Posted on 02/28/2014 9:02:45 AM PST by Kazan
Americans draw a fine line when it comes to respecting each other’s rights. If a Christian wedding photographer who has deeply held religious beliefs opposing same-sex marriage is asked to work a same-sex wedding ceremony, 85% of American Adults believe he has the right to say no. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only eight percent (8%) disagree even as the courts are hearing such challenges.
The survey of 1,000 Adults was conducted on July 7-8, 2013 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
You’re right. It would ruin their business.
Why would I be disconcerted if a Muslim business refused to sell me pork?
As a Christian, I don’t care. There is no command that says not to lie. There is a command that says not to bear false witness against your neighbor.
If necessary, I would just tell a gay couple sorry I can’t do any weddings that day and make up an excuse for back-up days.
Why would I be disconcerted if a Muslim business refused to sell me pork?
I wasn’t particularly disturbed when a Kosher Deli wouldn’t put provolone on my roast beef sandwich.
Maybe a good way to handle would be to explain why you are against gay marriage and then make the cake. Then through the entire ordeal, just continue to tell them how much you disapprove and do it ate very opportunity. They would rue the day they asked for the cake for sure. LOL!
If you’ve got a better link, I’d be happy to see it.
No one can force the photographer to work a wedding he doesn’t want to work. All he has to do is state a very high fee to be paid in advance. If the couple still want to hire the photographer, he should go for it.
A for the the cake baker, the cake should be baked and held for pick up, paid in advance. The cake baker does not need to know the details of the wedding, just what kind of cake and how it is to be decorated. Follow a don’t ask don’t tell policy, only one name appearing on the sales receipt, the person who will pay in advance.
from Wikipedia: “Initially eHarmony did not offer same-sex matches, but now it does through its separate service, Compatible Partners.[21] Warren originally explained that he had done extensive research on heterosexual marriage but does not know enough about homosexual relationships to do same-sex match-making which “calls for some very careful thinking. Very careful research.”[21] He also noted that eHarmony promotes heterosexual marriage, adding that same-sex marriage is illegal in most states, “We don’t really want to participate in something that’s illegal.”[21] In a separate interview, Warren went into more detail on his own views, noting that “cities like San Francisco, Chicago or New York... they could shut [eHarmony] down so fast. We don’t want to make enemies out of them. But at the same time, I take a real strong stand against same-sex marriage, anywhere that I can comment on it.”[22]
eHarmony’s lack of same-sex matching options prompted lawsuits claiming that eHarmony violated laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.[23] As part of the settlement of a New Jersey case,[24] eHarmony launched a partner website called Compatible Partners providing same-sex match-making “for serious couples”[25][26] Theodore B. Olson, an attorney for eHarmony, said that even though the company believed the complaint was “an unfair characterization of our business,” it chose to settle because of the unpredictable nature of litigation.[27] In 2010, eHarmony settled a separate class-action lawsuit filed in California that alleged illegal discrimination based on sexual orientation. The company, which did not admit wrongdoing, agreed to allow access to both its gay and straight dating sites with a single subscription, to display its gay dating services more prominently and to establish a settlement fund to pay people who can show they were harmed by the company’s policies.[28][29]”
That wouldn’t work. This is reminiscent of the 60s when people didn’t want to sell their homes to black people, so they would up the price when they would come to look at the house. But then either the black people or a black organization would send a white couple on the premise that they were interested in the house, and when the real price was quoted, the homeowners would be sued.
All a homo couple would have to do would be to send a non homo couple to inquire and find out the real prices and then sue the merchant.
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.