I was assured repeatedly that this would never happen

[Adam]

I can't even count how many times I was told, in absolutely no uncertain terms, that with the advent of gay marriage, gay couples would not force others to have to participate in their nuptials. No way would that ever happen, especially not with a private business or a church. Such fears were just ludicrous fantasy, I was told many times.


Well, guess what.

Mennonite couple files counter-lawsuit in fear of being forced to host same-sex weddings

A Mennonite couple in Iowa who declined to host a same-sex wedding at their business has filed a counter-lawsuit against the state’s Civil Rights Commission, fearing that the agency will make them pay financial damages and host the events.

In August, Dick and Betty Odgaard, who operate The Gortz Haus Gallery in Grimes, declined a request from Lee Stafford and his partner, Jared, to host a same-sex wedding.

"They did so because their religion forbids them from personally planning, facilitating or hosting wedding ceremonies not between one man and one woman," the counter-lawsuit says.

[....]

Stafford filed a complaint with Iowa’s Civil Rights Commission accusing the Odgaards of violating state law.

"[They] discriminated against us based on our sexual orientation. Iowa code says if you have a public accommodation, you can't discriminate based on sexual orientation,” Stafford told KCCI.

And, it's hardly the first time that this has happened. An Oregon bakery was forced to close and could still have thousands of dollars extorted from them based upon "mental distress" over this couple getting getting "discriminated against." A New Mexico photographer has been told by the courts that they must photograph gay weddings, even if it violates their Christian beliefs. In the UK, the Anglican Church is being sued to force them to perform gay weddings. Now, the usual tut-tutting that this case is in the UK and this would never happen in the US will of course be the response, but in the face of the other cases, all of which I have been repeatedly assured could never happen, indeed that no one would even try to force other people and/or companies to engage in gay weddings, assurances that churches in the US will not get forced by the courts to engage in gay ceremonies ring pretty hollow to me.

AFAIC, marriage is a state issue. I don't really care about trying to re-litigate that again. But this proves, quite conclusively, what a lot of us have been saying all along: one simply cannot trust these activists to keep their word. The gay mafia is out in force to force people not to simply leave gay people alone to live in peace, but indeed to mandate, through the force of law, that the rest of the country actually embrace that lifestyle. They are literally making it illegal to have one's own religious views and to choose with whom one associates.

At this point, I'm not opposed to gay marriage because it conflicts with my Christian beliefs. I'm opposed to it simply because gay people, as a group, have thoroughly proven themselves to simply be untrustworthy. I got told over and over and over and over again that this would never happen, that all gay people wanted was to be married and live in peace, that they never wanted to force their views on anyone else. Well, it's simply not true, and it never has been true.



Sorry, gay people, but you've brought this entirely upon yourselves. Don't be surprised when others say the same thing.

[Billy Jingo]

Don't know about your church but ours can deny heterosexual couple weddings.

[Frostbit]

Don't know about your church but ours can deny heterosexual couple weddings.

Catholic churches have certainly done that and still do unless times have changed.

[Gingersnap]

I remember when gays said they've never want "marriage", and then they wouldn't go for adoption, and they would never force anyone to marry them if it was legal, etc.

Essentially, tolerance has been eradicated in favor of "support". Now, if you don't "support" whatever it is, you are evil.

I am tolerant. People do all kinds of things I don't like, don't support, and don't want to be around. I tolerate all those things without endorsing them. In fact, if you endorse those things (whatever they may be) you aren't tolerant, you're supportive. That's fine if that's your gig but it's not fine if you make me pretend to support your issue out of fear that I will suffer a punitive cost.

At that point, you aren't tolerant - you're prejudiced and bigoted. If you take that to the governmental level, you're abusive.

[deudyurondame]

I remember when gays said they've never want "marriage", and then they wouldn't go for adoption, and they would never force anyone to marry them if it was legal, etc.

Essentially, tolerance has been eradicated in favor of "support". Now, if you don't "support" whatever it is, you are evil.

I am tolerant. People do all kinds of things I don't like, don't support, and don't want to be around. I tolerate all those things without endorsing them. In fact, if you endorse those things (whatever they may be) you aren't tolerant, you're supportive. That's fine if that's your gig but it's not fine if you make me pretend to support your issue out of fear that I will suffer a punitive cost.

At that point, you aren't tolerant - you're prejudiced and bigoted. If you take that to the governmental level, you're abusive.

DANKE!

I will save this in a cloud.

[Lanie]

Don't know about your church but ours can deny heterosexual couple weddings.

But the point is some are pushing the issue (those with an activist state of mind)

I don't think churches will be forced to perform ceremonies over here because of the 1st amendment, but businesses are are going under attack. Not only are they dealing with legal issues, but they're dealing with threats. This isn't right. I took up for gay rights because I hated seeing them be bullied. Now, some of them are bullying right back. Two wrongs don't make a right. Nobody should have to do anything that goes against their conscience.

