The Gay agenda

[lastcallhall]

This is an article from Jim Daly on Foxnews and it looks like what a few of us conservative christians believe is the gay agenda moving forward to get marriage passed.

I am, naturally, personally opposed to the legalization of same-sex marriage for the simple but profound reason that it violates and contradicts the sacred text of the Bible, which I believe to be true and inspired. But on what basis should I expect people who dont believe as I do to likewise oppose same-sex marriage?

On the basis of logic, reason, common sense and the fact that preservation of traditional marriage is in the best interest of the common good, as evidenced by any number of factors, including reams of social science data and thousands of years of history.

Any discussion on the definition of marriage incites strong emotional reaction. And those of us within the orthodox Christian community understand that many in the culture see this issue very differently, and hold to very passionate views on the subject. We understand that on this matter, in some circles, that never the twain shall meet. Nevertheless, this difference of opinion does not preclude us the privilege of championing a principle we hold dear, especially since its our Christian faith that motivates us to support and defend what we believe to be Gods blueprint for human relationship. In the last half-century, progressives have exercised their own rights of cultural engagement, aggressively championing sweeping cultural changes on numerous levels. Although we may disagree with them, we certainly dont begrudge them the right to engage the process. But in this pursuit to redefine marriage, wouldnt it make sense to consider the outcomes of prior social reengineering efforts?

In the late 1960s, no-fault divorce promised to simplify, streamline and decrease the contentiousness surrounding marital breakup. Instead, it only encouraged struggling spouses to throw in the towel. Fathers abandoned their families in droves. Poverty levels skyrocketed. Prison populations increased at dramatic levels, a consequence of kids now growing up without a father in the home.

A few years later, in 1973, the Supreme Court legalized abortion in all 50 states. Supporters heralded a new era of responsibility, where every child would be a wanted child. Tragically, over 48 million babies have now been aborted and the beauty of life has been cheapened as a result, while child abuse has skyrocketed.

The expansion of welfare promised to alleviate human suffering. While in some ways noble in intent, it disincentivized work, undermined the family unit and created a perpetual cycle of dependency and poverty. Fathers were no longer needed to be an integral part of the family.

Cohabitation is yet another experiment which promised to liberate couples from the burden of marriage. The number of couples living together outside of marriage has increased ten-fold between 1960 and 2000. Over 12 million unmarried partners now live together in the United States. The result? Cohabitation not only decreases a persons appetite for marriage, it also increases the risk of divorce, should the couple ever tie the knot.

Further, a home with two unmarried partners has proven to be the most dangerous place for children in the U.S. Children who live with their mother and boyfriend are 11 times more likely to be sexually, physically, or emotionally abused than children living with their married biological parents.

In each example of social reengineering Ive noted, progressives promised good things. Sadly, the exact opposite has happened. However well-meaning the motivation, reengineering what God has designed is not only unwise, but radical and dangerous, too.

Without evidence of success to which to point, supporters of these ill-fated ventures are left with but one choice: If you cant change unfavorable outcomes, you change the minds of people as to what is considered favorable and good.

Here lies the last great frontier and the last gasp for those determined to re-engineer marriage. Those committed to this form of radicalism have systematically broken down the cultural barrier to same sex marriage by desensitizing people on the issue, stigmatizing those who oppose the movement and potentially criminalizing anyone who stands in opposition to them. The irony in our cultural discussion currently, is if you support traditional marriage, you are the one perceived by the cultural elite to be the radical.

Consider the case of a New Mexico couple who own and operate a photography business. When they kindly refused to shoot a lesbian marriage ceremony, they were summarily brought up on human rights violations by the New Mexico Human Rights Commission. They were fined for not accepting the job. While on the other hand, Christian organizations are now being singled out and suppliers are threatening to no longer supply them with critical support functions like computer technology because of their stand in opposition to same-sex marriage. Those in favor of same-sex marriage do not see the contradiction in these two examples. One group must perform the services and is fined for not doing so (in the name of human rights); the other is allowed to default on their contract because of alleged bigoted behavior on the part of the religious organization (with no regard for religious expression).

