Dorkington Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 Someone has to explain to me why people have to be forced to accept gay marriage. The same reason people are forced to accept interracial marriage, I assume. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 The same reason people are forced to accept interracial marriage, I assume. But people aren't forced to accept interracial marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 But people aren't forced to accept interracial marriage. Businesses that openly refuse business interracial marriages don't get in trouble? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 Businesses that openly refuse business interracial marriages don't get in trouble? That refuse business, or that refuse to accept? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 That refuse business, or that refuse to accept? No one, personally, has to accept anyone/anyone's marriage. Businesses that refuse business based on personal views get into sticky territory. Putting a sign out front that says "no gays" is no different than "no blacks" imo. Not that many/any are going that far, but it's the easiest way to present my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 The same reason people are forced to accept interracial marriage, I assume. Interracial marriage is not against religious beliefs, so it would not be covered by the RFRA. "forced" is a rather illustrative term. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 Interracial marriage is not against religious beliefs, so it would not be covered by the RFRA. "forced" is a rather illustrative term. . There are certainly religious organizations that are against interracial relationships. An extreme example would be the KKK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 No one, personally, has to accept anyone/anyone's marriage. Businesses that refuse business based on personal views get into sticky territory. Putting a sign out front that says "no gays" is no different than "no blacks" imo. Not that many/any are going that far, but it's the easiest way to present my opinion. Okay..but NOW you just equated "no gays" to "no gay marriage." So while you argue that businesses shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against people...you now extend that argument to "people shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against events?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 There are certainly religious organizations that are against interracial relationships. An extreme example would be the KKK. No. The RFRA sets a high threshold for the judiciary to evaluate. It has to be an established religious practice, not what a "religious organization" wants or doesn't want. And EVEN THEN the Judge may still over-rule......It IS NOT a license to discriminate, as falsely advertised. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 Okay..but NOW you just equated "no gays" to "no gay marriage." So while you argue that businesses shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against people...you now extend that argument to "people shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against events?" If they said "no marriages" at all that wouldn't be discrimination. But if they said "we'll do marriages, just not gay ones", that'd be discrimination in my book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 No. The RFRA sets a high threshold for the judiciary to evaluate. It has to be an established religious practice, not what a "religious organization" wants or doesn't want. And EVEN THEN the Judge may still over-rule......It IS NOT a license to discriminate, as falsely advertised. . Actually, it's the law and precedent that sets a high threshhold. Since made lower with the Hobby Lobby decision...but still pretty damned high. If they said "no marriages" at all that wouldn't be discrimination. But if they said "we'll do marriages, just not gay ones", that'd be discrimination in my book. But against people, or against an event? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 Actually, it's the law and precedent that sets a high threshhold. Since made lower with the Hobby Lobby decision...but still pretty damned high. But against people, or against an event? People, because they are fine with the event (the act of marriage), but not fine with the people involved (gay couple). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 People, because they are fine with the event (the act of marriage), but not fine with the people involved (gay couple). Then why would they agree to serve gays if they walked in the pizzeria? If they were truly discriminatory they'd not serve gays at any level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 If they said "no marriages" at all that wouldn't be discrimination. But if they said "we'll do marriages, just not gay ones", that'd be discrimination in my book. What if it's in a state that doesn't allow gay marriages? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 What if it's in a state that doesn't allow gay marriages? It's still discrimination in my book, you'd have to consult a judge on if it were discrimination according to the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 People, because they are fine with the event (the act of marriage), but not fine with the people involved (gay couple). Individuals should always reserve the right to limit their association with other individuals in any way they choose. That's what freedom is. Your position is essentially that individuals should only be able to express their opinion if it is an opinion that agrees with yours. That's not freedom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 It's still discrimination in my book, you'd have to consult a judge on if it were discrimination according to the law. Funny thing is, by that standard Indiana's RFRA didn't allow discrimination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 Indiana allows what it allows, and doesn't necessarily line up with my opinion of discrimination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 Indiana allows what it allows, and doesn't necessarily line up with my opinion of discrimination. What if it were a Muslim company that didn't want to cater a wedding because they were serving alcohol? Or they requesting a rum cake and they didn't want to handle the alcohol? Or a Muslim caterer that didn't want to do it because they wanted pork on the menu? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 Indiana allows what it allows, and doesn't necessarily line up with my opinion of discrimination. I have a suspicion, based on what you posted, that you don't know what Indiana allows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts