http://dailysignal.com/2014/10/18/government-ordained-ministers-celebrate-sex-wedding-go-jail/

This is due to public accommodation laws, not laws relating to gay marriage. The same laws prevent a wedding location / Public Accommodation from refusing to serve a customer because they are Christian.

I love that all the recommended legal paths they suggest do not attack public accommodations as a whole. They clearly don't care if a business is forced to serve a woman, Asian, Christian, etc under threat of law due to public accommodation laws. They only care about gays not receiving that protection under the law. It's a despicable and inconsistent position that singles out one group to marginalize.

We should do away with all public accommodation laws but it's absurd to target one group from being included in accommodation laws while other groups remain in their special protected class.

But any church can refuse to allow a couple to get married in their church for any reason. When my wife and I got married 10 years ago, we were turned down from a particular church because we were not of that particular protestant sect and they had a rule about that. Catholic Churches turn down marriages of people that aren't Catholic or have already been married etc. Just wait guys, gay marriage has consequences that we have not even begun to consider. Sure, this wedding chapel is not a church and charged $ to get married but churches also generally charge $ to use their churches for weddings. Maybe the ultimate answer is that churches will have to limit weddings to church members only - at least until some gay church members decided they want to get 'married' in the church.....oh, well. So long as gays can get 'married' everything else can be affected negatively. Gay 'marriage' law trumps all.

I love that all the recommended legal paths the suggest do not attack public accommodations as a whole. They clearly don't care if a business is forced to serve a woman, Asian, Christian, etc under threat of law due to public accommodation laws. They only care about gays not receiving that protection under the law. It's a despicable inconsistent position that singles out one group to marginalize. - Well, nobody wants people denied service because of their race. That is obvious. What is not obvious that men should be allowed to 'marry' each other in the first place because it such an obvious affront to natural law and the good of society.

Churches can still refuse people for any reason. Recently a church refused to marry an interracial couple and suffered no consequences being bad pr. Nothing has legally changed for churches. They can still refuse to may gays and any legal actions against them will be thrown out.

Your opinion on what is natural or good for society doesn't mean anything to the law. Plenty of people like myself thing religiously indoctrinating your kids and having tons of children is not natural or good for society but I respect people's freedom to choose that path for them and their family.

Frankly I think it's incredibly naive to think that two people committing to each other and reaping greater stability and benefits from specialization that comes from those commitments is bad for society.

quote:

---

Churches can still refuse people for any reason.

---

For now maybe. Mark my word....the gays won't stop till they get what they want. Gay members of a church somewhere are going to sue for the 'right' to get married in their church. Surprised it hasn't happened already. Its already happening in Europe.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/9317447/Gay-Danish-couples-win-right-to-marry-in-church.html

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/millionaire-gay-couple-suing-force-church-hold-wedding/#axzz3GbPZqD7j

quote:

---

What is not obvious that men should be allowed to 'marry' each other in the first place because it such an obvious affront to natural law and the good of society

---

Try again. It is clearly not an affront to natural law because many animals engage in homosexual behavior, and you cannot prove it is an obvious affront to the good of society. That is entirely an opinion and is not substantiated by data.

What exactly do you mean when you say good of society? If your definition of good for society = theocracy in the form of government enforcement of biblical principals, then I disagree with that stance.

quote:

---

Religious freedom should trump public accommodation laws, even if we disagree.

---

It's asinine that if you claim your conviction comes from a deity you get exemption from the law while my strongly held conviction doesn't matter because I don't claim a creator told me so. It's just a recipe to give the religious preferential treatment. If public accommodation laws are such an affront to freedom they should be struck down for all, not just the religious. My freedom isn't deserving of lesser treatment just because I don't claim a deity.

quote:

---

It is clearly not an affront to natural law because many animals engage in homosexual behavior

---

Animals don't engage in homosexual behavior. Some animals, because they are animals, have a tendency to try to hump other animals/fenceposts/legs of humans etc because they are animals. They are not 'homosexual' as in they only have sex with other male animals. My friends had two male dogs when I was growing up and they would hump each other sometimes, you know, because they are animals. It is almost certain that in doing so they were not choosing to have sexual relations with the same sex as a matter of preference anymore than the little puppy who humps your leg when you visit your friend has a sexual preference for legs. Those same dogs would often be used for breeding and guess what? When you put a female, in heat, in front of them the humping would always commence. Finally, how insane is it that, as an argument to get approval for a behavior, you look to the animal kingdom? Some animals are canibals too. Some animals eat their own feces.

