PDA

View Full Version : Religious Rights or Gay Rights?



Gerry Clinchy
08-22-2013, 08:55 PM
http://townhall.com/columnists/toddstarnes/2013/08/22/nm-court-says-christian-photogs-guilty-of-discrimination-for-refusing-lgbt-weddings-n1671280/page/full

New Mexico Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a photographer who would not accept an assignment to photograph a gay commitment ceremony was guilty of discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The court's position

“The Huguenins today can no more turn away customers on the basis of their sexual orientation – photographing a same-sex marriage ceremony – than they could refuse to photograph African-Americans or Muslims,” Justice Richard Bosson wrote in the court’s unanimous decision.

“But there is a price, one that we all have to pay somewhere in our civic life,” the justice wrote. “The Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different. That compromise is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people.”

The gay spokesperson:

“It’s about discrimination,” she said. “It’s not religious rights versus gay rights. We have a law on the books that makes it illegal to discriminate against LGBT persons. It makes it illegal for business to do that and this business broke the law by discriminating against this couple.”
While my position on gay "marriage" is one that favors civil unions with the same rights as herterosexuals, I'm not sure I agree with compelling a someone to participate in someone else's religious ceremony which stands for values a person cannot condone.

It seems different to me to treat LGBTs equally in all legal and social respects v. asking someone to participate in their religious beliefs. Participating voluntarily would be different as well v. compulsion by threat of legal action, and the articles cites "thousands of dollars in fines."

I'm just not sure about this.

1tulip
08-22-2013, 10:28 PM
OK... so I've been following this and I think it's really interesting. Couple of thoughts:

1) The progressive movement has tried (successfully) to redefine freedom of religion to freedom of worship. So you can be a devout Christian in America... as long as you're within the walls of your church. Of course... that's only for Christians. If you're a Muslim cab driver you don't have to pick up people who have liquor from the duty-free shop or passengers who need service dogs. Don't want to have aggrieved Muslim cabbies. Christians? Who gives a rip?

2) The gay community has from the start tried to style their movement as identical to the Civil Rights movement. I grew up in the Jim Crow south. The stuff that gays "endure" is nothing... nothing like what blacks lived day in and day out. A photographer who doesn't want to take pix at your wedding is not the same guy who met blacks at the door of his restaurant with an axe handle.

3) IF I was a photographer, my approach would be simple. I would not take any money for the photo spread. I'd do it for free. However, the pictures would just all be a little bit over-exposed. If I were a Christian who was a baker... there just wouldn't be any sugar in the cake. It is totally passive aggressive. You can force someone to do something (maybe)... but you can't force them to do it well.

Again... for blacks desegregating the South, it was a victory just to sit at the counter and be served lunch. That's not at all what is going on with gays. It is not enough to have their lives normalized (I couldn't care less how they live) they must grind down the religious faith that will always define their practices as sinful. (And let's not get into theology stuff here. It's just a fact. Whatever you think about it, that's pretty much the official teaching of orthodox... small "o"... Christianity.)

Eric Johnson
08-22-2013, 11:12 PM
I'm sort of surprised that this wasn't removed to Federal Ct. The issue is sexual discrimination vs freedom of religion.....as in a statutory issue vs a constitutional.one. Given that the happy couple found a photographer, I don't see the cause of action once the NM law is taken out of play.

twall
08-23-2013, 08:53 AM
The gay rights movement has morphed from just accept us to you have to advocate for us or you are against us. Instead of finding a photographer with their values they force someone who does not hold their values to accept them. They don't want to respect our rights/values/beliefs.

Tom

Gerry Clinchy
08-23-2013, 09:52 AM
Actually, the couple did find another photographer ... cheaper ... but the discrimination had already occurred. Similar to Fair Housing laws ... even if the person who was discriminated against found another home to buy, the discrimination would have already occurred.

swampcollielover
08-23-2013, 10:01 AM
The courts continue to "Legislate from the Bench"....at some point, they must be stopped....

RailRoadRetrievers
08-23-2013, 10:45 AM
The courts continue to "Legislate from the Bench"....at some point, they must be stopped....

