2016 Election
Quote: SanchoPanzaThat is not such a far jump from the prosecution of businesses and other parties that, say, do not want to cater to same-sex weddings.
I think it is different - a business offering services to the general public vs an organization offering certain member-only services.
Right now, a non-catholic man and woman can not demand a catholic wedding.
The general public are generally welcome to attend services, but are not welcome to receive communion.
So I think there are still clearly different rules that treat "organizations" and "businesses" differently, and all of those would also need to come together before the rules affecting one could have an impact on the other.
Quote: TwoFeathersATLCould a State just simply say, "we don't recognize marriage as a legal union between 2 ( or more) individuals?
Just say, "you're on your on, we'll deal with you one at a time"? And only "one at a time"?
I think Mississippi is somewhat seriously considering this, although this could end up as part of one of those "this didn't really happen" articles over on Cracked. I doubt that it will happen, as it will do the state more harm than good - it would be telling the people who believe in "traditional" marriage, "Sorry, but your type of marriage is just as banned as a man trying to marry his brother, the brother's 10-year old daughter, and the daughter's pet dog as well, simultaneously."
As for whether or not a church will be forced to conduct a same-sex wedding: no. However, I would not be surprised to see calls for churches that refuse to conduct them to have their tax-exempt status removed, although I don't expect to see that actually happening either.
Quote: Dalex64I think it is different - a business offering services to the general public vs an organization offering certain member-only services.
Right now, a non-catholic man and woman can not demand a catholic wedding.
Yes, this is the salient distinction. Businesses cannot discriminate on the basis of faith, religions can. It's not like you can walk into a church and demand a bar mitzvah for your son, or walk into a mosque and demand a baptism for your baby. The whole point of Constitutionally-protected religious freedom is that you have the Right (capital R) to avoid government interference with your religious practice.
But baking a cake is not a religious practice, it is a commercial enterprise. Commercial enterprises must not be able to discriminate on the basis of the religious faith of the proprietor.
Quote: MathExtremist
But baking a cake is not a religious practice, it is a commercial enterprise. Commercial enterprises must not be able to discriminate on the basis of the religious faith of the proprietor.
Yep, exactly. here is where I think people get confused. You have a right to be against gay marriage and not want to participate or bake a cake. Whether it's a religious belief or just personal choice for whatever reason. Likewise, you have a right to be a racist and not like black people and not want to cook for or serve them food.
What you don't have a right to do is open a business that is open to the public and engage in these discriminatory practices. If you don't want to bake a cake for gays, or Blacks or Jews, or whomever, you don't go into the cake baking business. If you don't want to serve blacks you don't open a restaurant. You just can't open a restaurant and hang a sign that says "No blacks served". This has long since been decided. The cake thing is the exact same thing.
The smart folks on the right have wanted to get past this issue for quite a while now. It is a LOSING issue for the republicans. Polls now show almost 60% support for gay marriage and much higher among the younger generation, ever the younger generation of republicans. That means, not only are you losing big, but each and every day that passes, the margin grows. It is a fight that has been lost.
Some of those that are digging in their heels are saying things like this will energize the base. People that this is such an issue for were already high energy right wing voters that were going to vote republican anyway. This isn't bringing any NEW voters to the game and that's what the repubs need to do.
Presidential elections are tilted away from the republicans. Fair or not, that's a fact. Just the same as under the current rules, congressional elections are tilted to the republicans. With the Presidential election process tilted slightly against them, republicans have little room for error. They almost have to thread the needle. They aren't going to do that by doubling down on being the party against gays, Latinos, women. The smart operatives in the party know and say they need to be more inclusive. That doesn't mean they need to win any of those groups but they cannot lose those groups by the huge margins that they do and continue to be relevant.
And BTW, there are many, many gays that hold mostly conservative values. The older gay generation, which are most of the faces of the gay marriage 'debate' almost assuredly hold conservative value on just about everything. Just the fact that they want to enter into 'traditional marriages and raise families tell you that. Many of them own businesses. Many are just a natural fit for the republican party, but they are driven to the democratic party by the republicans lack of inclusion.
It's fun and going to continue to be fun to watch.
