Breaking News - Gay Marriage Ruling

[Jaybear]

There was a recent news article on the passage of SS marriage in NY. It points out that, while organized religious organizations are protected, it does not protect individuals.

Protect them from what? I am quite certain that no individual will be required to marry a person of the same sex.

For example, a professional photographer may be compelled to photograph a SS marriage even if he has religious objections, a marriage counselor, etc.

If there is such a law, banning discrimination by businesses, it also applies to professional photographers who have a religious objections to interracial marriages, Jewish weddings or even Mormon marriages.

You might find this shocking, but in some states bigotry is an impediment to securing and holding a business license.

Finally, over the years "slight" changes in the law may make this exemption impractical. Hate speech laws, similar to Canadian laws, may forbid religious leaders to speak out against homosexuality, since it has now become a protected class. Yes, that is happening to our neighbor to the north.

Our friend to the north, don't have a "First Amendment" protecting free speech.

They also seem to like it just fine that way. If you want to speak out agaisnt minority groups, you best not move to Canada.

Not coincidentally, if you like to bash minorities, I think they would prefer you not move to Canada.

Here in the US, you will note that the Supreme Court just ruled in favor of the Westburo Baptists, you know the "GOD HATES FAGS" people. Your concerns about free speech here are misplaced.

This is no longer a slippery slope, but reality.

I take it, you prefer the reality of Utah county, where good religious minded folks are free to openly discriminate against gays in hiring, housing, or business accommodations.

[Jaybear]

I agree & well, put! If freedom of speech & freedom of religion mean anything - we must stand up for these rights before they no longer exist!

You agree with what?

You agree that business owners should be free to openly discriminate agaisnt gays and gay couple based on their religious beliefs. You think a business owner should be allowed to put a sign in the windows, that says Not Serving Homosexuals.

[california boy]

There was a recent news article on the passage of SS marriage in NY. It points out that, while organized religious organizations are protected, it does not protect individuals. For example, a professional photographer may be compelled to photograph a SS marriage even if he has religious objections, a marriage counselor, etc.

And even the religious organizations may fall under its restrictions -- e.g. providing insurance benefits to a SS partner.

Finally, over the years "slight" changes in the law may make this exemption impractical. Hate speech laws, similar to Canadian laws, may forbid religious leaders to speak out against homosexuality, since it has now become a protected class. Yes, that is happening to our neighbor to the north.

This is no longer a slippery slope, but reality.

Most states have anti discrimination laws. New York being one of them. The reason the legistature could not put such an exception into the gay mariage bill is because it would be against state law for a business to discriminate against anyone for religious or any other reason. If a person goes into business and markets their services to the public, they have to be willing to accept all of the public. Even KKK members have to rent to blacks. Country clubs that are not private, but open to the public have to accept Jewish members. A Christian has to serve a Mormon in a restaurant even though they may hate Mormons. And yes, if you are a photographer open to the public they have to accept gay clients. It is a very inclusive concept.

Similarly I worked in a restaurant when I was young, and I was forced to serve coffee. The only other option was for me to quit my job. That same option is available to the photographer. Do you get how discrimination laws work now? Do you realize they have nothing to do with gay mariage? It was illegal to discriminate in NY before gay marriage was passed. It is still illegal. Nothing has changed. It is not a result of gay marriage passing.

Eveidently you can still discriminate against those that are not like you are in Utah. that is kinda sad to me. I guess my view of Christ reaching out to everyone is a bit different than the Mormon dominated state of Utah. But it sounds like you are happy with that concept.

[DH]

I agree & well, put! If freedom of speech & freedom of religion mean anything - we must stand up for these rights before they no longer exist!

I've experienced online harrassment (called all kinds of names - some public, some in private) & treated totally different from gay-supporters (including other forums' moderators), for stating arguments against the legal insistance of homosexuality acceptance. I realize online is not real life, but it can be an indicator of what's going on in people's minds & plans.

BTW, I respect & admire how this forum moderators have handled discussions - much more objectively & maturely.

freedom of speech & religion =/= everybody has to agree with you

If someone who supports SSM calls you a jerk for not supporting SSM, that is not a violation of your freedom of speech or religion--it is simply them exercising their freedom of speech.

[HeatherAnn]

You agree with what?

Well, now that you asked...

I agree that...