It won't........

charly_t
08-23-2013, 10:54 AM
The gay rights movement has morphed from just accept us to you have to advocate for us or you are against us. Instead of finding a photographer with their values they force someone who does not hold their values to accept them. They don't want to respect our rights/values/beliefs.

Tom

BINGO !!!!!! Whole country is full of people trying to tell everyone else how to live etc. Tired of it !

swampcollielover
08-23-2013, 02:50 PM
It won't........

World History doesn't support your hypothesis....sooner or later it all is going to come to a head....one way of the other.....!

Franco
08-23-2013, 03:30 PM
BINGO !!!!!! Whole country is full of people trying to tell everyone else how to live etc. Tired of it !So true from both the left and the right. What if instead people just decided they didn't know what was best for other people? Wouldn't that be refreshing for a change! BTW, the photog has every right to turn down a gig he doesn't want. Forced association is unConstitutional.

1tulip
08-23-2013, 04:33 PM
So true from both the left and the right. What if instead people just decided they didn't know what was best for other people? Wouldn't that be refreshing for a change! BTW, the photog has every right to turn down a gig he doesn't want. Forced association is unConstitutional.

Freedom of Religion and Association are Bill of Rights pillars. This is happening in Spokane (I think... somewhere in Washington anyhow) involving a baker. It's got to go through the federal courts. All that is lacking is a pro-bono outfit to take it up.

GaryJ
08-23-2013, 04:53 PM
What if instead people just decided they didn't know what was best for other people?

I would like to know how that would work.

1tulip
08-23-2013, 10:45 PM
Seriously. Did this photographer do anything to this couple except live and let live? Did the Boy Scouts do anything except be the same organization they'd been for a century? Are pastors in Canadian churches who are hauled in front of civil rights tribunals for preaching historic Christian doctrine doing anything to hurt gays? No. No. and No. You can take it to the bank. This is naked intimidation and coercion. That couple didn't want pictures. They wanted a Christian to submit to their whims.

1tulip
08-23-2013, 10:58 PM
Pulled this off of Hotair.com

Lawyer for New Mexico photographer: Forcing her to work at a gay wedding violates her right of free expression


posted at 4:21 pm on August 23, 2013 by Allahpundit






The comments to Jazz’s post this morning have been raging all day so I figured there’d be interest in hearing directly from her spokesman. Most people, me included, approach this issue from the standpoint of free exercise of religion. If she disapproves of gay marriage because of her faith and the state tells her to ignore her faith and work the wedding anyway, well, then, free exercise ain’t as free as one would think. But that’s probably a nonstarter; read Dale Carpenter’s post at the Volokh Conspiracy to see why. He, Eugene Volokh, and the Cato Institute filed an amicus brief in this case siding with the photographer — but free exercise was one of their minor arguments. Under Supreme Court precedent, as long as a law isn’t deliberately targeted at religion, you can’t plead free exercise if it happens to interfere with your religion. The New Mexico Supreme Court found that the state’s antidiscrimination law isn’t targeted, so that’s that.

But what about a free speech claim instead? Photography isn’t just any ol’ profession, says Carpenter. It’s an art, and art necessarily involves expression, in which case we have a problem. Rod Dreher elaborates:


There is simply no way not to see photography as an art. The New Mexico court disagreed. New Mexico does not have same-sex marriage; the ruling was not on marriage law, but anti-discrimination law. Still, the importance of this ruling is that it’s another example of courts establishing in jurisprudence that homosexuality is exactly like race for purposes of non-discrimination — that is, that the only reason to discriminate against homosexuals is irrational animus, as the US Supreme Court has been holding.

I would have granted First Amendment protection to an artist wishing to discriminate on the basis of race, or any other protected category. To compel a writer, photographer, painter, composer, or what have you, to put her talent into the service of something that violates their conscience is a serious wrong. If a gay photographer believed in good conscience that he could not photograph the wedding of Christian fundamentalists, then I think he absolutely should have the right to refuse, on First Amendment grounds.