[Billy Jingo]

But the point is some are pushing the issue (those with an activist state of mind)

I don't think churches will be forced to perform ceremonies over here because of the 1st amendment, but businesses are are going under attack. Not only are they dealing with legal issues, but they're dealing with threats. This isn't right. I took up for gay rights because I hated seeing them be bullied. Now, some of them are bullying right back. Two wrongs don't make a right. Nobody should have to do anything that goes against their conscience.

I believe we are conflating two wholly different things. Churches and businesses. And no matter what the snide comments say, they are not the same thing.

Every religion, or even parish for that matter, probably has different rules but in my diocese (either one since there have been two with the same name for a few years), you have to have permission of the Bishop to be married in one of the churches. He can say no.

As far as businesses, then we are getting into issues having to do with what society will allow when it comes to discrimination in the context of commerce.

[Lanie]

I believe we are conflating two wholly different things. Churches and businesses. And no matter what the snide comments say, they are not the same thing.

Every religion, or even parish for that matter, probably has different rules but in my diocese (either one since there have been two with the same name for a few years), you have to have permission of the Bishop to be married in one of the churches. He can say no.

As far as businesses, then we are getting into issues having to do with what society will allow when it comes to discrimination in the context of commerce.

Right, and that's how it works in my church as well. However, we're getting cases where homosexuals try to make it out like it's a gay thing when really it may not be. For example, there was a hotel in England that refused to rent out to a gay couple. It turns out they were refusing heterosexuals who weren't married too. However, the couple made it out to be a gay thing. They were subjected to threats and lawsuites.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24478295

Back to the churches, I think we're in good shape thanks to the first amendment. I think the Church of England might be screwed. Look at how their government views things.

https://www.google.com/#q=uk+hate+speech+laws+homosexuality+is+a+sin+preacher

A preacher was arrested for saying homosexuality was a sin in London. Granted, he shouldn't have gotten too close to the rally, but that's not what he was arrested for. He was arrested for "hate speech." The Church of England may very well be screwed.

[Celeste Chalfonte]

I remember when gays said they've never want "marriage", and then they wouldn't go for adoption, and they would never force anyone to marry them if it was legal, etc.

Essentially, tolerance has been eradicated in favor of "support". Now, if you don't "support" whatever it is, you are evil.

I am tolerant. People do all kinds of things I don't like, don't support, and don't want to be around. I tolerate all those things without endorsing them. In fact, if you endorse those things (whatever they may be) you aren't tolerant, you're supportive. That's fine if that's your gig but it's not fine if you make me pretend to support your issue out of fear that I will suffer a punitive cost.

At that point, you aren't tolerant - you're prejudiced and bigoted. If you take that to the governmental level, you're abusive.

Black people who were trying to get equality by negotiation said they didn't want to date your sister either. Obviously they didn't speak for the ones who DID want the option of interracial marriage.

Churches are protected by the Free Exercise Clause. They can refuse to perform same-sex marriages, interfaith marriages, interracial marriages, marriages between divorced people...basically, they can act on whatever their beliefs are, however bigoted those beliefs may be.

Places of public accommodation may not discriminate on prohibited bases. The Supremes got there a long time ago by way of the Commerce Clause, and it's unlikely that even the current Court will go that far backward, despite the fondest dreams of strict constructionists. If a person doesn't want to rent to unmarried couples, they have the option of not being a landlord. If the owners of a commercial wedding chapel in Vegas don't want to marry interracial couples, they can run a different sort of business. If you operate a business open to the public, you deal with the public. No whites-only motels. No men-only workplaces. No straights-only resorts.

We WILL have full equality, no matter what some assimilationist told you. Deal with it.

[scott]

Black people who were trying to get equality by negotiation said they didn't want to date your sister either. Obviously they didn't speak for the ones who DID want the option of interracial marriage.

Churches are protected by the Free Exercise Clause. They can refuse to perform same-sex marriages, interfaith marriages, interracial marriages, marriages between divorced people...basically, they can act on whatever their beliefs are, however bigoted those beliefs may be.

Places of public accommodation may not discriminate on prohibited bases. The Supremes got there a long time ago by way of the Commerce Clause, and it's unlikely that even the current Court will go that far backward, despite the fondest dreams of strict constructionists. If a person doesn't want to rent to unmarried couples, they have the option of not being a landlord. If the owners of a commercial wedding chapel in Vegas don't want to marry interracial couples, they can run a different sort of business. If you operate a business open to the public, you deal with the public. No whites-only motels. No men-only workplaces. No straights-only resorts.

We WILL have full equality, no matter what some assimilationist told you. Deal with it.

