“They rob the poor under the cover of law, forsooth, and we plunder the rich under the protection of our own courage”
–Pirate Captain Charles Bellamy
A Christian baker told two lesbians getting married in Iowa that her religious beliefs wouldn’t allow her to bake their wedding cake. That should be her right — to not bake them a cake because they’re lesbians or to not bake one for me because I don’t believe in god. (And again, I say that about the cake for the two ladies getting married as somebody who’s pro-gay marriage and a staunch supporter of gay rights.)
Who are the most loathsome people in the world?
Now, what should the unhappy couple have done in this situation? Finding a new baker comes to mind. I doubt that a search on the online yellow pages is too difficult, even for people who probably graduated with a “Womyn’s Studies” degree. Telling their friends that their proposed baker is a “big meanie-pants” also comes to mind as a possible response.
Or how about this one: live and let live.
But naturally, there’s this:
Trina Vodraska and Janelle Sievers [The couple involved-- ed.] have said they found the experience degrading but it is unclear at this time whether they will file a legal suit.
That’s right. Let your enemy quake in fear as you take your time deciding whether or not to ruin her business. I doubt their course of action will remain unclear for long. I doubt Trina and Janelle will be the last such loathsome creatures to use the threat of lawsuit to force agreement from religious folk.
But something queer is going on in this case.
What portion of bakers are principled enough to turn down paying customers to uphold their ideals? Why is it that I would not be surprised if the couple purposely sought out a religious baker whom they suspected would be unwilling to cater their “wedding”? I wonder if they’ll next go to a kosher bakery so they can bully those orthodox Jews who stubbornly disagree with them just like those pesky Christians.
You might think jihadi terrorists are the most loathsome people in the world. And you wouldn’t be too far from wrong. But jihadi terrorists, despite their enormous evil, have one virtue to their credit: courage. Would you fly a plane into a building? Neither would I. That takes guts. Perhaps more guts than I or anybody else I know will ever have.
Because their great evil makes them the moral inferiors of all decent people, it is a correct to hate jihadi terrorists. Whereas hatred is appropriate for them, contempt doesn’t seem quite as fitting. After all, at least jihadis excel in one of the virtues.
Contempt is more suited for people like Trina Vodraska and Janelle Sievers. Like jihadi terrorists, many gay rights activists, (the kind satirized in Bias Incident: The World’s Most Politically Incorrect Novel) want to force people to agree with them by striking fear into the hearts of all that would voice dissent. In other words, the goals Trina and Janelle pursue are the spitting image of the goals of jihadi terrorists.
But these activists are more loathsome than the terrorists. Why? Because they lack courage.
It takes no courage to use the law to bully your enemies. It takes no courage to convince a judge to put somebody out of business because of your quibbles with them. Could Trina and Jannelle get killed or hurt if they lose their suit? Would they lose money? Would they even be forced to apologize to their victim for wrecking her livelihood? Nope. What can happen to Trina and Janelle as a result of their bullying? Nothing. That makes their use of this forum cowardly.
So, by combining bullying with cowardice, Trina and Janelle and those like them have become the most loathsome creatures on the planet.
Amy Alkon is right in noting that the Iowa Law which these two broads are contemplating using against their enemy is an affront to freedom. But she missed a big point: those who would contemplate using such a law to bully others should not be able to go out in the streets for fear of being spat upon by decent people.
So, why not buy Bias Incident: The World’s Most Politically Incorrect Novel and laugh at such miserable wretches. It’s the only right-wing novel endorsed by Michael Moore! (Not THAT Michael Moore).
Pingback: Ruth Institute Blog » Who are the Most Loathsome People in the World?
So if a baker opposes interracial marriage and refuses to bake a cake for a black woman marrying a white man, do we tell the couple to just suck it up? I mean, there are other bakeries they can go to right? Sure, they might have to travel to another town, or even another state… depending on where they live and how far out of control we’ve allowed this “religious liberty” meme to get. But hey, they should just get over it. I mean, having to search all over for a business that thinks you’re moral enough to be their customer is a minor inconvenience compared to the horrific experience of getting paid to bake a cake for a couple whose sex you think it icky.
Ken,
Let’s see here. First we’re equating interracial marriage, which has been happening since the dawn of time with same sex “marriage” which is a brand new invention. I’ll let the silliness of that comment stand on its own.
That said, I’d say that a person who goes into business should be able to serve and not serve whomever it wants. Why should the government have any say about whom the business chooses to serve?
The fact is that granting people special rights to sue if they are insulted does nothing to calm tensions between different groups. Instead, it increases tensions enormously.
Try reading “The Death of Common Sense” by Phillip K. Howard. It’ll show you just how much money gets (or got circa 1996. I’m sure it’s worse since then) on litigating over “he insulted me.”
Lastly, do you really think there’s a town (much-less a state out there) with no bakers? Really?
Ken,
Also note that Amy Alkon, as gay friendly as a person can be, and an atheist to boot, also thinks this a matter of government overreach.
Admin: I wasn’t “equating” interracial marriage with same-sex marriage (no condescending quotes required). Obviously they’re different yet people still have a right to enter into either. I was pointing out that people have religious based disapproval of other people’s relationships for reasons other than homosexuality. Surely you’re not suggesting that people who hold anti-gay views are the only ones who deserve a special set of rules that don’t apply to people who hold other religious views, are you? And on your other point – gay people have also existed since the dawn of time (long before people of different races even occupied the same lands and long before Christianity) and there is evidence that they sought to formalize their unions long before the Massachusetts SJC’s 2003 decision. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Ancient
More recently, Baker v. Nelson was a same-sex marriage case heard by SCOTUS, just 4 years after Loving v. Virginia. It was unsuccessful but it proves that your claim that same-sex marriage is “a brand new invention” is beyond silly.
“I’d say that a person who goes into business should be able to serve and not serve whomever it wants.” So you’re okay with a restaurant refusing to serve black people? Every town has restaurants, right?
Offhand, I don’t know of any religion–ESPECIALLY Christianity–that formally objects to interracial marriage. That’s merely a social construct. However, many religions DO have formal teachings against sexual activity outside of marriage, INCLUDING same-sex activity. So, comparing interracial marriage to “gay marriage” is nonsense.
Had to reply to this. Your IGNORANCE of basic RECENT American history is staggering. How old are you? If you are over the age of 16 you should be ashamed = as should your teachers. I suspect you are older and just plain old willfully ignorant. The ban on interacial marriage was FULLY the result of misguided Christian bigots who used to bible to get and keep that law until the LATE 1960′s – you dolt. While many Christian hated the misuse of religion to keep blacks as second class citizens – and maintain a ban on men and women marrying outside their race – it was THE BIBLE that was used to keep this hate in place for hundreds of years in this country. Know your history or sound like a fool. It ESPECIALLY WAS Christianity that used bible quotes to object to interacial marriage – just as it used today to maintain Civil Straight Supremacy.