When I worked as an editorial writer for The Dallas Morning News, from time to time I had to write editorials taking a position I didn’t believe in, because that was the board’s decision. That was fine; it was part of the job. But I told my editor early on that I could not, in conscience, write an editorial supporting abortion rights, which the paper backs.

Maybe that’s a potential compromise position for the U.S. Supreme Court. Mundane professions have no constitutional exemption from an antidiscrimination law, but a profession that involves a viewpoint — literally, in the case of photography — gets First Amendment protection. That’s not a ruling that’d satisfy everyone, but it’d at least vindicate the principle that you can’t be compelled to adopt another’s perspective, even if you’re being compensated for it.

I’m honestly surprised that there’s no serious movement afoot to pass a constitutional amendment that would build a broader right of religious conscientious objection into the Free Exercise Clause. There’s massive support for the photographer’s position, per Rasmussen’s poll last month. Social conservative leaders like Mike Huckabee occasionally mention the Federal Marriage Amendment, but that’s going nowhere given solid opposition on the left and federalist opposition among the libertarian right. There’d be opposition to this one too, of course — gay-rights supporters would warn that a right of conscientious freedom would lead to people claiming exemption from all sorts of laws, and they’d probably seize the opportunity to push for some sort of offsetting constitutional amendment for gay marriage. Still, though: 85 percent support for the photographer in the Ras poll. And the more people learn the specifics of this case, how the gay couple sued her even though they’d found another photographer and then won attorney’s fees from her(!) on top of it, the more sympathetic they’ll be. This is where the political action will be come 2016 in pushing back against gay marriage, I expect.

Pete
08-24-2013, 04:14 PM
Its OK to shove perversions down peoples throat[no pun intended} but its not OK to mention God unless your behind closed doors. Funny how it used to be the opposite.

according to God ,,its pretty sick behavior,,,God didn't invent it ,,,perverted minds made it acceptable behavior. This world distorts good and glorifies the crap.

Hate the sin but love the sinner. The results are very destructive to the family unit. And the family is the strength of a nation.

oops ,,,sorry I said the word 'God" didn't mean to offend any one.

Pete

mngundog
08-24-2013, 05:08 PM
http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4868660073334746&pid=15.1

Pete
08-24-2013, 05:52 PM
Ha ha he he
Actually I don't understand ,,,can you explain.
Ah yes the Vicar of Christ
here is a neat little ditty,,how many ways can you define him.

More than likely just an incredible amount of coincidences,,,probably doesn't mean any thing.

Pete




http://biblelight.net/666.htm

mngundog
08-24-2013, 08:13 PM
Ha ha he he
Actually I don't understand ,,,can you explain.
Ah yes the Vicar of Christ
here is a neat little ditty,,how many ways can you define him.

More than likely just an incredible amount of coincidences,,,probably doesn't mean any thing.

Pete
If this comment was in regards to my post, I'm going out on a limb here and guessing your not Catholic.

Pete
08-24-2013, 09:10 PM
If this comment was in regards to my post, I'm going out on a limb here and guessing your not Catholic.

Born and raised actually. Unfortunately biblical research took me in a different direction. My whole family is and I love them and think only the best of them and any other catholic that keeps God in their heart and strive to do what is Godly.. God looks on the heart and not the denomination. Judas Iscariot was once a great man ,,then he fell and didn't get back up,,,,Paul was once a Son of a bitch that had christians murdered and then repented and became one of the most influential men in the bible

Pete

mngundog
08-24-2013, 09:24 PM
Born and raised actually. Unfortunately biblical research took me in a different direction. My whole family is and I love them and think only the best of them and any other catholic that keeps God in their heart and strive to do what is Godly.. God looks on the heart and not the denomination. Judas Iscariot was once a great man ,,then he fell and didn't get back up,,,,Paul was once a Son of a bitch that had christians murdered and then repented and became one of the most influential men in the bible

Pete
Then you heard that Francis put the church in a tale spin on this issue very recently with a few simply words.

