California legalizes same-sex marriage; Proposition 8 overturned

[Valandui]

That lawsuit was bullsh*t. That couple definitely got away with one there...

That's the kind of thing that occurs when we look at rights as being based on a group afilliation as opposed to being personal. That's the way hate crimes laws work. But if you enact stricter punishments because the crime is motivated by race or sexuality, that is anti-equallity. It implies that one person is more valuable than another based on race, sexuality, group affilliation, etc.

[WSE]

Ok, here's one for you:

Say I'm a florist and a pretty good one at that. But I'm also a devout Christian. A gay couple comes in and wants me to do the flowers for their legal wedding. I tell them that unfortunately my religious views won't let me put the flowers together for their wedding but here's the name of a florist that would probably do it. Sorry but good luck.

The gay couple then sue me for discrimination.

Who's wrong then? Who's rights were violated?

its the same as a southern shop refusing to serve blacks

Its just using religion....kind of like racists used religion as well. Hate will show up as hate. Looking back 30 years from now, people like the ones you describe will be the ones looked at as the black marks on history.

[cmax13]

I feel that this is strictly a state issue. When it really gets down to it, I don't feel that government at any level should be involved in marriage at all. It's a contract between you and God. Why should any government be involved?

i'm not sure about the you and god thing. what happens when two atheists get married? they do it for the legal bindings, bank accounts, taxes, kids, hospital visitations, etc. i don't think god enters into the equation.

the legal aspects of marriage are the reason gay people would want to get married.

and i agree that a church should be able to say no, we don't do that. and i think a flower shop should be able to say, no thanks, too.

but when someone refuses service, they should have to offer an alternative solution, as in the example about another flower shop, or in this case, another church.

and if someone refused me service for any reason, i'd make sure to spread the word to all my friends, to boycott said establishment. of course, i spread the word, good or bad on merchants now. i'm the best free advertising going, if you treat me right. and if you don't, believe me, i tell everyone about my bad experiences, too.

[Valandui]

i'm not sure about the you and god thing. what happens when two atheists get married? they do it for the legal bindings, bank accounts, taxes, kids, hospital visitations, etc. i don't think god enters into the equation.

the legal aspects of marriage are the reason gay people would want to get married.

and i agree that a church should be able to say no, we don't do that. and i think a flower shop should be able to say, no thanks, too.

but when someone refuses service, they should have to offer an alternative solution, as in the example about another flower shop, or in this case, another church.

and if someone refused me service for any reason, i'd make sure to spread the word to all my friends, to boycott said establishment. of course, i spread the word, good or bad on merchants now. i'm the best free advertising going, if you treat me right. and if you don't, believe me, i tell everyone about my bad experiences, too.

I was speaking in a purely idealistic sense. I agree that that would never happen in this country. But the thing is, if this was only about legal benefits, why wouldn't people be content with civil unions that grant identical rights to those of married couples? I think there is a contingent in the movement (not everyone, but every movement has it's group of fanatics) that wants to stick with it just for the sake of destroying the current system as far as that goes.

I agree with almost every aspect of your post.

[CedarPhin]

This better not give CA's primary electorate to Santorum.

[LouPhinFan]

its the same as a southern shop refusing to serve blacks

Its just using religion....kind of like racists used religion as well. Hate will show up as hate. Looking back 30 years from now, people like the ones you describe will be the ones looked at as the black marks on history.

Wow its definitely not the same. There was no religious (Christian) foundation for discriminating based on skin color. How would I be discriminating against gay folks? I wasn't able to serve them, but I gave them a couple of names of florists that would be able to and wished the good luck. No ill will implied or meant toward them. I'm not looking down on them either.


People wonder why Christians are so loud in this country. It's because if they weren't our rights to freedom of religion and worship would be run rough shod over by non-Christians.

I don't want to live in your world were if my religion won't allow me to do something, I'm just labeled a racist, homophobic, or some other nasty name just so my individual rights can be stomped on. Individual rights are ok, as long as they are rights you are aligned with, correct? I think that is the liberal montra. FREEDOM FOR ALL (as long as it's a freedom I think you should have).