-Homosexuality supporters should not play a pity card, acting as if homosexuals are deprived because they aren't given special priviledges.

-Homosexual supporters should not demand that others support those with homosexual preferences impulsively acting on their thought-produced feelings.

-Homosexual supporters should not ignore statistics which clearly indicate homosexuals change partners frequently so are more likely to contract & spread AIDS & STDs.

-Homosexual supporters should not ignore health risks associated with homosexual sex (besides that of AIDS & STDs) - even in 2 healthy males.

-Homosexual supporters should not demand special respect, when in the process they deny others rights to free speech & respect of significant religious beliefs.

-Homosexual supporters should not claim babies are born with the preference to have sex with someone of the same sex, when babies brains are only 25% developed, waiting for environmental influences to help complete development.

-Homosexual supporters should not deny psychological & environmental influences.

-Homosexual supporters should honor family & children - & parents' rights to teach sexuality, not schools.

-Homosexual supporters should not insist others believe their beliefs & if that doesn't happen, they should not try to hurt others by calling names, or even hurting them financially, legally or in their career.

-Homosexual supporters should not compare homosexuals with African American persecution, or with animals.

-Homosexual supporters should not engage in positive discrimination by pointing to a personal trait (ie homosexuality) which somehow justifies their actions or inability to do something they'd ordinarily be expected to do (like behave responsibly sexually).

-Homosexual supporters should not misplace blame & responsibility.

DH,

Deleting posts, threads & finally disabling a person's forum account, for posting what I've posted here which was in compliance with forum rules, is taking away speech. The moderators on another forum let their emotions moderate. This forum seems better.

I understand that forum owners/administrators have a right to do whatever they want, since they're private; still, it is an indicator that freedom of speech restrictions are beginning to become a trend, which Cdowis mentioned.

[Jaybear]

Well, now that you asked...

I agree that...

Evasive answers don't suit you.

CDOWIS did not make any of those statement.

I did not ask what you believe. I asked what Cdowis said that you agreed with.

So, I will ask you again: Do you agree that business owners, such as photographers should be free to openly discriminate agaisnt gays and gay couple citing their religious beliefs?

That is what Cdowis is complaining about.

[frankenstein]

There was a recent news article on the passage of SS marriage in NY. It points out that, while organized religious organizations are protected, it does not protect individuals. For example, a professional photographer may be compelled to photograph a SS marriage even if he has religious objections, a marriage counselor, etc.

this has been discussed at several times in this very thread. Would you like full picture. NM, NJ, and possibly NY, have State Civil Rights units/boards. Those states also say a business that provides goods and services can not discriminate based on race, religion, sexual orientation, and a few others. The photographer in NM was sued because she violated the conditions of her business license, that is, she broke the law, she did not keep her word. Furthermore she was dumb enough to say that she did not provide services to homosexuals. The photographer knew the law and she violated the law.

I wonder how many here would be upset if she, as a christian, said "I do not provide services to the cultists known as mormons" What discrimination is acceptable and what isn't? Based on many other thread here, discrimination against mormons is the most terrible on earth, but discrimination against homosexuals is an errand from on high.

[HeatherAnn]

Jaybear,

I realize what you meant. Yet, you asked what I agreed with so I took the opportunity to tell you.

I believe that a photographer has a right to politely explain how religious beliefs conflict with accepting the job.

Under Civil Rights laws, businesses cannot refuse a public service on account of race, sex, or disability, yet they can refuse service for other reasons.

Ever notice signs in business (especially restaurants) that say "We reserve the right to refuse service"?

If the customer presents problems that conflict with the mission of the establishment, they have the right to refuse service, as long as it is not based on race, sex or disability.

What if a customer wants them to photograph a nude wedding? lol

Or what if you have good reason to believe they won't pay you (like if they didn't pay you before)?

They do not have to go to that establishment - there are other options, especially if they don't comply with the establishment's terms.

The establishment should, have that statement (explaining they have the right to refuse & under what conditions) displayed at their business, ads, etc.

[california boy]

Well, now that you asked...

I agree that...

-Homosexuality supporters should not play a pity card, acting as if homosexuals are deprived because they aren't given special priviledges.

-Homosexual supporters should not demand that others support those with homosexual preferences impulsively acting on their thought-produced feelings.