Quote: kewlj
What you don't have a right to do is open a business that is open to the public and engage in these discriminatory practices. If you don't want to bake a cake for gays, or Blacks or Jews, or whomever, you don't go into the cake baking business. If you don't want to serve blacks you don't open a restaurant. You just can't open a restaurant and hang a sign that says "No blacks served". This has long since been decided. The cake thing is the exact same thing.
The cake thing is so simple. The baker has the right to say, "I can make a cake, but I do not carry same-sex figurines for the topper." If the couple wants that cake so bad they can be directed to the internet to find some for themselves. This is what bakers need to do. Just say, "It is not a product I carry in my store, and I have a policy of no 'bring ins' for anyone."
Just as you cannot force a Ford dealer to carry Chevy parts, you cannot force a bakery to carry decorations they do not want. This seems to be a solution that is fair to all.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe cake thing is so simple. The baker has the right to say, "I can make a cake, but I do not carry same-sex figurines for the topper." If the couple wants that cake so bad they can be directed to the internet to find some for themselves. This is what bakers need to do. Just say, "It is not a product I carry in my store, and I have a policy of no 'bring ins' for anyone."
Just as you cannot force a Ford dealer to carry Chevy parts, you cannot force a bakery to carry decorations they do not want. This seems to be a solution that is fair to all.
Until he cannot open for business because of protests outside his door. Remember it's all about tolerance on 1 side only. The other side is called bigotry and racism.
Quote: ThatDonGuy
As for whether or not a church will be forced to conduct a same-sex wedding: no. However, I would not be surprised to see calls for churches that refuse to conduct them to have their tax-exempt status removed, although I don't expect to see that actually happening either.
Even if this happens it is unlikely to have any effect and it shouldn't have any effect. A church as a religious institution can choose to refuse to marry whomever they wish. I mean right now a church is well within its right to refuse to marry an interracial couple and I'm sure there are some that do. That has been legal for near 50 years now and no church has lost tax exempt status over it.
Some churches should probably lose their tax exempt status due to some of the politicking that they do, but whether they keep or lose their tax exempt status should have nothing to do with whether they choose to marry gay couples or not.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe cake thing is so simple. The baker has the right to say, "I can make a cake, but I do not carry same-sex figurines for the topper." If the couple wants that cake so bad they can be directed to the internet to find some for themselves. This is what bakers need to do. Just say, "It is not a product I carry in my store, and I have a policy of no 'bring ins' for anyone."
Just as you cannot force a Ford dealer to carry Chevy parts, you cannot force a bakery to carry decorations they do not want. This seems to be a solution that is fair to all.
If that had been the dispute in the Oregon case, it never would have gone anywhere. But that's not what happened. A same-sex couple walked into a Portland-area bakery to get a cake for their wedding and the owner said "we don't do same-sex weddings" and called them "an abomination unto the Lord." It was *exactly* the scenario I was talking about. A bakery is not a religious institution but they refused service to the gay couple on the basis of the owner's faith. It was a direct violation of state law.
http://www.kgw.com/story/news/local/2015/02/02/ruling-gresham-bakery-discriminated-against-same-sex-couple/22760387/
I mean, the owners of In-N-Out Burger are religious too (look at the bottom of the cups) but do you think they'd ever deny two Double Doubles with animal fries to a gay couple? That'd be insanity.
Also insanity: eating animal fries. (You have to try them once, but what a gut bomb.)
Quote: BozUntil he cannot open for business because of protests outside his door. Remember it's all about tolerance on 1 side only. The other side is called bigotry and racism.
Intolerant gays will try to shut him down, but he will get plenty of other business because of it as well. Just like when they tried to attack Chick Fil-A and the next week Chick Fil-A stores ran out of food business was so good.
I saw an interesting article that said as this mainstream acceptance comes about, gays will have to learn to STFU and act like normal people. (Well, I embellished a little :-) )
IOW, many either don't know how to stop acting as "outsiders" or are such attention-whores that they would almost rather be discriminated against so they can march in parades and protests. They have achieved their goal, now go to work and act like everyone else. One interesting thing the article said was some gay-bars were being "invaded" by bachelorette parties, presumably because the ladies want to act wild but not have guys hitting on them. This of course leads many regular patrons to have the "what are they doing in our space?! attitude.
On this matter, we are clearly at the point of "time will tell."
