The Observation Deck

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/10/14/me ... -weddings/

Like conservatives have been saying for a long time, Christian business owners are not able to have religious objections to gay marriage.

This TOLERANT movement should prove they are truly OPEN MINDED and just peacefully ignore businesses that disagree with them.

It just proves they really have issues. If they were truly confident they wouldn't be so emotional against objectors.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXQy0byA5Wg

Henry Rollins says, "Find a god that likes you".

Ryan Salo wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/10/14/mennonite-couple-files-counter-lawsuit-in-fear-having-to-host-same-sex-weddings/

Like conservatives have been saying for a long time, Christian business owners are not able to have religious objections to gay marriage.

This TOLERANT movement should prove they are truly OPEN MINDED and just peacefully ignore businesses that disagree with them.

It just proves they really have issues. If they were truly confident they wouldn't be so emotional against objectors.

Did you completely miss the part where it is ILLEGAL to discriminate against someone based on their sexual orientation at a PUBLIC establishment?

They don't own a religious establishment, so they are not exempt from this rule. If they have such strict religious doctrines then perhaps they should consider a more private way of making a living where they don't have to be tolerant of people who aren't like them.

Thealexa,

First let me start by saying if I had a wedding cake business I would not turn anyone down. My goal would be to love the individuals and create a relationship with them. I completely understand those that feel like they are participating in an immoral act by contributing to a gay wedding.

Did you completely miss the part where it is ILLEGAL to discriminate against someone based on their sexual orientation at a PUBLIC establishment?

That is my point. If you own a business that has anything to do with weddings you can now basically be put out of business for not doing something you have a moral objection to.

Silencing the opposing view - the open minded libs are great at pushing for it.

Ryan,
What exactly are you suggesting? That there's a fundamental right to discriminate? If I have a business and I find interracial couples morally objectionable then I can refuse to serve them? Jewish couples? Unmarried couples living together? Divorced people remarrying? Where would such a right to discriminate begin and end? There are still people that believe the mixing of races is immoral. Can they deny people of color service? Or make them use a different drinking fountain or the equivalent? Individuals and churches and private organizations are one thing. Public establishments are quite another.

Holy hodge podge of not being able to understand the difference between Jim Crow laws and the subject being discussed.

If we were truly color blind, and saw everyone as equal regardless of age, sexual orientation, or religion then we would not need the NAACP or the Republican party.. just sayin...

Stephen,
I'm not entirely sure what you mean but perhaps this is relevant:

http://wakeforestlawreview.com/a-unique ... in-context

I tend to think that discrimination is discrimination.

Jeff,

Good questions.

If you owned a bakery and a 40 year old male came in and asked you to make a wedding cake for his wedding to an 8 year old girl, would you "discriminate"? You could use the "it is illegal" argument but what if it wasn't?

http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2011/10 ... tries.html

As community ideals change so do the laws. Sometimes for good, like interracial marriage and woman's rights. But some would believe the moral decay is leading to a free love environment and gay marriage rights movement which tries to silence the opposing view.

At what point should those with "higher moral standards" have a legal right to stand their ground? Please show me where the line is (if you believe there is one).

Are you really comparing two consenting adults wanting to enjoy equal rights by entering into a loving, monogamous, committed relationship with pedophiles? That's extremely offensive and I refuse to go there.

People that think like this do not have "higher moral standards". Exactly the same pleas were made by those against interracial and inter-religious marriages. Some of those folks "stood their ground" and were jailed and/or put out of business. I guess they felt strongly that it was leading to moral decay and that's where they thought the line was. No doubt there will be some of that now too. All of these changes are for the good and I don't shed any tears for bigots past or present.

The free love environment concern is ironic considering that people are fighting for the right to committed relationships. Again, no one is asking for extra or special rights. Just equal human rights. Civil rights. Consenting adults should be equal under the law and free to marry whomever they choose without regard to other individual's or group's feelings.

I'm not sure what you mean by trying to silence the opposition. I am unaware of any such attempt. In fact, I hear way too much bigotry and vitriol in my opinion. But of course people and religions and private groups are free to think/feel/say as they will. No one says you have to like it. No one says your church has to be a part of it. We stay out of each other's private affairs and ensure no bias in the public sphere.

You ask: "At what point should those with "higher moral standards" have a legal right to stand their ground?" And I say: This is now the point when those of us with higher moral standards stand our ground and give all of us the same legal rights. We are after all talking about other Lincoln parents and other Lakewood citizens among others.

I am reminded of this:

Jeff,

You don't need to freak out, I am just asking questions. Keep in mind what I originally said, I am not for discriminating anyone personally. It is just good to know where others stand.

So, the 40 year old marrying the 8 year old is wrong in your mind. Good we have found some common ground. The age of consent has been gradually dropping across the world. I am not sure if you read the link I put but it is a growing movement. Even here in America there are folks fighting to make it 14 in certain states.

Even though this IS NOT THE SAME THING... at some point would you stand up to say no to this movement?

I am asking because different people have different convictions and I am curious to see where the line is for you.

I appreciate your dialog.