RJP,
Thank you for your kind words. I really appreciate.
Ken,
Your use of the term “You’re okay with” confuses the issue.
I’m NOT okay with a business refusing to serve black people. I would not patronize such a business. I would boo and hiss every time I saw the owners.
But I think there is no place for the government to come in and enforce my preferences upon the owners of that business.
Let’s say there’s a business that won’t serve me because the owner doesn’t like my face. Let’s say there’s no other businesses that will serve me at the present time because of that stubborn face of mine.
You know what that presents? It presents an BIIIIG opportunity.
In a truly free country, we would start seeing advertising signs that said “come on in, we like your face.”
Comparing the situation to the pre-Civil Rights south may be inaccurate. If I’m not mistaken, Jim Crow was part of the LAW, not just the businessmen exercising their choice whom not to serve. (But I may be mistaken on that).
you fully miss the point — that business owner is getting federal benefits that maintain the society in which they are doing business
so they can not be willful bigots as you would like — because we are UNITED as one people
RoodAwakening: Check your Bible, you’ll find plenty written about prohibitions on race mixing. But beliefs don’t have to be rooted in the Bible or have the backing of a mainstream Christian denomination in order to be protected by our Constitution. I hope you knew that already. What’s nonsense is you thinking that the government is required to accommodate your religious views on sexuality but not another’s views on race. When you talk of religious freedom, I think what you really mean is anti-gay discrimination.
Admin: At least you’re being a bit more consistent – even if you disagree with racial discrimination, you believe that business owners should be legally allowed to engage in it. The thing is, they’re not. Our country has left that sort of thinking in the ash heap of history and is unlikely to go back. Because sexual orientation is an innate characteristic, the same rules that apply to racial discrimination should apply to discrimination against gay and lesbian people and vice versa.
I agree that this is not a case for litigation, and that yes, they should have found a different baker. A more effective means of protest would have been a protest. A few reviews online and word of mouth would have spread that baker would not serve gay customers would have accomplished the same thing (shaming the baker and driving down business) without tying up the courts.
But, I wouldn’t go as far to say they’re more loathsome then terrorists. They might be douchebags, but they’re not killing innocent civilians either.
You know, with all the recent troubles this issue has caused, I have come up with a modest proposal to nip this in the bud.
The current situation is clearly suboptimal. The Pious Christian was assaulted by the presence of the lesbian couple, and I’m sure the lesbian couple were thoroughly humiliated by the encounter.
The real problem is the lack of clear communication. Pious Christian business owners just need to clearly communicate their religious beliefs, to prevent such awkward circumstances.
A sign outside their place of business seems a practical method of communicating this. A simple “No Gays Need Apply,” would suffice. Simple, and gets the message across.
I love Poe’s Law.
NG,
I think I pretty much made it clear in my post. I used “loathsome” to indicate people worthy of contempt for their combination of bullying and cowardice. Terrorists, who are admittedly, FAAAAAAR more evil than this duo do not get as much contempt due to their courage.
And I agree. An online review or two would have been just fine by me.
Mr. Rovias: Brilliant!
But seriously, How do you know that’s what the baker’s thoughts on this issue were? Perhaps she has no problem if her clients are as gay as an Easter bonnet? Perhaps she just doesn’t want to participate in the legal fiction so recently created by the Iowa Courts known as a “gay marriage”?
The baker’s feelings about gay marriage are immaterial. She is providing a public service at an establishment available to the general public. Therefore her services cannot be discriminatory.
This is based on decades of established law and legal precedent. Read up on the Civil rights acts of 1964 and 65 if you wish to be enlightened.
However, lets enter your fantasy world where shop keepers and business owners are free to bar blacks, chinamen, mexicans and christ killers such as ourselves as they please.
A couple, Mandy and Robin, apply for a room at a hotel to stay in before their wedding the day after. The hotel owner, to their horror, finds that Mandy and Robin when they arrive are two men. Does he have the right to kick them out, without any obligations to find them other accommodations? Do Mandy and Robin have an obligation to always write “P.S. We’re gay” so that… discerning business owners can always know whom to refuse business? Or should the hotel owner go with my suggestion and put up a sign?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Roivas: I think the perfect place for a sign like that would be right over the “straights only” drinking fountain. That’s really drive the message home.
Admin, silly – legal fiction is an oxymoron – if it’s legal, it’s real.
Mr. Rovias,
As for my view of the Civil Rights law, I will put up a new post soon (can’t do it now, got two screaming babies needing my attention).
Anyway, the business owner should run her business as she sees fit. The government should stay the hell out of the way. If this inconveniences her potential customers, she risks her business. If this pleases her customers, this enhances her business. Period. End of story.
Suffice it to say this: I think that in the last thirty years, Civil Rights legislation has done nothing other than to cause citizens to fight one against another. More on that in a post coming soon to a novelist’s blog near you!
Lose business? Prior to the Civil Rights Movement, businesses made KILLINGS (literally and figuratively) by systematically barring blacks and other minorities from utilizing their services. Galvanized klansmen more than made up the shortfall of dem coloreds excluded from the economy.
And so its become obvious that this fundamentalist batch of theocratic teabaggery isn’t out to discriminate against the GLBT community – they’re out to repeal the Civil Rights Act!
Who’s the coward then? Come out and embrace your agenda.
Poultrygeist wrote:
“Lose business? Prior to the Civil Rights Movement, businesses made KILLINGS (literally and figuratively) by systematically barring blacks and other minorities from utilizing their services.”
I wonder if Poultrygeist can provide statistics on that. If not, Poultrygeist’s comment deserves no response.
Homosexualists love bringing in the “inter-racial marriage” canard. Sorry, but there is only one race – the human race. And the Scripture does not speak of inter-racial marriage being wrong – it speaks of marriage between believers and unbelievers being wrong.
Now, what business such as the bakers object to is providing services which would give approval to homosexual behavior. It isn’t about discriminating against people – it’s about discriminating against a behavior! Why should anyone have to give approval to a behavior with which they disagree?
Not as much as Christianists refuse to come to terms with the fact that the Bible was used to rally the troops against interracial marriage as much as it is today in opposition to same sex marriage.
Since when does providing a service rely on approval of the customer’s existence? I don’t know of any secularists, heathens, atheists and other assorted opponents of the American theocratic movement that would turn away Christianist patronage, on both economic and ethical grounds. The irony is that religious idenity – a completely mutable trait – IS protected by anti-discrimination legislation, and many evil godless heretics such as myself would go to bat for a sectarian fundamentalist facing similar treatment.