And yet there are still gay only bars in most big cities.

[Celeste Chalfonte]

And yet there are still gay only bars in most big cities.

Have you ever been turned away? Because I know of a lot of bars that cater to gay people but none that refuse to admit straights.

There are bars that cater to African Americans, Irish Americans, Italian Americans and a hundred different varieties of Latino/as. There are yuppie bars, blue-collar bars and bars for sports fans. I've never been told I couldn't come into any of those.

What does the existence of bars geared to certain demographics have to do with anything?

[Adam]

Have you ever been turned away? Because I know of a lot of bars that cater to gay people but none that refuse to admit straights.

There are bars that cater to African Americans, Irish Americans, Italian Americans and a hundred different varieties of Latino/as. There are yuppie bars, blue-collar bars and bars for sports fans. I've never been told I couldn't come into any of those.

What does the existence of bars geared to certain demographics have to do with anything?

Pretty much everything, so long as you're going to base your argument upon public accommodation.

If I'm unwelcome at Ynonah's, a (now no longer existent bar in Nashville, but used for the purpose of making a point), then why shouldn't I be able to sue gay bars to force them to accommodate me as a straight man? They should be made to make the entire bar experience as enjoyable for me as it is for gay patrons. And believe you me, I was completely and utterly unwelcome at Ynonah's. I have been specifically told there that I was not allowed inside the door unless I was gay.

And this is hardly rare. There are numerous well-known gay bars in and around the Theatre District in New York in which straight people are simply not served, or else given very perfunctory service and hustled out the door. Same goes with cop bars in Brooklyn, Irish bars in Chicago, Hispanic bars in L.A., etc.

Aren't bars a business of public accommodation?

I would bet you dimes to doughnuts that there are bars within fifteen blocks of where you live right now where I'm unwelcome as a conservative straight person, and will be treated poorly, at the very best.

[Celeste Chalfonte]

Pretty much everything, so long as you're going to base your argument upon public accommodation.

If I'm unwelcome at Ynonah's, a (now no longer existent bar in Nashville, but used for the purpose of making a point), then why shouldn't I be able to sue gay bars to force them to accommodate me as a straight man? They should be made to make the entire bar experience as enjoyable for me as it is for gay patrons. And believe you me, I was completely and utterly unwelcome at Ynonah's. I have been specifically told there that I was not allowed inside the door unless I was gay.

And this is hardly rare. There are numerous well-known gay bars in and around the Theatre District in New York in which straight people are simply not served, or else given very perfunctory service and hustled out the door. Same goes with cop bars in Brooklyn, Irish bars in Chicago, Hispanic bars in L.A., etc.

Aren't bars a business of public accommodation?

I would bet you dimes to doughnuts that there are bars within fifteen blocks of where you live right now where I'm unwelcome as a conservative straight person, and will be treated poorly, at the very best.

Bars are indeed places of public accommodation, and any bar that refuses service because of a person's race, sex, politics, religion or ethnicity should be cited. OTOH, there's not a damn thing anyone can do about the patrons making you feel unwelcome, as long as they don't violate your civil rights. I probably won't stay long in a bar full of guys wearing the Confederate battle flag on their jeans jackets, but as long as the barkeep doesn't refuse me service and nobody actually threatens me, that's my problem and my choice.

And you'd lose your bet. I don't know of any bar within over a 5-mile radius where you'd even be identifiable as "other" except a couple of places that cater to blue-collar Mexican-Americans, and you'd be noticeable visually there, but I doubt you'd have a problem getting served or striking up a conversation, as long as your Spanish is pretty good.

[Lanie]

I've probably mentioned this before, but I used to work a convenience store. Part of my job was selling cigarettes. It usually didn't bother me despite seeing what it had done to my mom. I figured it was their life. Then, a man came in one day with a tube in his neck. I felt like I was giving him a gun to blow his own head off. I wondered if I wouldn't be in trouble with God later.

If I had refused to sell this guy a pack of cigarettes, this company wouldn't have fooled with me. They would have fired me. However, let's assume they didn't. Then, the company would have been subjected to groups like this one.

http://www.nycclash.com/

[Celeste Chalfonte]

I've probably mentioned this before, but I used to work a convenience store. Part of my job was selling cigarettes. It usually didn't bother me despite seeing what it had done to my mom. I figured it was their life. Then, a man came in one day with a tube in his neck. I felt like I was giving him a gun to blow his own head off. I wondered if I wouldn't be in trouble with God later.

If I had refused to sell this guy a pack of cigarettes, this company wouldn't have fooled with me. They would have fired me. However, let's assume they didn't. Then, the company would have been subjected to groups like this one.

http://www.nycclash.com/

Your ability to find apples and oranges to compare is amazing.