Posted on 06/05/2008 9:21:12 PM PDT by umgud
No. You can’t force any business to take a certain job. I suppose you could sue an actual STORE for not selling you a wedding cake, under some discrimination act, but for most wedding services, they have the right to refuse. The service could say that they are booked, or whatever. The service could also state that they reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.
Actually, many wedding services may be thrilled for all the new business, or new gay-oriented wedding photography, catering services may spring up.
You say “no, you can’t force a business to take any job.”
However, a Christian photographer in Massachusetts has already been sued (and lost) for refusing to photograph a lesbian wedding. She is appealing.
Our church was sued for employment discrimination years ago for firing a homosexual organist. We lost, but won on appeal.
True, we could lie for our reasons to avoid prosecution. But some of us are not comfortable with lying. Also, no one should have to lie to avoid being prosecuted for following their conscience.
“The right to refuse service to anyone” does not include the right to discriminate against someone because of their sex, religion, handicap, race, or, in San Francisco anyway, their sexual perversion. Apparently this applies in all of California now, as well as in Massachusetts.
You can’t have a policy of “no Jews” or “no blacks” or “no women” and now you can’t have a policy of “no homos.”
Courage like hers was exhibited by a very small number of partisans in Europe who went underground to resist German occupation.
The Nazis referred to them as, "token resistance."
I know, the recent ruling on same sex marriage did not alter the anti-discrimination laws in California.
It did, however, open up a whole new class of people to sue and push around.
The florists, the photographers, the cake bakers, the reception halls, the tux rental people. . . they couldn’t have been sued for not supporting a gay wedding before. There were no gay weddings.
Now, they can be sued. And they will be, I am quite sure.
Some will lie to avoid being sued. Some will fight and probably lose. And some will just start doing things against their conscience to avoid prosecution. Swell.
Mildred is equating her love for a man of a different race with homosexuality.
The two issues are not the same.
Would Mildred support my right to marry my nephew?
Would Mildred support my right to marry my dog?
Would Mildred support my right to marry my two sisters, and later add in my neighbor?
Would Mildred support my right to have lots of sister-wives and all marry the same man?
And if Mildred would not, why not?
Mildred, we don’t live in vacuums. The nuclear family is the fundamental glue of society. Continue to weaken and attack it and you will have a nation of wrecks. Your love for your husband was strengthening to our society. Adam’s sexual behavior with Steve weakens it.
Oh yes! And in California now, we are “Party A” and “Party B.” That doesn’t affect us at all, comrade.
“
I suppose you could sue an actual STORE for not selling you a
wedding cake, under some discrimination act, but for most wedding services,
they have the right to refuse. The service could say that they are
booked, or whatever. The service could also state that they reserve
the right to refuse service to anyone.
“
More than likely, that won’t be allowed in The New Gay World Order.
Politely declining to being a support-worker for the gay lifestyle
is well on it’s way to becoming a crime.
So far, the Gaystapo and all their lawyers and bureaucrats are winning
in their war of attrition on people that have the temerity
to disagree with them.
Following ACLU Intervention, Refusal to Print Invites to Same-Sex
Wedding Ends With Apology and Agreement Not to Discriminate
http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/11909prs20040212.html
Your appeal to Loving is utterly without merit.
Nice try though.
If Mrs. Loving had released a statement saying interracial marriage and homosexual marriage should NOT be spoken of as equal, would that change your mind?
If I could question this person I would ask what exactly the words "for all" mean.
Does "all" include children?
Does "all" include brothers and sisters?
Does "all" include harems of multiple women? Animals? Inanimate objects?
The problem with playing around with marriage so cavalierly is that unless you specifically spell it out it opens the door to very serious pathologies like child marriage, incestuous marriage, plural marriage, etc. And that's not very "loving."
Fine.
Now you know what I think of Mrs. Loving's opinion.
No, and I'm not sure why you would think that. I meant to agree with your point as I saw it, that "you don't have to be a Baptist to be against gay marriage."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.