-Homosexual supporters should not ignore statistics which clearly indicate homosexuals change partners frequently so are more likely to contract & spread AIDS & STDs.

-Homosexual supporters should not ignore health risks associated with homosexual sex (besides that of AIDS & STDs) - even in 2 healthy males.

-Homosexual supporters should not demand special respect, when in the process they deny others rights to free speech & respect of significant religious beliefs.

-Homosexual supporters should not claim babies are born with the preference to have sex with someone of the same sex, when babies brains are only 25% developed, waiting for environmental influences to help complete development.

-Homosexual supporters should not deny psychological & environmental influences.

-Homosexual supporters should honor family & children - & parents' rights to teach sexuality, not schools.

-Homosexual supporters should not insist others believe their beliefs & if that doesn't happen, they should not try to hurt others by calling names, or even hurting them financially, legally or in their career.

-Homosexual supporters should not compare homosexuals with African American persecution, or with animals.

-Homosexual supporters should not engage in positive discrimination by pointing to a personal trait (ie homosexuality) which somehow justifies their actions or inability to do something they'd ordinarily be expected to do (like behave responsibly sexually).

-Homosexual supporters should not misplace blame & responsibility.

DH,

Deleting posts, threads & finally disabling a person's forum account, for posting what I've posted here which was in compliance with forum rules, is taking away speech. The moderators on another forum let their emotions moderate. This forum seems better.

I understand that forum owners/administrators have a right to do whatever they want, since they're private; still, it is an indicator that freedom of speech restrictions are beginning to become a trend, which Cdowis mentioned.

It sounds like you have very definite ideas about being gay and what they should do and what they shouldn't do. And from your previous posts, you seem to think being gay is pretty optional. A lifestyle choice if you will

I just have one question I would appreciate you answering if you would.

With all of the bad things that you list happening to people because they choose to be gay why does someone decide to be gay. What is the up side for that choice? Why does being gay even something that people choose to practice. Any ideas?

[Jaybear]

Jaybear,

I realize what you meant. Yet, you asked what I agreed with so I took the opportunity to tell you.

So you understood the context of my question, but chose to ignore it.

I believe that a photographer has a right to politely explain how religious beliefs conflict with accepting the job.

That wasn't the question.

Under Civil Rights laws, businesses cannot refuse a public service on account of race, sex, or disability, yet they can refuse service for other reasons.

If the customer presents problems that conflict with the mission of the establishment, they have the right to refuse service, as long as it is not based on race, sex or disability.

That doesn't answer the question.

What if a customer wants them to photograph a nude wedding? lol

Or what if you have good reason to believe they won't pay you (like if they didn't pay you before)?

Again, doesn't answer the question at hand.

Lets try it again, for a third time. Do you agree that business owners, such as photographers should be free to openly discriminate agaisnt gays and gay couples citing their religious beliefs?

That is a simple yes or no question.

[HeatherAnn]

Hi Californiaboy,

I appreciate the respectful tone of your reply, thanks.

Although their actions are their choice, their thoughts & feelings are a combination of inherited tendencies and many environmental influences.

There are so many - countless - possible environmental influences! Some may be, sexual abuse, being teased for acting like the opposite sex & called gay -so it's believed, bad experiences with the opposite sex...and especially how one thinks about & interprets experiences.

All thoughts are processed through our brains, which then generates feelings & hormones, which then changes brain chemistry, which again alters mental states.

Family dynamics are especially influential.

A study showed that guys with homosexual preferences tend to be raised with domineering mothers & absent or passive fathers.

http://www.freerepub...s/1756124/posts

There used to be less upside for the choice of homosexuality or bisexuality, but now, there are plenty, if you surround yourself with gay supporters (which seem to be increasing).

A girl once told me that she wanted to try being sexually with another girl. Sometimes curiosity, a desire to find love/belonging, or even rebellion could cause one to experiement sexually.

People practice homosexuality (gay sex) because they feel romantic & sexual feelings, which they believe they can't help, but they can.

Our sex-addicted media, tries to convince us to think & prioritize sex & sexy behavior & images outside of marriage between a man & a wife.

Too bad it doesn't show the aftermath of STDs, AIDS, physical, mental & emotional pain.

[frankenstein]

A study showed that guys with homosexual preferences tend to be raised with domineering mothers & absent or passive fathers.

http://www.freerepub...s/1756124/posts

The article you link does not use term "domineering".