Pete
08-25-2013, 08:34 AM
Then you heard that Francis put the church in a tale spin on this issue very recently with a few simply words.

No not really,,,,so I just googled it. It doesn't surprise me,,its a great way to fix the problem that they have right now in their priesthood and it makes them be seen as tolerant. Kind of like illegal immigration,,if you just say its OK it no longer is illegal or in the catholic church case,what was once a blemish and a evil problem is now squeeky clean OK. ,,, its the way the world is going if you hadn't noticed.
And because the Pope carries a lot of weight he will influence many ,,, II cor 4 :4 still holds true today.

Pete

Franco
08-25-2013, 09:01 AM
I would like to know how that would work.

Easy, its known as minding one's own buisness and allowing for Free Will.

Don't like guns, then don't own one.
Don't like gay marriage, then don't have one.
Don't like abortion, don't have one.
Don't like drugs, then don't do them.

and, on and on.

A truely free people do NOT need the nanny state Repubs and Dems!

swampcollielover
08-25-2013, 01:03 PM
Easy, its known as minding one's own buisness and allowing for Free Will.

Don't like guns, then don't own one.
Don't like gay marriage, then don't have one.
Don't like abortion, don't have one.
Don't like drugs, then don't do them.

and, on and on.

A truely free people do NOT need the nanny state Repubs and Dems!

As the LIBS say "can't we all just get along".........CRAZY! Pure Democracy is chaos!

GaryJ
08-25-2013, 04:36 PM
Originally Posted by Franco
What if instead people just decided they didn't know what was best for other people?


Easy, its known as minding one's own buisness and allowing for Free Will.

Don't like guns, then don't own one.
Don't like gay marriage, then don't have one.
Don't like abortion, don't have one.
Don't like drugs, then don't do them.

and, on and on.

A truely free people do NOT need the nanny state Repubs and Dems!

I had to go back to the original thread to be sure I responded correctly.

IMHO some do need to decide what is best for others or we have nothing but chaos. Using your example of guns and free will as an example I expect that someone with a gun will shoot someone without a gun and that is ok because the shooter had free will to own one and use it as they saw fit and the one that didn't own a gun can't domain because free will was exercised by both parties.

i am all for the fed govt to be less intrusive in my life. I would much rather more things be decided at the state level and the county and local level. If that was your message then I agree. If you message was truly to be a nation of free will then I respectfully disagree.

Terri
08-25-2013, 05:44 PM
I will mind my own business as long as you stay out of my business. Once you step over the line you will lose your free will.

Guns are fine as long as you do not point it at me or my loved ones.
Marry whoever you want, but do not force me to attend or pat you on the back.
If you have an abortion do not expect me to pay for it or understand that it is your body.
As for doing drugs, do not get behind the wheel of a car or walk up to me looking for some money.

With freedom comes great responsibility.

Terri

GaryJ
08-25-2013, 07:20 PM
I will mind my own business as long as you stay out of my business. Once you step over the line you will lose your free will.

Guns are fine as long as you do not point it at me or my loved ones.
Marry whoever you want, but do not force me to attend or pat you on the back.
If you have an abortion do not expect me to pay for it or understand that it is your body.
As for doing drugs, do not get behind the wheel of a car or walk up to me looking for some money.

With freedom comes great responsibility.

Terri

Exactly. Everyone's free will may be different since there are no rules. In the end - chaos.

Franco
08-26-2013, 06:19 AM
Originally Posted by Franco
What if instead people just decided they didn't know what was best for other people?



I had to go back to the original thread to be sure I responded correctly.

IMHO some do need to decide what is best for others or we have nothing but chaos. Using your example of guns and free will as an example I expect that someone with a gun will shoot someone without a gun and that is ok because the shooter had free will to own one and use it as they saw fit and the one that didn't own a gun can't domain because free will was exercised by both parties.

i am all for the fed govt to be less intrusive in my life. I would much rather more things be decided at the state level and the county and local level. If that was your message then I agree. If you message was truly to be a nation of free will then I respectfully disagree.