If religious liberty is lost in America, we will cease to be the nation our Founders intended us to be. Our rights will no longer be derived from God but from man, and therefore, dangerously beholden to political despots. I dont think Thomas Jefferson intended that to be the outcome for our great nation when he wrote the famous Danbury Baptist Church letter which mentioned the separation of church and state. Contrary to conventional wisdom, President Jefferson was expressing a concern that the church needed to be protected from the state, not the state from the church. It appears his fears are now being realized.

Jim Daly is president and host of "Focus on the Family."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/05/ ... z1NJdkc5AN


The questions I have for debate are:

1. Is what happened to the New Mexico couple proof that gay marriage will threaten christians and the church from living our faith?

2. If gay marriage is legal in the entire US would churches be forced to recognize gay couples and be forced to hire gay people to positions even if that would be against our beliefs?

[SailingCyclops]

[Duplicate post deleted by micatala]

[SailingCyclops]

And a church is an organization 'open to the public."

Yes, and they can teach what they want, even if what they teach is contrary to law. However, once you leave the church, responsibility to obey civil law still applies. A good example would be the Rastafarian Church. They teach that smoking pot is part of the faith. They are free to do so. However, if caught smoking pot, one is still subject to civil law, whether or not that law conflicts with the church's teaching.

However, Elane Photography is not a 'public accommodation.'

This statement is not factual. The legal definition of 'public accommodation (and we are dealing with the legal system here).' is well settled law, and applies to ALL businesses which deal with the public. Legal definitions are based on case law, not on your opinion.

The case against Elan Photography was based on well understood and settled NM Statutes, case law, and on the Civil Rights act of 1964.

From: http://www.law.georgetown.edu/moralvalu ... hycase.pdf

4. Section 28-1-7(F) of the NMHRA provides, in applicable part, that it is an unlawful discriminatory practice for: "any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to any person because of ... sexual orientation...." NMSA 1978, 28-1-7(F).

5. Section 28-1-2(P) of the NMHRA defines "sexual orientation" to mean: "heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality, whether actual or perceived...." NMSA 1978, 28-1-2(P).

6. Section 28-1-2(H) of the NMHRA defines "public accommodation" to mean: "any establishment that provides or offers its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to the public, but does not include a bona fide private club or other place or establishment that is by its nature and use distinctly private...." NMSA 1978, 28-1-2(H).

7. A similar prohibition against the discrimination of members of protected classes in public accommodations is contained in Title II of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.c. 2000a (1994 ed). Section 2000a (a) provides the following: "All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin." 42 U.S.C. 2000a (a).

Elaine is a photographer, and artist, and as such should be free to choose her clients and the events for which she provides her services.

Yes within the limits of the law. Discrimination is illegal, so discriminating, even if bigotry is part of one's religious beliefs, is still illegal.

So, she was forced to provide a service that she did not advertise, for an event that was deeply against her religious beliefs, because the gay rights activists felt that they had a right to force her to abandon her faith in order to serve them.

Actually no she was not. She did not photograph the Gay marriage. She was correctly sued for violating NM State law and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

It was wrong. It's what is happening.

For many, it was wrong to allow Rosa Parks to sit on a bus. We all know where that went don't we?

It's why I will fight like crazy to keep the government from redefining marriage to include same sex couples

Civil rights laws are still in place, no matter where this goes in the near future. You can be assured however, the discrimination suffered by gays today, will become history in the same way discrimination against blacks and women has in the past. It's inevitable, we are becoming more and more civilized as time marches on.

UNTIL they realize that they don't have the right to force religions and the religious from changing their doctrine and beliefs so as to approve of them.

No one is forcing any change in religious doctrine or belief. All this is attempting to accomplish is to end discrimination against a class of our population. You may go on believing whatever you will, that won't change.

....which is precisely what they did with Elaine of Elane Photography. In effect, they forced her to bow down to an idol, or suffer major legal consequences. That's supposed to be unconstitutional, y'know?

You are sounding hysterical, calm down, take a deep breadth. Elaine didn't "bow" to anything. Please explain what part of the Constitution was violated? Please site.

If I run a BUSINESS, it is ILLEGAL for me to deny goods and services to anyone. Including Christians (aren't you glad about that?), Jews, Blacks, women, gays, Muslims, atheists...... etc etc.

Of course it is one's right to do so, in certain cases.

No! You are wrong again.

I run an Internet business. I am a radical atheist, and find Christians disgusting, immoral, ignorant, creatures totally against my beliefs.

However I CANNOT deny services to any disgusting Christian who wants to buy my services. That's the law of the land, and it's a good law, even though it forces me to deal with the occasional idiot. It applies to me as it applies to you and as it applies to Elaine.

You should be very happy about that situation. The time will come when religion and myth will be as out-dated and reviled as which craft, and then, you will be glad that you can't be discriminated against. You are fighting against your very own interests here.

Bob

[JohnPaul]

No, sir. This decision was wrong. It sets a very bad precedent of doing precisely what you are claiming that it does not do; infringing upon individual believers--and thus the belief systems and churches to which they belong--religious rights.

Hello, dianaiad,

I am neither Christian nor gay, but I do support your position on the photography studio 200% The two gay women and the court that supported them were grossly wrong.

HOWEVER, I do have a bone to pick with you! I have never had any problems with the LDS church, so don't take this personally. In my observation, Christians are far more guilty of trying to impose their beliefs on the community than gays ever have been! If I had to choose between Christians running the country or gays running it, I would choose gays any day!

I grew up on a small farm. My father drove the family into a nearby small town every weekend to see a movie. One evening as we drove into the parking lot, we were met by a crowd of people, yelling, carrying signs, and pounding on our car. My father backed out and drove away. My little sister was very frightened, and asked my mother, "Who were those people?" My mother was a devout non-denominational Christian, but I still remember the expression on her face as she answered: "They were....Christians!"

The movie was Howard Hughes' "The Outlaw," featuring Jane Russell's low-cut blouse. Using threats, intimidation, and even brief violence, this group of Christians from several local churches succeeded in doing "God's work" and permanently shutting down the only movie theater within 20 miles of our home.

Years later, while visiting a friend in a small town in Arizona, we encountered a large crowd gathered around a small neighborhood store, carrying signs, blocking customers, and screaming out what appeared to be prayers. I asked one of the protesters what was going on. He very seriously told me that the store proprietor was selling rock music recordings on which the voice of Satan could be clearly heard when played backyard!

I naturally bought one of the evil recordings, and after some experimenting, managed to play it backwards. I could hear nothing like the voice of Satan. Perhaps Satan speaks only to Christians? Anyway, this group of local Christians, led by representatives of the American Family Association from a different state, persisted and drove all customers away from the little neighborhood store, eventually succeeding in putting it out of business.

My late wife told me the following story. Some years before marrying me, she lived in an inland city in northern California. She was interested in astrology and sometimes did astrology charts for friends (not for money). A group of local Christians somehow found out about this and a group of Christian women accosted her, forced their way into her apartment, and tried to force her to her knees, to "pray for forgiveness!"

Fortunately, my wife was quite strong for her size, and knew how to use her fists. She assured me that she left one of the good Christian women with a flap of cheek hanging from her face as her friends carried her away, which I am sure scarred the woman for life. Of course, it probably earned her a place of honor in heaven!

From my own observation, it seems that Christians are not the innocent victims they like to pretend!

John

[dianaiad]

And a church is an organization 'open to the public."

Yes, and they can teach what they want, even if what they teach is contrary to law. However, once you leave the church, responsibility to obey civil law still applies. A good example would be the Rastafarian Church. They teach that smoking pot is part of the faith. They are free to do so. However, if caught smoking pot, one is still subject to civil law, whether or not that law conflicts with the church's teaching.

However, Elane Photography is not a 'public accommodation.'

This statement is not factual. The legal definition of 'public accommodation (and we are dealing with the legal system here).' is well settled law, and applies to ALL businesses which deal with the public. Legal definitions are based on case law, not on your opinion.

The case against Elan Photography was based on well understood and settled NM Statutes, case law, and on the Civil Rights act of 1964.

From: http://www.law.georgetown.edu/moralvalu ... hycase.pdf

4. Section 28-1-7(F) of the NMHRA provides, in applicable part, that it is an unlawful discriminatory practice for: "any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to any person because of ... sexual orientation...." NMSA 1978, 28-1-7(F).

5. Section 28-1-2(P) of the NMHRA defines "sexual orientation" to mean: "heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality, whether actual or perceived...." NMSA 1978, 28-1-2(P).

6. Section 28-1-2(H) of the NMHRA defines "public accommodation" to mean: "any establishment that provides or offers its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to the public, but does not include a bona fide private club or other place or establishment that is by its nature and use distinctly private...." NMSA 1978, 28-1-2(H).

7. A similar prohibition against the discrimination of members of protected classes in public accommodations is contained in Title II of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.c. 2000a (1994 ed). Section 2000a (a) provides the following: "All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin." 42 U.S.C. 2000a (a).

Elaine is a photographer, and artist, and as such should be free to choose her clients and the events for which she provides her services.

Yes within the limits of the law. Discrimination is illegal, so discriminating, even if bigotry is part of one's religious beliefs, is still illegal.

So, she was forced to provide a service that she did not advertise, for an event that was deeply against her religious beliefs, because the gay rights activists felt that they had a right to force her to abandon her faith in order to serve them.

Actually no she was not. She did not photograph the Gay marriage. She was correctly sued for violating NM State law and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

It was wrong. It's what is happening.

For many, it was wrong to allow Rosa Parks to sit on a bus. We all know where that went don't we?

It's why I will fight like crazy to keep the government from redefining marriage to include same sex couples

Civil rights laws are still in place, no matter where this goes in the near future. You can be assured however, the discrimination suffered by gays today, will become history in the same way discrimination against blacks and women has in the past. It's inevitable, we are becoming more and more civilized as time marches on.

UNTIL they realize that they don't have the right to force religions and the religious from changing their doctrine and beliefs so as to approve of them.

No one is forcing any change in religious doctrine or belief. All this is attempting to accomplish is to end discrimination against a class of our population. You may go on believing whatever you will, that won't change.

....which is precisely what they did with Elaine of Elane Photography. In effect, they forced her to bow down to an idol, or suffer major legal consequences. That's supposed to be unconstitutional, y'know?

You are sounding hysterical, calm down, take a deep breadth. Elaine didn't "bow" to anything. Please explain what part of the Constitution was violated? Please site.

If I run a BUSINESS, it is ILLEGAL for me to deny goods and services to anyone. Including Christians (aren't you glad about that?), Jews, Blacks, women, gays, Muslims, atheists...... etc etc.

Of course it is one's right to do so, in certain cases.

No! You are wrong again.

I run an Internet business. I am a radical atheist, and find Christians disgusting, immoral, ignorant, creatures totally against my beliefs.

However I CANNOT deny services to any disgusting Christian who wants to buy my services. That's the law of the land, and it's a good law, even though it forces me to deal with the occasional idiot. It applies to me as it applies to you and as it applies to Elaine.

You should be very happy about that situation. The time will come when religion and myth will be as out-dated and reviled as which craft, and then, you will be glad that you can't be discriminated against. You are fighting against your very own interests here.

Bob

First, yes, you CAN discriminate against Christians, if that descrimination is limited to not being forced to, say, stock crucifixes in a New Age store devoted only to Wicca.

You do NOT have to provide services that you don't advertise. In the case of an artist, that means you don't have to take pictures of a commitment service if you don't want to.

Now, you can't decide to photograph a commitment service for one couple...and not another, but you can decline to photograph all commitment services, period. You do not have to make an exception to that simply because the client who wants the service happens to be gay.

As to the legality of the case, yes, it was settled. It is also being appealed, and to decide that it is constitutional because it is a law is, well...not how the system works. After all, if all laws passed were good ones, slavery would still be legal, women would still not have the vote, Catholics would not be able to hold certain jobs in Boston, and the FLDS folks would all be in jail and their kids still in foster care.

Oh, and they wouldn't have their land back, either.

To claim that the whole thing is settled because Elane Photography lost the first case...and even the first appeal...is begging a very large question. Shoot, even losing a Supreme Court challenge might not be the end of it.

[dianaiad]

And a church is an organization 'open to the public."

Yes, and they can teach what they want, even if what they teach is contrary to law. However, once you leave the church, responsibility to obey civil law still applies. A good example would be the Rastafarian Church. They teach that smoking pot is part of the faith. They are free to do so. However, if caught smoking pot, one is still subject to civil law, whether or not that law conflicts with the church's teaching.

However, Elane Photography is not a 'public accommodation.'

This statement is not factual. The legal definition of 'public accommodation (and we are dealing with the legal system here).' is well settled law, and applies to ALL businesses which deal with the public. Legal definitions are based on case law, not on your opinion.

The case against Elan Photography was based on well understood and settled NM Statutes, case law, and on the Civil Rights act of 1964.

From: http://www.law.georgetown.edu/moralvalu ... hycase.pdf

4. Section 28-1-7(F) of the NMHRA provides, in applicable part, that it is an unlawful discriminatory practice for: "any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to any person because of ... sexual orientation...." NMSA 1978, 28-1-7(F).

5. Section 28-1-2(P) of the NMHRA defines "sexual orientation" to mean: "heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality, whether actual or perceived...." NMSA 1978, 28-1-2(P).

6. Section 28-1-2(H) of the NMHRA defines "public accommodation" to mean: "any establishment that provides or offers its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to the public, but does not include a bona fide private club or other place or establishment that is by its nature and use distinctly private...." NMSA 1978, 28-1-2(H).

7. A similar prohibition against the discrimination of members of protected classes in public accommodations is contained in Title II of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.c. 2000a (1994 ed). Section 2000a (a) provides the following: "All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin." 42 U.S.C. 2000a (a).

Elaine is a photographer, and artist, and as such should be free to choose her clients and the events for which she provides her services.

Yes within the limits of the law. Discrimination is illegal, so discriminating, even if bigotry is part of one's religious beliefs, is still illegal.

So, she was forced to provide a service that she did not advertise, for an event that was deeply against her religious beliefs, because the gay rights activists felt that they had a right to force her to abandon her faith in order to serve them.

Actually no she was not. She did not photograph the Gay marriage. She was correctly sued for violating NM State law and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

It was wrong. It's what is happening.

For many, it was wrong to allow Rosa Parks to sit on a bus. We all know where that went don't we?

It's why I will fight like crazy to keep the government from redefining marriage to include same sex couples

Civil rights laws are still in place, no matter where this goes in the near future. You can be assured however, the discrimination suffered by gays today, will become history in the same way discrimination against blacks and women has in the past. It's inevitable, we are becoming more and more civilized as time marches on.

UNTIL they realize that they don't have the right to force religions and the religious from changing their doctrine and beliefs so as to approve of them.

No one is forcing any change in religious doctrine or belief. All this is attempting to accomplish is to end discrimination against a class of our population. You may go on believing whatever you will, that won't change.

....which is precisely what they did with Elaine of Elane Photography. In effect, they forced her to bow down to an idol, or suffer major legal consequences. That's supposed to be unconstitutional, y'know?