Ken,
Legal fiction is an oxymoron? Only an oxymoron would say such a thing.
Could I legislate the sky to turn orange?
No. I cannot. The sky is what it is.
Could I try to legislate the sky to turn orange? Yes. I certainly can. If I can convince enough senators and congressmen to vote my way, I can legislate anything I want.
You think nothing like that has ever happened? What about the recent bailouts. The government tried to legislate the value of certain companies and certain assets irrespective of what the market said.
In a less serious matter, some jurisdictions legislated Pluto back into planet-status.
Reality is reality. You cannot legislate against reality.
Admin: Orange sky? Evidently you’ve never seen a sunset.
Civil marriage is civil marriage. If you want to claim that same-sex marriage is fiction within the church and put your little condescending quotes around the word, that’s fine. But when it comes to civil marriage, you can stamp your feet, shake your head and hold your breath til you’re blue but it won’t change the fact that in 7 jurisdictions in this country, same-sex marriage is a legal REALITY. Law is created and controlled by humans and humans have modified the law to give marriage rights to same-sex couples. The fact that you’re spending so much time obstinately denying a basic fact in an effort to make your case shows how desperate you’ve become. Lack of valid arguments is exactly why Prop 8 was overturned and why NOM is fighting so hard to keep the tapes from going public.
Ken,
Marriage is a mating institution. Period. It always has been. It always will be. If the state wants to abolish marriage and call something that is not marriage “marriage” in its place, that is a legal fiction.
You will not get me to say an untruth such as that two men are married to one another. The state will not get me to say that untruth. Sorry. Things are what they are.
Orange sky? Sunset? Your quibbling little objection is like correcting my spelling. Fine. You cannot legislate that the sky is green and yellow paisley or plaid.
There are legal fictions all over the place. Not only is can Bob and Steve claim that they are “married” to a public credulous of the proclamations of the state but the law is no stranger to the fertile octogenarian, for instance.
Study the law. It’s lousy with legal fictions, just like the one you so vigorously favor.
The fact remains that when the legislature legislates against reality, it does not change the facts. It just changes (for the worse) people’s perceptions of the credibility of that legislature.
I was Legally Married in 2008 in California in my Church by my Pastor. Your Reality is… Fiction!
Straw men, Admin, that’s all they are. You make , nonsense claims like same-sex marriage is fiction then try to build your arguments on them. If I stated “Catholicism isn’t a valid religion”, I could write pages and pages about why Catholicism shouldn’t be treated as a valid religion. That’s all you’re doing here. Abolish marriage? Lie. Millions of men and women continue to be legally married in those 7 jurisdictions and more continue to join them each and every day.
Ken,
Please see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pxmhWECE7E
“Marriage is a mating institution. Period. It always has been. It always will be.”
Then please explain why having children is not a legal requirement for marriage. Never has been. Never will be.
…and why marriage is not a legal requirement for having children…
MrRovias:
Mating does not require having children.
Going by your self servingly hair splitting definition, neither does it require a male and a female.
Roivas,
By design of the human body, it requires male and female to mate. Two males or two females don’t mate – they just use each other for selfish, self-focussed sexual pleasure.
Glenn,
What IS mating then?
I’ll give you a hint. It has something to do with how babies are made.
QueerNE: You might find this helpful. (I can’t believe this isnt’ taught in biology classes). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mating
So when straight couples have sex for no other purpose than to indulge in physical pleasure, it’s mating. But when gay couples do it, its selfish, self-focussed sexual pleasure? Neither are intended for procreation, and both are intended to strengthen the bond of relationships, but only one is valid?
QueerNE, Did I say that? I said it’s not mating. Let’s say you eat a candy bar just for the gustatory pleasure. I would say that what you did is eating. Now, let’s say you chewed gum for a similar pleasure. I’d say that it’s not eating. Chewing maybe. You could say it has things in common with eating. But it’s not eating. How is this hard to understand.
Given that you are using the wikipedia definition, then I ask again: Why has the law never required children if marriage is a mating institution?
Admin, had your point been valid, stated objectively and well written you would need to return here and defend it so often.
Hands down, your viewpoint would last a day in court. Lot’s of luck living in your world of ideology.
Bobby baby,
Let me get this straight, is it your point that ideas that repeatedly get disputed are incorrect? Really?
I invited people here from Ruth knowing that I would get a bunch of people like you here to criticize me. I know that you guys disagree. Do you think I would have invited the peanut gallery into my playground without being able to defend myself?
As I’ve said before, we will outbreed you. Your worldview may have reached (or come very close to) its high water mark.
So you’re not even trying to out argue us, so now you just smugly proclaim we are being outbreeded?
Guess I forget the biological fact that ideology is genetically transmitted, which is why people hate gays in the exact same numbers they did in the 1960s.
Mr. Rovias,
First of all, why would I argue if the stark facts of demographics, culture and biology will do the work for me? My opinion is not what matters. The laws of nature are what they are. I merely describe them and note their probably consequences. How you or I value those consequences is completely irrelevant.
Dear Amy Alton and Admin,
I thought this blog was a joke when I first started reading it. When I realized it was not, I felt a great deal of disappoinment. How does someone even attempt to compare anyone in the LGBT community to terrorists? I am certain that Trina Vodraska and Janelle Sievers did not seek out this baker because she was a Christian Extremist. They have other things on their minds like trying to understand why they cannot marry legally and it is almost 2012.
Not all LGBT people care to argue or encounter hatred on a daily basis. Just as they do not choose to be LGBT because it is simply how they were born. I was taught that God makes no mistakes my entire life. I was told I could call on God 24/7, and he or she would carry me through my pain until I was strong enough to walk on my own. Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. We all pray to the same God. We all use various names for our highest power, but it is still the same. It is how society has interpreted the bible, torah, quran, etc that Gods words are twisted. This causes an immense amount of ignornace, and people use God and religion as an excuse to justify their hatred. When you say, “Contempt is more suited for people like Trina Vodraska and Janelle Sievers. Like jihadi terrorists, many gay rights activists, (the kind satirized in Bias Incident: The World’s Most Politically Incorrect Novel) want to force people to agree with them by striking fear into the hearts of all that would voice dissent. In other words, the goals Trina and Janelle pursue are the spitting image of the goals of jihadi terrorists.” you are doing exactly what God wants no part of in any way shape or form. Can you not hear God pleading with so many of you to stop using his name as an excuse to continue spreading your propaganda?