I am NOT talking Anarchy, just that people should have the freedom to determine their own destiny. Freedom from the big government types that oppose individual Liberty. The Golden Rule comes into play.

From the Libertarian Preamble at LP.org

As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power. The first paragraph in this article could have been taken right out of the Deist Thomas Jefferson's Bible. http://www.yaliberty.org/posts/the-political-dichotomy-of-the-bible-contrasting-old-testament-authoritarianism-with-new

swampcollielover
08-26-2013, 09:06 AM
I am NOT talking Anarchy, just that people should have the freedom to determine their own destiny. Freedom from the big government types that oppose individual Liberty. The Golden Rule comes into play.

From the Libertarian Preamble at LP.org

As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power. The first paragraph in this article could have been taken right out of the Deist Thomas Jefferson's Bible. http://www.yaliberty.org/posts/the-political-dichotomy-of-the-bible-contrasting-old-testament-authoritarianism-with-new

Franco....life through "Rose Colored Glasses"....If a person is a traditional Christian, that person would believe that abortion at anytime is against God's commandments.....Libertarian thinking, would say, it is ok to have an abortion based on the individuals right to Liberty (again we can debate when that child is in fact a child, but if Libertarians follow this individual rights thinking, then as a society, we are immoral, based on many Christian beliefs... This is just 'One" example how the Utopian world that Libertarians talk about! If you say on abortion, Libertarians make an exception, society at some level (Local, State, or Fed) sets rules...if this is how you think then we are just changing who makes the rules....you still have someone at the top setting rules and laws of our society. The best form of Government found to work historically is a representative Republic in the good ole USA...

Franco
08-26-2013, 09:28 AM
Franco....life through "Rose Colored Glasses"....If a person is a traditional Christian, that person would believe that abortion at anytime is against God's commandments.....Libertarian thinking, would say, it is ok to have an abortion based on the individuals right to Liberty (again we can debate when that child is in fact a child, but if Libertarians follow this individual rights thinking, then as a society, we are immoral, based on many Christian beliefs... This is just 'One" example how the Utopian world that Libertarians talk about! If you say on abortion, Libertarians make an exception, society at some level (Local, State, or Fed) sets rules...if this is how you think then we are just changing who makes the rules....you still have someone at the top setting rules and laws of our society. The best form of Government found to work historically is a representative Republic in the good ole USA...First of all, members of the LP are divided on the abortion issue. In the platform, that decision is left up to the individual. Your Totalitarian view is not acceptable to most. No one is talking about a Utopian society but you! We on the other hand are all about personal responsibility and we don't need your big government or self-righteous beliefs infringing on our rights! Your view is anything but Conservative, it is just more big government with a different twist. Also note that the LP is the ONLY political party to take a stand for Gun Rights and the only political party to champion a Balanced Budget Amendment!

Gerry Clinchy
08-26-2013, 10:46 AM
First of all, members of the LP are divided on the abortion issue. In the platform, that decision is left up to the individual. Your Totalitarian view is not acceptable to most. No one is talking about a Utopian society but you! We on the other hand are all about personal responsibility and we don't need your big government or self-righteous beliefs infringing on our rights! Your view is anything but Conservative, it is just more big government with a different twist. Also note that the LP is the ONLY political party to take a stand for Gun Rights and the only political party to champion a Balanced Budget Amendment!
Going by your LP premise given:

On abortion: I would have to say that if science determined the moment when a fetus became a person, the LP view would have to grant that person the same rights as everyone else. Would that be accurate? The problem with abortion now is that there is no agreed upon definition of when the fetus becomes a person. In the case of abortion when the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, then it would seem that the abortion is a matter of "self-defense", and would be a non-issue in that regard.

Actually, if we could resolve the issue of when a fetus becomes a person, the Constitution would also make it clear that the rights of the fetus were protected. Privacy of the mother's body would not be an issue .. if you kill someone in the privacy of your own home, the privacy issue does not trump the murder infringing on the right to life of the person who is murdered (presuming the appropriate safeguards to the rights of the accused).