Man, has human kind sunk to such lows that we look at dogs in a cage humping each other and that is what we're aiming for

It is poor science to "read" human motivations and sentiments into animal behavior, and irrational animal behavior is not a yardstick to determine what is morally acceptable behavior for rational man.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Churches can still refuse people for any reason.

---

For now maybe. Mark my word....the gays won't stop till they get what they want. Gay members of a church somewhere are going to sue for the 'right' to get married in their church. Surprised it hasn't happened already. Its already happening in Europe.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/9317447/Gay-Danish-couples-win-right-to-marry-in-church.html

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/millionaire-gay-couple-suing-force-church-hold-wedding/#axzz3GbPZqD7j

---

Europe doesn't have our laws. You can keep saying it's going to happen but their isn't a legal case for it. Same stuff was said about interracial marriage. Some churches still refuse and no successful cases have stopped churches from marrying who they want. What really sad is many if these laws infringe on a churches freedom of religion to choose to marry gay people. It's the anti gay marriage people trying to destroy freedom of religion

JimLeahy. What church is refusing inter-racial marriage on the basis of the races being mixed? It has got to be incredibly rare.

quote:

---

quote:

---

It is clearly not an affront to natural law because many animals engage in homosexual behavior

---

Animals don't engage in homosexual behavior. Some animals, because they are animals, have a tendency to try to hump other animals/fenceposts/legs of humans etc because they are animals. They are not 'homosexual' as in they only have sex with other male animals. My friends had two male dogs when I was growing up and they would hump each other sometimes, you know, because they are animals. It is almost certain that in doing so they were not choosing to have sexual relations with the same sex as a matter of preference anymore than the little puppy who humps your leg when you visit your friend has a sexual preference for legs. Those same dogs would often be used for breeding and guess what? When you put a female, in heat, in front of them the humping would always commence. Finally, how insane is it that, as an argument to get approval for a behavior, you look to the animal kingdom? Some animals are canibals too. Some animals eat their own feces. Man, has human kind sunk to such lows that we look at dogs in a cage humping each other and that is what we're aiming for?

---

So you point to "natural law" and argue there are no gay animals then say its crazy to point too the animal kingdom for what is natural.

Your understanding of homosexuality in nature is just as poor as your legal understanding.

By your post it appears you are still one of the last holdouts proclaiming everybody is heterosexual and gays just choose to live in sin. I support your freedom to believe such things but it's a position completely unsupported by evidence.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

What really sad is many of these laws infringe on a churches freedom of religion to choose to marry gay people. It's the anti gay marriage people trying to destroy freedom of religion

---

---

---

Actually in most jurisdictions there are no laws against churches performing same sex marriage ceremonies (unfortunately there have been attempts to close such loopholes). Now if the state chooses to recognize these unions is another matter altogether.

quote:

---

JimLeahy. What church is refusing inter-racial marriage on the basis of the races being mixed? It has got to be incredibly rare.

---

Rarity doesn't matter. Most certainly it was less rare a few decades ago.


http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=96577

Here's a church refusing to marry a black couple with no repercussions besides bad PR
http://abcnews.go.com/US/mississippi-church-rejects-black-wedding/story?id=16878536

Those blacks won't stop until churches are forced to marry them amirite?

quote:

---

So you point to "natural law" and argue there are no gay animals then say its crazy to point too the animal kingdom for what is natural.

---

You don't know what natural law means and obviously in over head with that argument. Natural Law is not 'what the animals do therefore humans do it.' Natural law is a science of ethics whereby 'rational man' (not animals) derive societal laws.

http://www2.franciscan.edu/plee/natural_law.htm

A good summary. So, no, by making reference to natural law I am not saying, "Hey, lets do what animals do."

