"If you don't support gay marriage, you don't have to get one"

[homersapien 11,513]

I'm amazed that otherwise intelligent people are so willing to do ridiculous mental gymnastics to shoehorn this into some sort of discrimination over gender or sexual orientation.

For the final time on this thread, that's not what it's about. It is about what marriage is in Christian belief. The owners do not wish to have their business involved with or associated with an event that tells a lie about what marriage is. Those lies are manyfold. It could be the lie that marriage is not between one man and one woman, which could manifest itself in a ceremony between two people of the same sex or multiple people of various sexes. It could be the lie that marriage is just a temporary contractual arrangement that can and should be ended when the infatuation phase wears off. Thus they could and likely would have turned down a wedding ceremony for Liz Taylor's umpteenth marriage even though it was a regular heterosexual arrangement otherwise. The homosexual arrangement is just one of many "marriages" that violate their beliefs as Christians about the nature of marriage. They are not singling out gay people. In fact, as has been mentioned several times, they serve gay people regularly and in virtually any other type of gathering. So it is clearly not what this is about. But it is and should be their right. And I believe eventually the SCOTUS will recognize this common sense distinction and rule that forcing them to participate in this way is a violation of their rights.

If you can't see that this is about content and the nature of the event itself, it is because you willfully refuse to.

That's BS. As far as the mental gymnastics, just compare the arguments. It's called deductive logic.

You are approaching this from a religious perspective which shouldn't be a factor in a legal dispute, first amendment notwithstanding.

Amazing. An argument about freedom of conscience and free exercise of religion shouldn't be about the defendant's religious perspective and rights thereof.

I didn't say that. The argument is about the conflict or tension between civil rights and religious practice. Both sides should be considered.

In this case, the religious concerns are trumped by the violation of civil rights as determined statutorily.

[Weegle777 78]

They aren't discriminating against anyone. To discriminate would be to say, "We do not want homosexuals on our property." They didn't do that. Like Titan said, if they don't want rap music playing on their property, is that discrimination against black people?

They discriminated against this couple by refusing to host the wedding.

Your example is discriminating based on music. Rap music is not defined by race. On the other hand, gay marriage is defined by gender.

No they didn't. To discriminate would be not letting them on their property at all. They just didn't want a ceremony on their property, they were willing to have the reception, just not marriage.

[Aufan59 83]

They aren't discriminating against anyone. To discriminate would be to say, "We do not want homosexuals on our property." They didn't do that. Like Titan said, if they don't want rap music playing on their property, is that discrimination against black people?

They discriminated against this couple by refusing to host the wedding.

Your example is discriminating based on music. Rap music is not defined by race. On the other hand, gay marriage is defined by gender.

No they didn't. To discriminate would be not letting them on their property at all. They just didn't want a ceremony on their property, they were willing to have the reception, just not marriage.

They discriminated against the couple, treating them differently than other couples.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

If the wedding ceremony involved practices that were illegal, violated standards of propriety or would otherwise cause problems for the business, clientele and/or venue, you might have an argument. I am not aware of any such claimed circumstances.

The rap music that simply contains sexual references that are over the line to the owners and violates their consciences and religious beliefs doesn't violate any "standards" in a legal sense. The music gets played on publicly accessible radio stations, the rapper's concerts aren't illegal or censored. But it causes problems for the business because they don't want to promote or otherwise be associated with something that clearly goes against their moral and religious beliefs.

All of which is fine and good. And more importantly - for the purposes of this debate - it's legal.

And similarly, gay marriage may be "legal" in certain states but it cause problems for the business because they do not want to promote or otherwise be associated with something that clearly goes against their moral and religious beliefs. To them it is no more about the people being homosexual than denying the rap album launch party is about the performer being black.

All true. Well, at least until the last sentence.

The basis for their (marriage) objection is rooted in the gender of the bride and (bride?). By definition. Is there anything other than the fact they are of the same gender that would cause them to deny the service?

Yes. For instance this would not be the only sort of marriage or commitment ceremony they might refuse to host. They wouldn't host a commitment ceremony for a polyamorous group marriage. It's quite possible if they are serious Christians that they would not host a marriage where they knew, for instance, that the groom had been married 3 times before and was now wanting to marry his mistress that he cheated on wife #3 with. The point is, marriage is a specific and holy thing in Christian doctrine and belief. These other arrangements, to the degree that they deviate from that and give the wrong impression of what marriage really is, violates the owners' free exercise of their religious beliefs in not wanting to be associated with such erroneous "marriages." In other words, this is a disagreement over the nature of what marriage *is* by its very nature, not an argument over serving gays.

Thank you. You won me right there.

One of the things I hate is when people just look at the homosexual angle with marriage. Very few in these arguments will ever argue serial divorcees, open marriages, or the new trend of going out and getting yourself a starter marriage (you know one to practice in without really wanting to stay together). The sanctity of marriage is usually the strongest argument when it comes to marriage of homosexuals while all the sanctity destruction that is done by heterosexuals is ignored.

Health and lives are not on the line here. So I have no issue with these people stating that due to their religious beliefs they only want to perform heterosexual weddings. Perhaps what they need to do is to set up a list of questions (which they may already do this) and use those to judge the seriousness of a couple's intent in marriage that are heterosexual. Then they can show we have turned away heterosexual couples due to religious beliefs, such as they indicated to us this is being used as a starter marriage, or that they believed in a open marriage etc.

Personally I have no issue with same couple marriages, but if these people apply the same standards to heterosexuals as they do to same couples in determination of whether to host a marriage or not, then I believe that to be completely fair.