On gay rights: It would seem that LGBTs would have the legal rights through civil union, but when their right to those civil equalities would interfere with someone else's religious beliefs, those who disagreed could not be forced to participate. I can only see that as an issue when religious ceremonies are involved. Housing, restaurants, employment, i.e. non-religious activities, would not be at issue. Would that be accurate? I believe that Hobby Lobby employed people who were LGBT, but simply would not participate in paying for abortion-inducing drugs.

When we talk of other civil liberties equality, they do not pertain to things that would interfere with the first amendment rights of others, i.e. compelling the actions of the landlord or restaurant owner to "accept" the religious orientation of the other party.

In some ways it may be similar to the RC church having a man-made law about celibacy for their priests ... but that is a church "custom" rather than God's law. Thus, the RC priest, who is celibate still performs heterosexual marriage rites for those who choose not to be celibate. The choice of celibacy is left to the individual's "calling." Personally, I think it is more rational for priests to be allowed to marry so they can understand the issues of marriage first-hand, especially when they are called upon to act as marriage counselors.

The OP raises the question of whether there is freedom to NOT participate in the religious beliefs of someone else. I can participate in a Jewish wedding because the values of Judaism WRT marriage are akin to Christian ones. I would have a problem participating in a wedding of a faith that condoned multiple wives.

Franco
08-26-2013, 11:40 AM
Going by your LP premise given:

On abortion: I would have to say that if science determined the moment when a fetus became a person, the LP view would have to grant that person the same rights as everyone else. Would that be accurate? The problem with abortion now is that there is no agreed upon definition of when the fetus becomes a person. In the case of abortion when the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, then it would seem that the abortion is a matter of "self-defense", and would be a non-issue in that regard.

Actually, if we could resolve the issue of when a fetus becomes a person, the Constitution would also make it clear that the rights of the fetus were protected. Privacy of the mother's body would not be an issue .. if you kill someone in the privacy of your own home, the privacy issue does not trump the murder infringing on the right to life of the person who is murdered (presuming the appropriate safeguards to the rights of the accused).

On gay rights: It would seem that LGBTs would have the legal rights through civil union, but when their right to those civil equalities would interfere with someone else's religious beliefs, those who disagreed could not be forced to participate. I can only see that as an issue when religious ceremonies are involved. Housing, restaurants, employment, i.e. non-religious activities, would not be at issue. Would that be accurate? I believe that Hobby Lobby employed people who were LGBT, but simply would not participate in paying for abortion-inducing drugs.

When we talk of other civil liberties equality, they do not pertain to things that would interfere with the first amendment rights of others, i.e. compelling the actions of the landlord or restaurant owner to "accept" the religious orientation of the other party.

In some ways it may be similar to the RC church having a man-made law about celibacy for their priests ... but that is a church "custom" rather than God's law. Thus, the RC priest, who is celibate still performs heterosexual marriage rites for those who choose not to be celibate. The choice of celibacy is left to the individual's "calling." Personally, I think it is more rational for priests to be allowed to marry so they can understand the issues of marriage first-hand, especially when they are called upon to act as marriage counselors.

The OP raises the question of whether there is freedom to NOT participate in the religious beliefs of someone else. I can participate in a Jewish wedding because the values of Judaism WRT marriage are akin to Christian ones. I would have a problem participating in a wedding of a faith that condoned multiple wives.Yes or agree to the first two paragraphs though many in the LP are advocating that it be left up to the states as the issue of when life begins is still in debate. If abortion where to ever be illegal, I would expect those opposed to it to adopt several inner-city babies and see if their actions speak louder than their indignation. On the gay issue, The Constitution trumps religious beliefs. It wasn't long ago that many Christian sects opposed equal rights for black folks based on their religious interpretation. . In the case of the photog, all he really need to say was that he was opposed to same sex marriage and that would affect the quality of his work. They way that he handled it made it a legal issue. If one is in business, they are not allowed to discriminate under the law. We may both find gay to be unnatural but that is not for us to say that we know what is best for other people(or judge other people), in a society where Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness is stated in the Declaration Of Independence.

Gerry Clinchy
08-26-2013, 01:35 PM
Yes or agree to the first two paragraphs though many in the LP are advocating that it be left up to the states as the issue of when life begins is still in debate. If abortion where to ever be illegal, I would expect those opposed to it to adopt several inner-city babies and see if their actions speak louder than their indignation.

I don't think the Constitution gets involved with how we are to resolve the issues that result from abiding by it.

For example, the Constitution stipulates that the govt should should not establish a religion or prevent anyone from worshiping as they wish. It does not provide for the details of how that is to be observed. Hence, for some, it has been interpreted to mean that you can't have a Nativity display on govt property. Others believe that was not the intention.

On the gay issue, The Constitution trumps religious beliefs.

The Constitution does not "trump" religious beliefs ... it includes them as a right.

It wasn't long ago that many Christian sects opposed equal rights for black folks based on their religious interpretation.

I honestly don't have a rational response to that, since I do not fathom where the basis for that came from in Christian doctrine.

. In the case of the photog, all he really need to say was that he was opposed to same sex marriage and that would affect the quality of his work. They way that he handled it made it a legal issue.

I doubt that the remedy you suggest would have protected him.

If one is in business, they are not allowed to discriminate under the law.

We may both find gay to be unnatural but that is not for us to say that we know what is best for other people(or judge other people), in a society where Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness is stated in the Declaration Of Independence.
Franco, I would repeat that regardless of anyone's individual beliefs regarding gay lifestyle, they are absolutely entitled to the protections of their civil equality under the Constitution. Hence, regardless of personal feelings, a civil union should be honored for such individual commitments.

Since there are a bunch of govt laws that exist that specifically address domestic unions, then the sex of the pariticpants in such a committed union, must have equality in those civil laws.

The whole problem with the issue is semantic ... the word marriage. Why is it so difficult to consider the overall concept of domestic unions with sub-categories? Marriage might describe a heterosexual union; civil union could describe same-sex unions.

I am still unsure, however, how I feel about adoption or surrogacy for same-sex couples. I cannot imagine that it is not difficult for a boy to not have a father/male role model; or a girl to have a mother/female role model. In the case of adoption, the couple could choose to adopt a child of their own sex, but in surrogacy to they get to choose the sex of the child as well? If gay youngsters have trouble in discussing their sexual orientation with heterosexual parents, would heterosexual children have the same difficulty in discussing the topic with gay parents? Do gay parents defend & promote their perspective as much as heterosexual parents do theirs?

If a gay person already has children from a previous marriage, there might be a chance that the child still has the perspectives of both sexes, rather than just one. My concern here is from the perspective of the children. It's tough enough growing up today without adding another complexity for the kids.

Franco
08-26-2013, 02:42 PM
Gerry, the only item I'll disagree with is the, " I don't think the Constitution gets involved with how we are to resolve the issues that result from abiding by it. " Take Sharia Law for example; we the people are protected from many aspects of that belief. Hence, The Constitution pre-empts religious law. People have the Right to practice whatever religion they wish or not to practice any of them. But, when it comes to the Law, it in fact does trump religious laws. In the case of the photog, he was not asked to have sex with them, just take their wedding/civil union photos. Yet, I don't see how this law suit will hold up in a Court of Law against the photog.

Gerry Clinchy
08-26-2013, 03:08 PM
I think that the Constitution would only trump Sharia law when Sharia would be counter to individual rights.

Part of the debate is whether "marriage" is a "right". A domestic union might be a right (because of legal benefits that are associated with heterosexual marriage) ... but is it a right to force someone else into participating in your religious ceremony?

If a Muslim wanted to have genital mutilation on his/her daughter, and chose to do this with a doctor, would the doctor be able to refuse to perform the ritual? Hospitals can refuse to do abortions, as long as they refer them to another service provider. Why does the photographer not have the same right?

I don't want to sound like I pretend to have the right answer. It's just a gut feeling. If I wanted a Jewish caterer to do my Christian wedding, and he refused, I can't imagine suing him/her. I find this discussion useful in parsing the principles involved.