The article you link uses the term "mother " or "mother's" 3 three times, but never in the context of "domineering" or a synonym thereof.

The mother's age was directly linked to the likelihood of homosexual marriage among men -- the older the mother

The rates of same-sex marriage "were elevated among women who experienced maternal death during adolescence, women with short duration of parental marriage, and women with long duration of mother-absent cohabitation with father."

The article you link does not use the term "passive".

The article you link refers to fathers as "known", "unknown", or "absent".

And just so everyone knows where Heatherann is making her claims from, she is basing her claims from comments section of the article specifically from Uriah_lost who claims to be a former TWA flight attendant whose best friend at work was "um...a bit flamboyant so to speak" . Or alternatively Heatherann is using the comment from "MonicaG" you meerly quotes Uriah_lost and states agreement.

The article/study did not show that guys with homosexual preferences tend to be raised with domineering mothers & absent or passive fathers.

Please follow your own advice

"Please don't lie"

[HeatherAnn]

Frankenstein,

Read through both of our posts.

Do you notice how I've given a lot of information with supporting studies & articles?

Do you notice how little you've given?

Do you notice how much you've criticized my wording & links?

My statements, "Family dynamics are especially influential. A study showed that guys with homosexual preferences tend to be raised with domineering mothers & absent or passive fathers."...

were not only referring to that link, but in general. That link did talk about family dynamics & did mention of unknown fathers & of mother's age & interactions with son, & mother & father's divorce.

If you'd like more support of my statement, here you go, but I did not lie. A lie is saying something that isn't true. What I mentioned was that there was a study about the association of domineering mothers with gay sons & that is true.

http://thetruthsetsyoufree.wordpress.com/2008/07/05/mothers-of-male-homosexuals-a-study/

More info:

http://www.albatrus.org/english/potpourri/homosex/dominant_mothers_gay_sons.htm

http://www.seanet.com/~realistic/chpt21.html

[frankenstein]

What I mentioned was that there was a study about the association of domineering mothers with gay sons & that is true.

Yes, a lie is saying something isn't true, you made the claim about domineering mothers and passive or absent fathers, you then provided a link in support of that claim. The article you provided did not support your claims, so you made false claims about the article. If you would like to edit that post and actually link a article (not someones comments) that supports your claims then I will also edit my post according. Until then you made a claim that is not true.

Also, this is the second time you have been challenged on what you post and not until the challenge is issued do you actually post the correct articles to support your claims?

Why do you do this? Why do you not provide the correct link information in the first place?

Do you have articles about "passive" fathers?

[HeatherAnn]

Frankenstein,

Can you show exactly where I stated that this link is directly supporting my statements?

No, you can't, because I didn't.

[frankenstein]

My statements, "Family dynamics are especially influential. A study showed that guys with homosexual preferences tend to be raised with domineering mothers & absent or passive fathers."...

were not only referring to that link, but in general. That link did talk about family dynamics & did mention of unknown fathers & of mother's age & interactions with son, & mother & father's divorce.

Please follow your own advice, this is how you posted:

"Family dynamics are especially influential.

A study showed that guys with homosexual preferences tend to be raised with domineering mothers & absent or passive fathers.

link here"

You made a specific statement about a study, you followed that comment with a link, which means you intended the link to verify your specific claims. You made a false claim.

[HeatherAnn]

Frankenstein,

How could YOU know MY intentions?

Discuss or don't, but please, try to ask for clarification before assuming & I'll do the same.

[frankenstein]

Frankenstein,

How could YOU know MY intentions?

Discuss or don't, but please, try to ask for clarification before assuming & I'll do the same.

You made a claim about a study, you posted a link immediately following that claim about a study. Almost the exact wording of you claim is found on the page you link

your claim "domineering mothers & absent or passive fathers"

from the comment section of the link you provided "domineering mothers and passive fathers"

The evidence is against you in that you intended the freerepublic article to support your claim in post 361 about domineering mothers and absent or passive fathers. As I stated earlier you are more than welcome to edit your post #361 and use the links which actually supports your claim about a study showing a link between domineering mothers.

You can also edit post #361 and the free republic article to support your claim about family dynamics.

Until then it is very obvious, though it may have been a mistake on your part, that the link you provided does not support your claim.

