. And when Pastor Chuck, who has served the little congregation, now numbering 16 (with 127 in the cemetery out back), for 47 years tells them they can't have the ceremony there, they're going to be sued for everything they have.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 2 days ago)
35,592 posts, read 17,927,273 times
Reputation: 50626
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldhag1
You are right, you aren’t saying that. What you are saying is a business owner should be forced to do a type of business they don’t like.
I am trying very hard here to not get too annoyed.... because lady, I lived through the real deal.
There is absolutely no comparison to the desperation of being told you can not take care of bodily functions with nowhere else to go for miles and being told they won’t hold a particular type of party.
There is a world of difference between discrimination based on something you can not alter or disguise if you are desperate and being discriminated against something you can decide to tell people or not - because I could not just cover my skin in order to be allowed to eat.
And, finally, these things can induce legitimate agony when you know not one other business in a 50 mile radius has a different policy so you better just hope you aren’t arrested for indecent exposure while peeing behind a tree; while having to drive 5 miles up the street to a business thrilled for the opportunity to serve you is a minor annoyance.
At most their feelings are hurt, so stop comparing that to the literal danger we faced just trying to put food in our belly. The bottom line is they need to find a place and person to marry them in a reasonably convenient, affordable location, they want to get married at that particular venue.
Their wants should not negate the PRIVATELY OWNED business owner’s rights.
I lived through the separate bathrooms/separate entrances/separate water fountains era too, although from the white side. And that's why I recognize this very same thing - it's got the exact same smell.
And BTW, gay men were dying for being gay at a greater rate than they are now. Beaten to death.
So the comparison is ABSOLUTELY valid.
Rejection of gay people, vs. rejection of people of any race or culture, is the same thing.
And my guess is, they didn't care THAT much for the venue, it was just the fact that they were, once again, rejected.
And yes, their rights to book that venue, like the rights of black people to dine in the main dining area of a restaurant, is the same thing.
Despite it making people really uncomfortable to see it that way.
BTW - one of the most disheartening, and damaging things I saw during the civil rights era was an interview with a blonde high school student in a district that was being integrated. She looked nice, spoke sweetly and softly, and said "I understand that everybody deserves a good education, and that's why negroes are being allowed to come to our schools. But next thing you know, they'll be wanting to come to our dances, too, is the problem".
It's the SAME thing as here. People speaking sweetly and softly, and then stabbing you with the knife of bigotry.
Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs.....both the couple and the venue owner. I would not want to have my wedding, where I was not wanted. There are plenty of other places.
So is adultery and also worth of death. But accusations of adultery didn't keep Trump or Clinton from being president. But in your belief do you think homosexuality is an even worse sin than straight adultery, and so a person married to the same sex should never be president?
What we have here is a matter of interpretation. You feel that was his instruction to all or most men, rather than a select group?
"Matthew 19:1–12 is Jesus' response to a question from Pharisees about divorce. After establishing that marriage was designed to be lifelong by God at creation, Jesus insists that divorce is unlawful except in the case of sexual immorality. The disciples suggest it would be better not to marry, at all, in that case. Jesus says that is not true, and a life of celibacy is only for certain people, such as eunuchs of various kinds."
A reference today would be to priests of the Catholic church, though it seems while 'the spirit is willing, the flesh is weak', another warning Christ gave to those who would follow this path. IOW, be sure.
You are in the right chapter though. In verses 4-6 he describes marriage for the masses.
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.