People will do anything to sell a book. You seem to have given your soul right to the devil by letting the hatred inside of you and spreading that vile gibberish…probably from your mom’s basement. I have many friends and family who are LGBT, and not one of them is afriad or lacks courage. If they did, they would never leave their homes in fear of people like you. It is our duty as human beings to evolve with the world. There should be no fear of evolution. Evolving as an individual is necessary in order to find peace within yourself and your higher power. If you consciously choose to stay planted in the “good old boy” mentality, you will never be able to know true love. Love is a gift. Unconditional love is a greater gift. Learning that both types of love cannot thrive without the other is the first step in understanding very person regardless of sexuality/race/religion deserves to be loved and love whoever God made for them. God places us each here for a certain reason. We also have partners in life that God places there because we are made for each other. Who are you to say God is wrong in allowing Trina and Janelle find unconditional love in each other? Sadly you are just another ignorant closed off person. I pray none of your children or family come to you expressing their sexuality is LGBT because your words cut deeply. You are the exact type of person who makes LGBT youth want to kill themselves. I pray for you.
I pray you find peace within yourself. Maybe this will help you be finished with the hatred you hold within you. I pray you open your eyes and embrace change instead of fear what you do not know. I would rather die than live my life stuck in the past. I embrace evolution as God does. I also pray you have no offspring to turn into tiny hate spewing bullies.
Hello admin….. The prevalence and persistence of LBGT population demonstrates that the stark facts of demographics, culture and biology don’t apply in the limited way in which you understand them (or misunderstand them as it happens).
No one has yet mentioned your loathsome imperative “those who would contemplate using such a law to bully others should not be able to go out in the streets for fear of being spat upon by decent people”.
Not the statement of a decent person.
Bullying is being beaten for being gay. Bullying is refusing to make a cake because you don’t like LBGT people.
Using legal recourse to end discrimination is not bullying, it’s a righteous act. Ask Rosa Parks.
Raisinhead,
Could you please explain to me what I think about how demographics works? Could provide me with your contact information so you can tell me why I think any of the other things that I think? Thanks.
Anyway, I would agree that bullying is being beaten for being gay. I would think less of myself if I did not have the courage to step in and intervene if I saw somebody being beaten for being gay. I would think less of anybody who would fail to do so.
I can think of an infinite number of reasons that somebody would beat somebody else. And the fact that somebody has unpopular religious views is not off of that list.
I think it’s time for gays, and their supporters, to start actively discriminating against Christians, in every way possible. Christians yammer on about their precious “religious freedom” – then let’s let them be free, just not on our territory. Hairdressers should deny bigoted Christian women service, and watch them hide their hair in shame. Clothing stores should refuse to allow Christian women to buy anything by gay designers, which is most clothing outside of LL Bean. Gay waiters and restaurant owners should refuse Christians service. Let them starve and eventually die, since they want to go to Heaven to be with Jeebus anyway. Christians should be refused admission to any Broadway show, either in NY or on tour. Let the Christians be free – just push them back into their own little world, like the Amish.
Jason,
You know something? I think you should be free to do so. I’m all about freedom. In holding to that principle, I think that if you have a business and want to deny service to any people for any reason, it should be your right to do so. If you wanted to sue for that right, I might even be willing to be your lawyer.
Hello admin.
Biology: superfluous wiki link. Your argument for the uniqueness of marriage is pretty much that a penis on occasions, enters a vagina. Marriage and love transcend biology.
Demographics – ‘we will outbreed you’. See earlier comment on persistence and prevalence despite reproductive antagonism.
Culture – ‘high water mark’. What lies ahead can only be speculation but looking at cultural trends, polling trends, religious belief trends, trends in other western democracies, trends in high schools (no. Of GSAs and states taking action on LBGT bullying), trends in open gay characters on popular TV etc then no one could possibly believe with any certainty above wishful thinking that a high water mark has been reached.
Christians are not under physical threat from 2 lesbians who want a cake – do you not see how you sound in the context?
Could you address the vile nature of the spitting suggestion please next? Don’t you agree it was excessive and likely to incite hate?
Also, do you know that your blog is satire in the same way that punching a puppy is an act of love?
The vile nature of my spitting suggestion?
To me, it makes no difference if people bully others using their fists or using the courts. Period.
I think bullies should be made to know how loathsome they are whether they use their fists or the courts.
Oh, and I think I made it perfectly clear that my guess that LGBT rights has hit its high water mark was just that: a guess. That being said, long term consequences are going to get here some day. I don’t know what they are. I can only wonder along with you. But they might not be to your (or my) liking.
To the admin: You wrote “To me, it makes no difference if people bully others using their fists or using the courts. Period.” Congratulations! You’ve become a bully. By your own words, you’re trying to tell lesbians who were denied service for being lesbians (a crime in Iowa, by the way) that they shouldn’t fight for their rights in court because the business has the right to refuse service to anyone.
Now, let’s stop talking about freedom as you think it should be or as LGBT’s know it, and let’s talk about the reality of this “Christian” baker. She said that baking a cake for them would interrupt her ‘walk with Christ’ and would put her in an area she didn’t want to be in. But she never said if she only discriminates against LGBT people or does she use the Bible as her source for who to discriminate against. Does she ask couples if either of them were married previously and then divorced, and then tell them no? Does she ask if they are the same faith and if they aren’t, tell them no? When you use your bible to pick and choose who to discriminate against in Christ’s name, you need to be careful to choose ALL of those that are doing sinful things. She made her bed, now it’s time for her to get in and pull the covers over her head.
JT,
Maybe the baker is the single worst person in the united states (excepting, of course, myself).
What is it the government’s job to correct her thoughts?
What do you think would happen if the government (as I advocate) completely gets out of the business of correcting the thoughts of people like the baker?
Do you really think that the couple in the news item would find it absolutely impossible to get a cake? Do you think the couple’s life would be ruined by the one baker refusing to do one job?
I will say this: lawsuits can ruin a person’s life. We should limit the ability of people to ruin the lives of others using the courts as their tool.
Hello admin…. the brainwashed, indoctrinated blind obedience of a hijacker who believes that other humans are worth no more than insects is not ‘guts’ and I’d try running that past any of the families of the victims. By this measure the Nazis were virtuous. What a hyperbolic and misconstrued comparison. Everyday courage is living courageously without being a hero, being true to yourself. Courage is standing for yourself and saying No, this shall not stand. I will not be treated as less than.
Can you try and tell me why you said that the lesbians should spat on?
The willingness to sacrifice oneself for a cause up to the point of giving one’s very life is, in my definition, courage. Is there any cause for which you would do that?
The nobility of the cause doesn’t enter into it.
Just because somebody is evil does not mean that he has no noble characteristics. It makes it all the more atrocious that that nobility was wasted on evil. Imagine the good that could have been done with courage like that.
There were certainly Nazis who were courageous. Their courage was also in pursuit of an (obviously) evil end. They were a net negative to the world, by far. But, once again, it doesn’t mean that they had no virtues of any kind.
I did not say that people should just spit on lesbians. That is a misrepresentation of what I said.
I said that people who bully others, including those who bully others via the courts should be spat on. I would also say that people who beat up on gays should also be spat on. Bullies of all kinds should know that they are not welcome in civil society.
You have sunk to an incredibly despicable low with this blog. Apparently you feel better about terrorists attacking America than you do about rights being extended to all Americans. You apparently think terrorists who kill thousands of people with airplanes are courageous while people who seek to have the same rights as everyone else are cowardly. You clearly have no conscience whatsoever. Terrorists kill people for not believing as they do. Gay activists fight for legal rights through legal actions. There are absolutely no similarities between terrorists and gay activists. But I can see why you admire terrorists so much. You also want to kill people who don’t believe as you do. You believe in terrorizing the LGBT community in any way you can and fight for the day when you can execute gay people on the spot and not be prosecuted for murder. Simply put, you are worse than the most “loathsome creature on the planet.” You are a monster.
Sapient,
Did you actually read my post or did you just read the summary on that other blog? You don’t seem to have read much of anything here, so how can you know if this blog has sunk to an incredibly despicable low?
I read the entire despicable post and my comments stands.
Hello admin – your replies have descended into a ridiculous place of double speak.
Spit. Don’t spit.
evil is noble.
Sapient said it – There are absolutely no similarities between terrorists and gay activists.
Goodbye.
I have said this twice now, and I shall say it here. I am in gods honest fact a lesbian, and I do believe with my whole heart and mind that the Baker was in her rights to refuse the couple. It does not matter what her reasons are or what genders are present in the couple; the fact that this has been brought up as even a thought is appalling, and even with my support of seeing same sex marriage made legal in the United States I still think the rights of business owners to refuse service to anyone should remain theirs.
So what of she doesn’t wish to serve a lesbian couple, there are a million other places in the world to get a wedding cake from – places that are not privately owned and have policies against refusing service to paying customers.
Cry a river, build a bridge and GET THE FUCK OVER IT PEOPLE.
There is a fine line for me with allowing blatant discrimination. Yes, I think private business owners should have the right to serve the population they please. they are aware of the consequence. I think it’s unethical as hell, but if they want to do it, then they can. The line gets fine when this business becomes larger…hypothetically, say the woman expanded her business and then owned all the bakeries within an hour radius. Once you are the sole provider of a specific service within a set geographical area, your rights as a “private” owner have to decrease because of discrimination policies. It’s one thing to say to the couple “I’m not gonna bake your cake, but there is a bakery up the road you can ask” and it’s something else entirely to say “I own all the bakeries in the county and I’ll be sure none of them bake your cake.” I do think the government is brought into FAR too many issues…but tolerating discrimination is a real deal breaker for me. Baking a cake for someone certainly doesn’t say “I approve of your ‘behavior’.” That’s just…idiotic. For all she knows, she could be handing out cupcakes to child molesters and wife-beaters.
I definitely think the couple are taking it too far by seeking legal action. But that’s mainly because I think many people take it too far by bringing the law into every. little. thing. Hell, flip the woman the bird or leave a nasty letter but don’t get the law involved.
To Jason who said everyone should just start discriminating Christians. That’s the last thing anyone should do. Not all Christians have the same values. While I am more of a Unitarian Universalist, I also consider myself to have Christian values. Being Christian isn’t a bad thing as I think Jesus, at the very least if you aren’t a believer, was one of the greatest teachers in history.
And to Glenn. E. Chatfield: I don’t know what Bible you are reading but the bible NEVER says that marrying unbelievers is wrong. In fact, it says quite the opposite. “For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband…” 1 Cor. 7:14 It’s there. You can look it up.
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. It is a refreshing change from all the invective.
Ari, it is well documented that Gay people have been getting a legal marriage–by whatever terms their society and culture tends to employ–since the keeping of historical records. One could list dozens of such cultures, but I will list only a few:
The Roman Emperor Nero famously married two men, each at different times in his life; it was well documented in ancient Greece, as well as throughout the Iron Age Celtic tribes. Many Native Americans allowed for it, as do the present Chuckchi shamanic people of Siberia! In every culture on Earth, Gay people were regarded with deep respect and adoration; we were the natural-born Shamans of a community who communicated with the dead and the gods because of our sacred sexual orientation. The Anthropological Assoc. of America (AAA) released a policy statement based upon more than 100 years of direct field work and thousands of years of historical documents opposing any attempt to codify marriage discrimination into the civil/ secular laws of this country. Besides, if marriage has always been about procreation from the very beginning, than why are infertile or elderly couples allowed to marry without question? This also belies historical data from antiquity showing that marriage, as a cultural institution had NOTHING to do with children in any way, save for having a (male) heir on which to pass on titles, lands, and property when they chief male dies. Hell, Dolly Madison very nearly lost custody of her son after her first husband died because property (which she was) could not own other property (her son was also regarded as such).
Wade,
I’m not going to dispute your factual claims. In fact, I’ll even, for the sake of this discussion, say that you might be right about all of them.
None of that is relevant however.
What’s relevant, to my mind is this: how do we make the good society? In answering that question, I think we should unflinchingly examine every aspect of our society and question whether it benefits or harms the society.
I am willing to entertain the notion that things that I love (including democracy, capitalism, or orthodox Judaism to name a few) may have some detrimental effects on society. I think, upon examining them, that these things are a net benefit to mankind.
In asking these questions, however, the question of a society’s attitude towards sexuality inevitably comes up. We must examine this without flinching and without fear that cherished notions will be upended. I conceded your factual assertions above for one reason: perhaps the attitudes you describe worked in the contexts of ancient Rome, maybe they worked well for hunter/gatherers and early agricultural societies. But how do they work in a society in which having children imposes a net cost on parents?
I’m open to all suggestions. But suggestions are just that. Suggestions. We cannot predict what will happen with enough accuracy to fully answer the question. We will muddle along, like every other society before us.
I personally find the notion that a more restrictive attitude towards sex and sexuality might provide some important benefits to our society very plausible. I invite counterarguments to this proposition.
That said, in arguing your points, I think the answer to any of these questions is not “Shut up.” That is the theme of my book Bias Incident: The World’s Most Politically Incorrect Novel.
The answer to a minor insult is not a lawsuit. That’s the theme of the post you commented on.
I wish you well and look forward to your future comments, as your post was well thought out (but I don’t know the status of your factual assertions) and free of invective.
Cheers.
Actually, I *am* correct about them; one need only examine the historical and ethnographic record–something that Maggie Gallagher seems to refuse to do in her attempt to re-write history! You are, however, free to dismiss it as seemingly inconsequential, but that merely shows the weakness of your argument when you and other claim that we are allegedly “redefining marriage”! One cannot, at least not in this country, have laws that are imposed upon one segment of the populace (which is what you and NOM are attempting to do to Gay people) while refusing to impose it equally onto everyone else (eg. the procreative mandate!).
Allowing Gay people to a civil (not a religiously-sanctioned) marriage is, actually, a societal GOOD! I remember well the early Theofascists as they would slander and defame my Gay brothers and Lesbian sisters for being “promiscuous”! Yet, when they want to settle down and show the world that this stereotype is merely a myth they are now telling us that we cannot! Furthermore, barring Gay people from civil marriage does very real societal harm to their children and to their spouse which is FAR from a societal good…in fact, it is an actual PUNISHMENT!
NOM also insists that it is fighting for religious freedom, but they have refused to acknowledge the religious liberties that are far more liberal than theirs. I am a Pagan High Priest, and I know of a case in Indiana (if I am not mistaken) in which marriage discrimination is being challenged on religious freedom grounds. Where is MY “religious freedom”, Maggie? (That was a rhetorical question.)
Also, I would be more than happy to cite many of my sources, however, my Library is boxed away and we are dealing with a death in the family…. My beloved dog, Abby, passed away yesterday. I haven’t stopped sobbing, since.
Sorry to hear about your dog.
But you missed the most important point of my reply: how do we motivate as many people as possible to have the optimal number of children so as to perpetuate the better aspects of our society to future generations?
There are several approaches to this. No time to go into them right now. I’ll probably post on that topic in the near future, with my review of a recent book. Check back at http://www.politicallyincorrectnovel.com for future updates.
Ultimately the message that NOM and the Ruth “women are baby factories” Institute is attempting to promote is that Gay people are inferior to heterosexuals.
The purpose of this blog is to discuss the use of courts to tell people with unpopular opinions to shut up. The topic of homosexuality is only tangential to that purpose.
I will not comment on the Ruth Institute or the NOM, as they are irrelevant to the purpose of this blog. That said, your statement misstates the message of those two organizations.
I must also ask: How much longer until NOM goes after the right for hetero. people to legally divorce? And, if Gay people should not be allowed a civil/ secular marriage, than why should murderers, child-rapists, and other savage and violent criminals be allowed a civil marriage? A few states attempted to bar these so-called “undesirables” from civil marriage, but the SCOTUS uniformly struck these laws down under the purview that civil marriage is “a fundamental right of man”!
I think the divorce law in this country is a disgrace. I would advocate radical change to the divorce law in this country, making the process much harder to get and much fairer to men.
“Undesirables” can wed without changing the definition or purpose of marriage provided that they are an opposite-sex couple.
I don’t care about what the SCOTUS says or the legislatures say. The legalities bore me. And this blog is mine. If I find it boring, I don’t discuss it. My only area of interest in any policy is this: is it a good idea. What factors make it a good idea. What factors make it a bad idea. What will be the good and bad consequences of this, or any, proposed policy?
That said, I think it a bad idea to redefine marriage.
Having taken a step back from the conversation for a while, I regret jumping in at the point that I did. It seems like every blog or post that has anything to do with LGBTQA issues, it always turns into a battle concerning the legitimacy of homosexuality. That is not this issue. The issue is whether or not the private business owner should have to right to turn select groups of people away; in that I agree with Dee and Lee.
She ought to be able. And people ought to be outraged. But I think that a more apppriate way to deal with that is to boycott, or protest in some way. Don’t silence them with lawsuits. The court is a system designed to fight injustice, not silence opinion. The opinion may be based on less-than-loveable principles, but that needs to be dealt with through education, not legislation.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment.
My only concern is this: when you say education, what do you mean? Do you mean for LGBTQQI people to lead exemplary lives and for people to say “how could we hate people who behave that way”? This is something I would support to the utmost of my ability, as I think EVERYBODY should lead exemplary lives, or at least make their best efforts to do so.
However, if you mean by “education” to deal with it via polemic delivered at state monopoly schools? In that I disagree. I think public schools should offer instruction only and politically-motivated polemic should be left out of the system completely.
QueerNE,
One more thing: when you say “education” would you say that people on all sides of the issue, including religious folk, have the right to be heard on this matter?
Sexuality education, in my view, is a highly disserviced branch of education in our schools today. I do feel there is a place for it in the public forum.
To clarify, to teach ABOUT sexuality, and discuss its variability in an academic sense. It isn’t a political agenda to speak about what merely is, especially when its a great source of confusion for a lot of people, given that it’s ignored (or rather avoided) by a large portion of society, many of who are even afraid to say the word ‘sex’ aloud. I think people
Also, I’m a HUGE advocate for discussing opinions surrounding the topic (including religious ones, but that’s not to say that I agree with teaching religion in the classroom); how can one hope to understand something if they don’t know the differing viewpoints.
It’s important to teach WHAT others are thinking, and not necessarily HOW to think.
From my point of view, the main thing to be taught about sex in schools, public or otherwise is the brute biological facts. This is mitosis, this is meiosis. These are the tissues in which meiosis happens, this is a blasocyst, this is how it implants, and on, and on, and on…
This is school. They should learn how the universe works. The hedonic aspects of sex is pretty much something that can be learned on one’s own.
Now, the California law mandating LGBT education in schools is, in my opinion a disgrace. You want to teach the contributions of LGBT people? Fine. Teach them enough mathematics so they can understand what Alan Turing did. Teach them enough music theory so they can understand Tchaikovsky. But what Tchaikovsky and Turing did, the things they did that MATTERED, was what they did for posterity. Not what they did in bed.
*ignore that fragment in the second paragraph
LGBTQA/Sexuality studies is directly relevant to both Sociology and Psychology, and both are a fair bit relevant in Political Studies, as well as Modern History.
Perhaps I’m wrong, but I think the point of the law isn’t to highlight historical figures as LGBT, but to teach about figures who fought FOR LGBT issues; activism is huge part of American history. Martin Luther King, Jr., isn’t famous for being black, but rather for fighting for the betterment of black people. The fact that certain figures in history were LGBTQA may become relevant in some way (I’m not an educator at this point, and could not say whether or not that teachers will highlight that fact). And if they did, which by no means should be the FOCUS of the curriculum, then it would only be to show that members of the heternormative society is not the only producer of note-worthy historical events.
It isn’t necessarily the promotion of homosexuality; it is to speak to a world that, for the most part (and you would have to be optimistic indeed if you disagreed) denies that LGBT people can be positive role models, when they can, in fact; NOT on the basis of being LGBT, but that even being queer they can accomplish great things.
Perhaps it has relevance to sociology, political studies and modern history. But you know what? So do a TON of things not currently taught in public schools. Students can, for example, study in detail how communist regimes are so thirsty for the blood of their own people. The can study how savage the Aztecs were.
Besides, the BASICS aren’t being taught well. I recently asked a recent high school graduate what decade the U.S. Civil happened in. I was not pleased with the answer I got (and it wasn’t because she was being a smarty-pants know-it-all and asking me whether I wanted my answer using the Muslim, Jewish, Christian or Chinese Calendars).
I think you have to admit, Abraham Lincoln was more important to this country than Harvey Milk. As such, the fact that students don’t know who he is or what he did is an absolute disgrace. Adding more politically charged material to their coursework will only make the situation worse.
Admittedly, it is very hard for me to imagine why same-sex marriage is such a big deal to people and why it is even an issue. But I am lax like that about many things…I honestly just don’t care how people want to live their life so long as there isn’t any harm involved.
Then we get to the question of whether or not allowing same-sex marriage is a societal harm. Again, I admittedly have a hard time even pondering that because it seems so harmless to me. But, I’m aware that so many people still find it to be harmful for mainly these reasons:
1: it “redefines marriage.” – This is true depending on who you ask. Yes, in many dictionaries, something about a woman and a man is mentioned but that is rapidly changing people of the many countries that now allow same-sex marriage. Here’s my take on this: Why not leave it for the couple and their church to decide what “marriage” means? If a church believes in same-sex marriage and is willing to perform them, then they should have that right. It is, after all, a “religious institution” and there should be religious freedom. Churches throughout the states already perform ceremonies for same-sex couples even if there is no legality involved. A church in my hometown actually stopped performing civil marriages for straight couples until same-sex marriage is legalized. It was voted for unanimously by the congregation. That said, if same-sex marriage is legalized throughout the states, churches should have the right NOT to marry a same sex couple if they don’t want to.
2: the country’s “values” will be at stake: here is another place where I say leave it up to churches and families to provide values. Because honestly, I don’t think of same-sex marriage as an issue of values. It is an issue of discrimination. Someone screwed up when they gave married people different rights than single people. That’s what it’s all about. The way I see it, the bottom line is that gay people are being discriminated against and this is unconstitutional. If an individual person wants to question the values of a couple’s marriage, then question it all you want but they need to be allowed to get married OR, at the very least, a civil marriage or union has to be offered. There are plenty of value-less marriages that are still legal (as they should be).
3: What’s next, people marrying animals or robots?: This is just silly and I only mention it because it is mentioned all the time. We are talking about human-human relationships, not human-animal or human-AI. If that argument is to point out how “perverse” same-sex relationships are then clearly the ones saying that haven’t been around some of the straight people I’ve known. Perverse comes in straight form, too.
Lee,
You forgot one.
4) People’s attitudes towards sex, marriage and reproduction affect birthrates. Birthrates need to be adequate to preserve the good aspects of our culture, to provide the next generation of workers to fund the pensions of the older, to show our hope for the future, to protect people from loneliness in their old age, and dozens of other things. If our attitude towards sex is that it is primarily for pleasure, and that one should strive to maximize that pleasure, it is incompatible with an attitude that ensures adequate birthrates.
Happy black Friday.
Oh, and Lee,
See my post on consequences. Suffice it to say that redefining marriage will have unpredictable consequences. It’s a decision that needs to be made carefully if at all.
While I do agree that it is a sad day indeed when young America displays ignorance to what should be common knowledge, I do believe that’s more to do with demographic than it is all-over climate. But then, I could be wrong. Whatever my opinions of rural Nebraska on LGBTQA issues, they still know basic history (except the drug-addicts and alcoholics; but that’s a different story.)
But even so, I don’t agree that if students lag in one area, then other areas should be stripped from curriculums (or excluded entirely).
“The first step in liquidating a people is to erase its memory. Destroy its books, its culture, its history. Then have somebody write new books, manufacture a new culture, invent a new history. Before long the nation will begin to forget what it is and what it was.” ~Milan Kundera
QueerNE,
And you know something, I think there should be (if there’s a demand for it) schools that provide that kind of instruction you call for. What I don’t support is government monopoly schools giving a one-size-fits-all approach. to educating kids. Different parents what their children to be taught different things. There is no reason that there has to be one type of school for everybody. Let different people make different choices. Let the chips fall where they may.
That’s why I support public school abolition and the public schools should be replaced with private schools for which parents get vouchers.
You realize, of course, that, even though I’m a social conservative, I have a very strong libertarian streak. I disagree with the libertarians on things like drug legalization and immigration. But I think the law should be as libertarian as possible. Bias Incident, incidentally, is very much a libertarian book with social conservatism thrown in because it’s unfashionably politically incorrect.
Hmmm…I guess from a religious standpoint, strict Catholics and others do not use forms of birth control and sex is supposed to be only for procreating. My grandparents were catholic and that’s why I have 9 aunts and uncles! Well…if that is similar to your take on things then I have no counter proposal on that. Exactly as you said, it’s an attitude. I am all for having children and taking care of them. Having a family is something I may never have and it often bothers me. But I do question the birthrate being a factor involved in this. I think birthrate has more to to with the attitudes surrounding women than anything. Looking at a trend globally, birthrate in more developed and richer countries (like the Scandinavian countries) has lowered considerably. The age where women are having children has also rose. In these countries, and in the US, women work. They are professionals. They get educated. This is a good thing for women…but it takes emphasis away from family. In contrast, the places with the highest birthrates are in developing or third world countries. Often, there is little to no emphasis on a woman’s place in society other than the family she creates and provides. In short, I see where you are coming from with birthrates and that families are a good thing. However, it’s women who have kids and lowering birthrates may have more to do with the attitudes about women than about the reasons for marital sex. And for the record, while I am not afraid of overall birthrate I do fear the shift from family-emphasis to career-emphasis in the society. I have a feeling that bothers you as well. It’s great that women work. After all, I am a female pharmacy student and I’ve worked my entire school career to get to this point. But it’s gotten to the point where many people cannot work and raise a family the way they would want. That speaks for men, too.
I agree with you about consequences. Redefining marriage holds unpredictable consequence on many families. I suppose I am just less afraid of them than you are. No one can predict the future so all I one can do is try it and see what happens. But, it’s okay, you at least shed light on some of the more rational fears behind same sex marriage than a simple “well I don’t like it” and I commend you for that. I’ll read any reply you have because I value your opinion but I’m unlikely to post any further because I’ve had my say. And thank you for taking time to read and consider it. I just wanted to provide a sort of “third party” opinion as I am neither highly religious nor yearning to marry another woman, haha.
Happy black friday to you, too. It’s a tradition for me, my mom and my brother to camp out at a store every year. Yes, we are part of the insanity…
Lee,
My wife’s a doctor. But she had the advantage of having been married when she started medical school. I joke that when I married her she was a teenager, and now she’s Dr. Mendelson.
I got the time to write Bias Incident because when she became a doctor, I gave up my law practice (which I hated) and started raising the kids full time. So, you see, I have some non-traditional aspects to my life too.
That said, I am completely open to the argument that if too many men behaved as I did, there would be major drawbacks and nasty consequences to society. I think what I’m doing for my family is great, but I sometimes wonder if it’s a good idea on a large scale. My pitiless analysis of all things social extends to the things I most hold dear as well. Not just to things I think a bad idea or things I think sinful.
And Lee, I’m glad we can disagree civilly.
I think that the privatization of education sounds a lot better than it would actually turn out to be, especially if you worry about certain aspects of education being neglected.
QNE,
I think EVERYTHING sounds a lot better than it turns out to be. That’s the nature of the world.
But that’s not the standard by which it’s judged, now is it? The proper standard to judge it is this: is it better than the alternative?
If the alternative is government monopoly schools, I think the answer is a clear yes. Monopolies of all kinds always, ALWAYS screw over their clients.
Ari, we do not need marriage to perpetuate our species…we never have! To insist on this procreative mandate + heteronormalcy = a societal good equation is to belay the authentic historical roots of marriage as well as civil marriage vs. the human species and societal familiarization. Civil/ secular marriage has never been about “transmitting a marriage culture” to “future generations”, otherwise, we would not have Vegas-style drive thru weddings. The US is about FREEDOM, not restrictive laws of the sort that NOM endorses. And, no your argument re: the so-called “public purpose of marriage” shows its weakness on its face in the example of violent criminals that are imprisoned who have no chance to procreate after the fact. You also forget that this world has a large enough population as it is. I sincerely believe that Maggie’s attempt to instill fears re: population growth and density is rooted in xenophobia because studies have surfaced showing that birth rates among Caucasoid folk are on the decline when compared to racial minorities which are on the rise. And, these minorities are moving to areas chiefly inhabited by we white folk. Now, re: divorce, it shouldn’t be more difficult, because that is simply punishing a couple that is miserable with each other! Honestly, the only one attempting to “redefine” civil marriage and how it proceeds to evolve in how everyday citizens understand it and embrace it is you, NOM, and the Ruth Inst. One cannot say that marriage is “child-centered”, despite the fact that most people do not get married just to procreate but out of love; and, then in order to force a vote to go your way you engage in fear-mongering by turning people against Gay people using ingrained animus. Oh, and speaking of history, I sincerely believe that NOM, et al. opposed California’s Fair Education Act because they don’t want anyone educated about the revered place that Gay people have once held in society, that we are worthy of being role-models, nor how and why we have been persecuted and even targeted for extirpation!
Wade,
You’re muddling up my argument.
Forget our species. It is my contention that marriage is very likely necessary for the survival of a modern industrial civilization.
I believe the likelihood of its necessity is great enough that we should not do any experiments with the essence of the institution.
I assume you disagree.
Forgetting the issue of marriage redefinition, are you quite sure that marriage is completely unnecessary for a modern industrial civilization?
Do you think that marriage is a social good? Do you think it has any particular beneifts to society in general? Do you think it has any drawbacks to society in general? Which is of greater consequence to society? The benefits or the drawbacks?
Would you object to the abolition of the institution?
1) If marriage is required for the survival of the species, then what is wrong with marriage equity?
2) If christianists don’t like marriage equity, then your church doesn’t have to have them.
3) marriage is a CIVIL contract. Justices of the Peace, who are not religious, can grant marriages
4) there are 7 billion people in the world. A few same sex marriages won’t put a dent in that.
5) You don’t need to procreate in any marriage in order for the marriage to be legal.
6) There is a little scrap of paper called the Bill of Rights – it is not for Christians only.
7) I’m sorry you think gay people are icky, but we exist, and no one chooses their orientation.
There are gay animals (penguins, dogs, cats, apes, etc). There are gay humans (and bisexual ones).
9) Religion is a CHOICE. So if you are not against religious discrimination, then why is the biology of homosexuality so important to you?
10) People who are non religious still have sex, so religion is not required to pro create.
11) If you want to stick to the biblical form of religion, then that means you are for polygamy, like treating women as property, and will kill any woman who is not a virgin upon marriage.
12) You commit adultery every time you sleep with a woman after you divorce one.
13) You talk about marriage in a biblical sense. How are social security benefits, inheritance benefits, and hospital visitation rights biblical? They are civil, however.
14) HOW DOES MY GETTING MARRIED TO MY PARTNER AFFECT YOU? It creeps you out to the point that you have become a homophobic troll.
You’re really not all that observant, are you? You realize, of course, I’m not a christian. I deny the tenets of christianity.
I never said gay people are icky. You know what’s icky? Appealing to the government to have the thoughts of your neighbors corrected. Only the enemies of freedom would do such a thing.
We made it very clear to all our vendors when we contacted them that we were two women getting married and if that was an issue, we wanted to know right away.
None of our vendors thought it a problem. We were slightly concerned about the site as it is owned by a church, but spoke first with the head of the church committee that operates the venue and he said it was no problem at all. I responded by saying “Oh, you must be one of the good Christians” which made him wince. Good. The good Christians are the ones who need to handle the bad ones, it’s not my responsibility to repair their damage.
Admin,
You are entitled to your opinions. A misguided child means well but is still misguided. Christ will no doubt forgive you, and you will, someday, here or in the next world, understand the big picture. And thank you for your blog of hatred and intolerance. It forces the rest of us to find the words and strength to explain ourselves.
To Everyone else who posted comments here who gets what love is actually about: Thank you.
The contrast here between ignorance and reason, hatred and love, fear and tolerance, couldn’t be clearer.
Homophobia is a sin like lying, stealing and murder. Just because someone has the urge to commit the sin of homophobia, it does not mean the person MUST act upon that urge. Like a recovering alcoholic, the homophobe needs to learn to control his/her sinful urges. Redefining it as a “business right” does not fool God.