If you edit post 361 and provide the links therein to support you claim about domineering mothers and absent or passive fathers I will edit my posts, infact, if you edit post #361 to reflect your claims, I will have no choice but to delete some of what I have posted.

The choice is yours. I will be out for a few hours, so if you choose to edit your post, please allow me some time tonight to delete my posts.

[HeatherAnn]

Frankenstein,

I don't see what the big deal is.

I realize I could've organized my thoughts & related links better. I apologize. I did provide more supporting links, so if you or others are desperate for supporting sources, they're there.

Btw... Happy Independence Day!

[Stargazer]

Frankenstein,

I don't see what the big deal is.

I realize I could've organized my thoughts & related links better. I apologize. I did provide more supporting links, so if you or others are desperate for supporting sources, they're there.

Btw... Happy Independence Day!

HeatherAnn, this is between you and frankenstein, and I'll not jump in (because i find him well nigh impossible to engage in a rational way -- sorry about that, frank; I love ya, but you drive me nuts!). However, I think the best way to post supporting information is not simply to give links. Yes, give links, but also find the most cogent actual quote from within the material linked to, and quote that in the text of your response. It makes bringing such arguments into a discussion easier, and lessens the likelihood that the person you're engaging misses what you're trying trying to say. I don't think everyone here likes to follow links, and I suspect that some ignore them and just spout off as if they had, but deny that the material supports the point.

Just my two cents.

[california boy]

Hi Californiaboy,

I appreciate the respectful tone of your reply, thanks.

Although their actions are their choice, their thoughts & feelings are a combination of inherited tendencies and many environmental influences.

There are so many - countless - possible environmental influences! Some may be, sexual abuse, being teased for acting like the opposite sex & called gay -so it's believed, bad experiences with the opposite sex...and especially how one thinks about & interprets experiences.

All thoughts are processed through our brains, which then generates feelings & hormones, which then changes brain chemistry, which again alters mental states.

Family dynamics are especially influential.

A study showed that guys with homosexual preferences tend to be raised with domineering mothers & absent or passive fathers.

http://www.freerepub...s/1756124/posts

There used to be less upside for the choice of homosexuality or bisexuality, but now, there are plenty, if you surround yourself with gay supporters (which seem to be increasing).

A girl once told me that she wanted to try being sexually with another girl. Sometimes curiosity, a desire to find love/belonging, or even rebellion could cause one to experiement sexually.

People practice homosexuality (gay sex) because they feel romantic & sexual feelings, which they believe they can't help, but they can.

Our sex-addicted media, tries to convince us to think & prioritize sex & sexy behavior & images outside of marriage between a man & a wife.

Too bad it doesn't show the aftermath of STDs, AIDS, physical, mental & emotional pain.

Thanks for your answer. I understand your theory on how someone becomes gay. I am a little fuzzy on the upside of someone choosing to live a gay lifestyle. I got that one reason why someone would try it is out of curiosity. But why do you think a person choose to live a gay lifestyle over a heterosexual lifestyle? The only hint you gave is that there are other gays to hang out with. But that doesn't make sense because there are straight people that person could hang out with as well.

Can you give me more of your thoughts on why a person chooses to live a gay lifestyle.

[frankenstein]

Because issues related to topics of homosexuality, I would to post something for everyone to consider.

Lets consider the case of the New Mexico photographer, eHarmony, and the New Jersey Church, all three, based on their Christian beliefs, refused services to homosexuals which violated the respective states anti-discriminations.

Should businesses, based on their religious beliefs, be permitted by law to refuse services to homosexuals?

Should businesses, based on their religious beliefs, be permitted by law to refuse services to Mormons?

If a business should be allowed to refuse to homosexuals but not allowed to refuse services to Mormons, what is your reasoning that refusal to homosexuals is acceptable, but refusal to Mormon is unacceptable.

Are religious freedoms of Christians businesses (who regard the LDS faith as a cult) being violated because those Christians businesses are required by law to provide services to Mormons?

Mordecia, cdowis, stargazer, Tao, Heatherann, Jeff k, I am particularly interested in each of your response. A few of you have already made it clear that Christian freedom are being violated by homosexuals, so how about Christians who must by law provide services to mormons when a mormon seeks services from the particular Christian. But to focus the discussion, this is strictly about a business owner using his/her religion to refuse services to other religions that seek the businesses services.. And lets use Jeff.K standard concerning truth and evasiveness, that being, an evasive response is a lie.