[Spesh]

I was speaking in a purely idealistic sense. I agree that that would never happen in this country. But the thing is, if this was only about legal benefits, why wouldn't people be content with civil unions that grant identical rights to those of married couples? I think there is a contingent in the movement (not everyone, but every movement has it's group of fanatics) that wants to stick with it just for the sake of destroying the current system as far as that goes.

I agree with almost every aspect of your post.

To be fair, many people that are gay are also religious. While that might sound hilarious, they feel secure in their spirituality and want the same rights as others of their own faith. Granted, churches will undoubtably turn them away, they still want a traditional religious marriage.

As well, i believe the number that "wants to tear it all down" far smaller then people are making it out to be. Yes, you would have the same legal benefits, but you would be identified as "different". This judge ruling showed that different labels can still be descriminatory.

[Valandui]

To be fair, many people that are gay are also religious. While that might sound hilarious, they feel secure in their spirituality and want the same rights as others of their own faith. Granted, churches will undoubtably turn them away, they still want a traditional religious marriage.

As well, i believe the number that "wants to tear it all down" far smaller then people are making it out to be. Yes, you would have the same legal benefits, but you would be identified as "different". This judge ruling showed that different labels can still be descriminatory.

I totally agree. That's why I said that not everyone is out for that. The problem is that the fanatic minority are usually the ones running the show in a political movement. If the courts were to force the churches to preform ceremonies, that would violate the principle of the separation of church and state, which isn't in the Constitution but is everyone's favorite concept to throw out. Although it may not sound like it, I completely agree with your post.

[Dolphins9954]

Ok, here's one for you:

Say I'm a florist and a pretty good one at that. But I'm also a devout Christian. A gay couple comes in and wants me to do the flowers for their legal wedding. I tell them that unfortunately my religious views won't let me put the flowers together for their wedding but here's the name of a florist that would probably do it. Sorry but good luck.

The gay couple then sue me for discrimination.

Who's wrong then? Who's rights were violated?

IMO no one. It's my belief as a property and business owner you have the right no deny anyone for any reason whatsoever. Denying gay people or anyone based on skin color is ignorant and stupid. Not to mention bad for business. But I support the right of the flower shop and of churches to have their own prerogatives. The government can't do it at all though. That's where I draw the line.

[WSE]

Wow its definitely not the same. There was no religious (Christian) foundation for discriminating based on skin color. How would I be discriminating against gay folks? I wasn't able to serve them, but I gave them a couple of names of florists that would be able to and wished the good luck. No ill will implied or meant toward them. I'm not looking down on them either.

People wonder why Christians are so loud in this country. It's because if they weren't our rights to freedom of religion and worship would be run rough shod over by non-Christians.

I don't want to live in your world were if my religion won't allow me to do something, I'm just labeled a racist, homophobic, or some other nasty name just so my individual rights can be stomped on. Individual rights are ok, as long as they are rights you are aligned with, correct? I think that is the liberal montra. FREEDOM FOR ALL (as long as it's a freedom I think you should have).

to me, ideologically, saying the bible says x is never a basis for discrimination. That's weak minded. So it is the same to me. A public business offering itself to the public should not be able to discriminate based on anything. Religion should not have a role in society outside of private worship.
Edit- before I am asked, I would make an exception for Churches/religious establishments. They would not have to conduct business with who they dont want to religiously. That would take away the entire point of their business and that is the main point in my exception

As much as you would hate to admit it, southerners for years used religion as a basis to discriminate against blacks. The KKK still does it to today. The bible is the easiest place to hide behind for discrimination. But the quotes used to discriminate against gays are correct and the ones for blacks wrong I take it according to you?

Sadly, I think the florist would be able to discriminate even if gay marriages are legal however. The Civil Rights laws mention skin color, gender, nationality, religion. Does not mention sexual preference. So the florist in your example would be able to get away with it, though I would hope people picket his shop and make it harder for him to conduct business. People who discriminate are the scum of the earth imo.