the last words that needs to be said about gay marriage.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by steve knight, Mar 25, 2014.

  1. steve knight macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #1
    If you are against gay marriage don't have a gay marriage it's that simple.
    [​IMG]
     
  2. dec. Suspended

    dec.

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2012
    Location:
    Toronto
    #2
    I hope that other backwards countries will open up too, over the time.
     
  3. steve knight thread starter macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
  4. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #4
    I just wish both sides would shut up. I've always favored the legalities available in "civil union", so only the word "marriage" itself has been a minor sticking point with me. Repeat, minor. Color me uninterested.
     
  5. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #5
    As long as you don't try to force me to take part in your gay marriage ceremony I don't care if you want to have one, it's that simple.
     
  6. DeltaMac macrumors 604

    DeltaMac

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2003
    Location:
    Delaware
    #6
    So, is it still simple with the current news reports about the bakery that has refused to provide a cake for the happy couple, because the bakery owners' beliefs do not support that wedding?

    And, in the same direction, I think the "donut" simile in that sign is not a valid one.
     
  7. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #7
    The case about the bakery that go tin trouble for not wanting to participate in a gay wedding, and wedding photographers that have been sued where what I was referring to. If gay couples don't sue about things like that to force people to participate in their weddings when they don't want to I don't have a problem if they want to get married.

    And yeah comparing it to eating a donut isn't really the same thing at all.
     
  8. noisycats macrumors 6502a

    noisycats

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2010
    Location:
    The 'ham. Alabama.
    #8
    Which is very easy to be when your rights and your love aren't being denied.
     
  9. iBlazed macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #9
    Well then why don't you explain to us how it's an invalid comparison.
     
  10. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #10
    Because eating a donut is in no way similar to a relationship between two people, and while obesity from eating too many donuts does have a bit of an effect on society at large, it doesn't have nearly as much as things like marriage, or are you saying that marriages have no effect on anyone whatsoever? How about you explain how it is a valid comparison.
     
  11. iBlazed macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #11
    What effect does marriage have on anyone other than the two people involved? It's a valid comparison because me eating a donut is nobody's business, and who I marry is also no one's business. In order for your point to be valid, you need to show that same sex marriage has any effect whatsoever on heterosexual marriage or freedom of religion.
     
  12. Moyank24 macrumors 601

    Moyank24

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    in a New York State of mind
    #12
    Since when do cake makers participate in a gay wedding? :rolleyes:

    The problem with your examples above is that they were clearly in violation of anti-discrimination laws. Gay couples aren't suing to force people to "participate" in their weddings - they're suing because what these people are doing is against the law.

    Unless you don't believe that anti-discrimination laws should be enforced? Or maybe they should only enforce violations that you agree with?
     
  13. iBlazed macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #13
    Sounds like a libertarian...
     
  14. DeltaMac macrumors 604

    DeltaMac

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2003
    Location:
    Delaware
    #14
    One issue is when a business is forced, under threat of lawsuit, to participate in a ceremony (by baking the wedding cake, for example) - and the business owner, or even the basic premise for the business, is at odds with the marriage. If a business cannot have the freedom to refuse service, then that is what I would consider "an effect on someone other than the two people involved"
    As strange as it may sound, forcing a business to provide service or products is not an effective method to promote an alternate lifestyle.
     
  15. Moyank24 macrumors 601

    Moyank24

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    in a New York State of mind
    #15
    You also seem to be confused about anti-discrimination laws. Business do have the freedom to refuse service, with the exception of those who are protected by anti-discrimination laws.

    It also has nothing to do with "promoting an alternate lifestyle" - unless you believe anti-discrimination laws promote being black, being female, being handicapped, etc...

    The only way to maintain the integrity of anti-discrimination laws is to enforce them. Which is what would happen if someone refused service to a potential customer because of their color, sexuality, gender, etc.
     
  16. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #16
    There's the issue.

    The business OWNER could be at odds with the marriage, but the actual business may not. In short, where does the business owner separate himself/herself from the business? The business can not speak for itself without getting the owner(s) involved, which you have no separation over which is which.

    And even outside of that, the 14th amendment would still apply; specifically, this clause:

    If discrimination is made by the business, the State, let alone Federal Government would/could be sued, because the State refused to provide equal protection of the laws to its residents. That in turn would cause the Fed to gang up on the State, which would in turn cause the State to come down on the business.

    BL.
     
  17. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #17
    What a crock of ****.

    Let's look at the Oregon baker who was sued. He said, "I don't feel that I should participate in their wedding, and when I do a cake, I feel like I'm participating in the ceremony." One could then assume that he never baked a cake for a Jewish wedding or a Muslim wedding or an atheist wedding. Clearly, doing so would be participating in the ceremony. So, if staying true to his beliefs is really so important to him, he should only make cakes for like minded religious people, right?
     
  18. chown33 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    #18
    Where are these weddings that have a cake as part of the actual ceremony? Every wedding I've ever been to, the cake was part of the wedding celebration after the actual wedding ceremony.

    Or are you using the word "ceremony" to include everything associated with a wedding, even if the wedding celebration/reception is at a different location than the actual wedding ceremony?

    And in what way are bakers "participants"? They're hired to make and deliver a cake; they aren't guests at the wedding reception. Is a caterer also a participant? How about a tuxedo rental shop?
     
  19. TechGod macrumors 68040

    TechGod

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2014
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #19
    There is no point trying to explain this simple thing to them. They have an agenda and a mindset that we can't change. Thank god in New Zealand Gay marriage bill was recently passed so no straight people that hate gays can boil there own blood and people like me can be happy that another group of people have gotten the freedom they deserve:)
     
  20. steve knight thread starter macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #20
    no where in the constitution does it say that a religion has more rights then a person or does it say a religious person has a right to force their beliefs on others. marriage is far order then the bible or even Judaism and it was not about love as it is today. saying it is not in the bible as justification is pointless since driving a car is not in there or forcing your beliefs on others.
     
  21. TechGod, Mar 26, 2014
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2014

    TechGod macrumors 68040

    TechGod

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2014
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #21
    The donut comparison really is the best. Me eating a donut should not affect you and neither should anyone's sexual preferences
     
  22. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #22
    It also says that Congress can't force a prohibition of religion on people either.

     
  23. TechGod macrumors 68040

    TechGod

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2014
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #23
    How the hell is providing a service to a gay couple as participating in the ceremony. Your logic hurts my mind and probably many other people in this thread as well.

    The busienss provides a ****ing service OK? They aren't formally invited guests and they should only care about the money they will get from the couple, not their orientation.


    Do you think it is right for a burger king to not provide food to someone, just because they are gay? So someone won't have lunch because of a moron that feels his rights are threatened?
     
  24. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #24
    Agreed.

    And you KNOW the person angry over you eating the donut is resentful because they're so close to falling off their "diet".

    (if you know what I mean)
     
  25. TechGod macrumors 68040

    TechGod

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2014
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #25
    What we have here is a conflict in the law. By lunatics that take the bible at face value, a group of people may lose their rights.

    ----------

    Of course because they have gotten so tempted by eating a donut and will now hate the person eating the donut.

    To simply carry on the donut comparison.
     

Share This Page