So to be even more clear. which of the signs is acceptable.

Under no circumstances will any services be provided to homosexuals who seek out services, because this is Christian establishment..

Under no circumstances will any services be provided to Mormons who seek out services, because this is a Christian establishment.

-----------

Heatherann, you have made statements about me not providing links, but you have not stated what you want me to provide links too, so I'll give it shot in the dark.

Prop 8 trial before Judge Walker, defender of prop 8 is asked about 3 main rules of marriage (see page 45 lines 17 - 25)

rule 1. rule of opposites i.e. man/woman (see page 48 line 18 were the defender accounts for 2 or 3 hard cases that do not comport with rule one)

rule 2. two people

rule 3. sexual relationship

for rule 2 discussion begin on page 54 line 25.

83% of societies permit polygamy page 56 line 25.

Polygamy consistant with rule 2 page lines 4 - 10, and page 65 - 66 lines 23 - 25 and lines 1 - 4 respective.

so by analysis, marriage ceremony in california is between a man and a woman this meets rule 1 and rule 2.

A polygamous marriage is a man and a woman (rule 1) and if the man is only marrying one woman per ceremony then rule 2 is meet (see discussions and pages cited above) So it is clear that polygamy is within the definition of marriage based on the expert defending prop 8. So don't know if that was the information you were asking about, but this is what I thought you might be asking about.

[Mordecai]

Should businesses, based on their religious beliefs, be permitted by law to refuse services to homosexuals?

Should businesses, based on their religious beliefs, be permitted by law to refuse services to Mormons?

Insofar as Mormons behave differently, businesses deny us business. For example, BevMo! isn't very friendly to Mormons, are they? But they're not forcing us to not shop there. Similarly, eHarmony didn't force gay people to not use their services. Gay people just didn't like what they were offering, so they used the courts to force them to offer what they wanted.

[Jaybear]

Should businesses, based on their religious beliefs, be permitted by law to refuse services to homosexuals?

Should businesses, based on their religious beliefs, be permitted by law to refuse services to Mormons?

If a business should be allowed to refuse to homosexuals but not allowed to refuse services to Mormons, what is your reasoning that refusal to homosexuals is acceptable, but refusal to Mormon is unacceptable.

Are religious freedoms of Christians businesses (who regard the LDS faith as a cult) being violated because those Christians businesses are required by law to provide services to Mormons?

Excellent questions. These are the type of question that get to the heart of the issue.

I have tried to engage CDOWIS and HeatherAnn. Cdowis left the building, and HeatherAnn either doesn't understand the questions, or she does, knows that her position is hypocritical, and so chooses to be deliberately evasive.

Insofar as Mormons behave differently, businesses deny us business. For example, BevMo! isn't very friendly to Mormons, are they? But they're not forcing us to not shop there. Similarly, eHarmony didn't force gay people to not use their services. Gay people just didn't like what they were offering, so they used the courts to force them to offer what they wanted.

You put the two question in a quote box, then proceed to ignore the questions. Classic.

[frankenstein]

Insofar as Mormons behave differently, businesses deny us business. For example, BevMo! isn't very friendly to Mormons, are they? But they're not forcing us to not shop there. Similarly, eHarmony didn't force gay people to not use their services. Gay people just didn't like what they were offering, so they used the courts to force them to offer what they wanted.

CFR that BevMo has a policy of being unfriendly to Mormons; just because Bevarages and More serves alcohol does not mean it is unfriendly to mormons.

I wager that a someone could walk into BevMo, say "I am a Mormon and I would like some purchase some alcohol". The mormon may get some bewildered looks, but I highly doubt that BevMo will point to a sign that says "No mormons allowed" and post haste kick the Mormon out of the store.

Secondly more importantly don't be evasive.

I will rephrase. Your must must be "Yes" or "No".

A Christian business does not want to provide its goods services to mormons, because this Christian business based on religious beliefs, believes that mormons are just lower than homosexuals on the scale of evil, yet anti-discrimination laws say the Business can not discriminate based on religion; Is that business's rights being violated by not being permitted by law to refuse good and services to Mormons who seeks its good and services.