I'm well aware of this view of natural law. If you'll notice I also mentioned how you poorly attempted to argue that there is no homosexuality in nature as if that bolstered your views.

Why don't you get back to us when a church is successfully forced to perform a gay marriage under threat of law.

quote:

---

I'm well aware of this view of natural law. If you'll notice I also mentioned how you poorly attempted to argue that there is no homosexuality in nature as if that bolstered your views.

---

Obviously, you are not aware because you clearly thought that it means something that it does not mean. And, there is no 'homosexuality' with animals. As I said, imparting human feelings (that human homosexuals have) on animals that happen to try to hump each other is as ridiculous as claiming that cannibals are justified because some animals eat each other.

You referenced natural law while at the same time arguing there are no gay animals. Sorry if that led me to think you meant a different definition of natural law. Surely you can see how that is confusing.

JimLeahy. To my knowledge, there is no such philosophy called 'natural law' that relies on animal behavior to moralize human behavior. I can see how the words 'natural law' could confuse if one does not know what 'natural law' means.

There's plenty of homosexuality in animals. Birds in particular have monogamous homosexual relationships. Giraffes and dolphins also have long-term homosexual relationships. There are cases of male chimps refusing any companionship but that of a particular male. So stop it with your deliberate misreading of nature. The best you can argue is that most animals are not purely homosexual. Of course, your problem is that most animals are not purely heterosexual either.

Oh, and "natural law" is not a science. It's a philosophy. And homosexuality has nothing to do with the standard base models of the philosophy. Unless the Catholics have added something.

quote:

---

JimLeahy. To my knowledge, there is no such philosophy called 'natural law' that relies on animal behavior to moralize human behavior. I can see how the words 'natural law' could confuse if one does not know what 'natural law' means.

---

Plenty of Christians have poorly invoked nature to defend their views against homosexuality. Forgive me for confusing them with you when you spoke of natural law and immediately started describing how you wrongly believe there is no homosexuality in nature.

quote:

---

There's plenty of homosexuality in animals. Birds in particular have monogamous homosexual relationships. Giraffes and dolphins also have long-term homosexual relationships. There are cases of male chimps refusing any companionship but that of a particular male. So stop it with your deliberate misreading of nature. The best you can argue is that most animals are not purely homosexual. Of course, your problem is that most animals are not purely heterosexual either.

---

It's clear. Seamaster can deny reality but that's all he has on his side. Ignorance.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

edit. I am so sick of the new texags when I'm stuck on my ipad

The Christian mafia secured its special treatment in regard to public accommodation laws long before they gays. Spare me your petty moral outrage while you're happy to sit in your own protected class.

You aren't born Christian. And yet you get special protections. People are born gay, but they're no different than hairdressers. Fascinating.

quote:

---

This country was founded on the principal of freedom of religion. It was NOT founded on the principal of sexual freedom or freedom to *****someone with the same genitalia as yourself.

---

Of course many Christians think there is nothing wrong with homosexuals and have no problem marrying them yet you'd infringe on their freedom of religion. You're the real enemy of freedom and freedom of religion.

You're lucky our founders established a secular government where one religion or sect didn't grind every other faith into the dust.

If you have a problem with homosexuality please continue. Nobody is going to force you to screw somebody of the same sex or marry somebody of the same sex.

quote:

---

You don't see the same thing for adulterer's or mechanics or hairdressers or any other group of people defined by what they do.

---

Gays aren't defined by what they do but what they are. They're attracted to the same sex whether they have intercourse or not.

A more apt comparison to mechanics or hairdressers is Christians. People who are defined by what they do... accept and worship the Christian God.

quote:

---

This country was founded on the principal of freedom of religion.

---

Nope, it was founded upon the concept of liberty, which includes freedom of speech and religion under a much broader umbrella.

quote:

---

It was NOT founded on the principal of sexual freedom or freedom to *****someone with the same genitalia as yourself.

---

It was founded upon liberty. Which does include living your life as you see fit outside of infringing upon the liberty of others.