You are sounding hysterical, calm down, take a deep breadth. Elaine didn't "bow" to anything. Please explain what part of the Constitution was violated? Please site.

If I run a BUSINESS, it is ILLEGAL for me to deny goods and services to anyone. Including Christians (aren't you glad about that?), Jews, Blacks, women, gays, Muslims, atheists...... etc etc.

Of course it is one's right to do so, in certain cases.

No! You are wrong again.

I run an Internet business. I am a radical atheist, and find Christians disgusting, immoral, ignorant, creatures totally against my beliefs.

However I CANNOT deny services to any disgusting Christian who wants to buy my services. That's the law of the land, and it's a good law, even though it forces me to deal with the occasional idiot. It applies to me as it applies to you and as it applies to Elaine.

You should be very happy about that situation. The time will come when religion and myth will be as out-dated and reviled as which craft, and then, you will be glad that you can't be discriminated against. You are fighting against your very own interests here.

Bob

First, yes, you CAN discriminate against Christians, if that descrimination is limited to not being forced to, say, stock crucifixes in a New Age store devoted only to Wicca.

You do NOT have to provide services that you don't advertise. In the case of an artist, that means you don't have to take pictures of a commitment service if you don't want to.

Now, you can't decide to photograph a commitment service for one couple...and not another, but you can decline to photograph all commitment services, period. You do not have to make an exception to that simply because the client who wants the service happens to be gay.

As to the legality of the case, yes, it was settled. It is also being appealed, and to decide that it is constitutional because it is a law is, well...not how the system works. After all, if all laws passed were good ones, slavery would still be legal, women would still not have the vote, Catholics would not be able to hold certain jobs in Boston, and the FLDS folks would all be in jail and their kids still in foster care.

Oh, and they wouldn't have their land back, either.

To claim that the whole thing is settled because Elane Photography lost the first case...and even the first appeal...is begging a very large question. Shoot, even losing a Supreme Court challenge might not be the end of it.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 193:

...
To claim that the whole thing is settled because Elane Photography lost the first case...and even the first appeal...is begging a very large question.
...

To me, it begs the question of how long we'll consider legitimate the paranoias and biases of folks who think there's some sky daddy up there concerned about the doings of humans.

It begs the question of how long we'll let religious zealots declare something verboten "because it hurts God's feelings".

It begs the question of why in hell we give legitimacy to superstitious folks and their anti-gay hatred.

Simply put, theists who oppose homosexuality can not possibly show they do so than other by their own prejudices.

They hide behind God's "righteousness".

They hide behind, "Well, it'd just be a shame if gay folks got the rights they deserve, because then I'd look kinda stupid in continuing to reject those rights."

FREEDOM!

FREEDOM!

FREEDOM!

Do not forget that we are at an intellectual and political war with HATERS.

They HATE YOUR FREEDOM!

They HATE WHAT YOU DO IN THE COMFORT OF YOUR OWN RELATIONSHIPS!

They HATE WHEN THEY ARE EXPOSED FOR THEIR BIGOTRY!

But of course, they only do so because they worship an invisible "loving" God.

BULL EXCREMENT!

THEY ARE HATERS AND WE DEMAND TO EXPOSE THEIR HATRED!

Do not suffer in silence the oppression of the vocal!

Do not suffer willingly these "speakers for God".

THEY ARE EVIL!

THEY ARE OPPRESSORS!

THEY ARE TO BE DAMNED IN THE EXACT SAME LANGUAGE THEY USE TO DAMN YOU!

SPEAK UP!

These pig-hearted advocates of oppression will twist any tale, distort any fact, and present to you "but, but, but if liberty..."

Tell them HELL NO!

Tell them they offer liberty to ALL or we will threaten their own!

Tell these bigots, tell these homophobes, tell these superstitious ancients they live in TODAY! And they are enemies of FREEDOM!

WHEN YOUR "RELIGIOUS FREEDOM" THREATENS THE FREEDOM OF OTHERS, TO HELL WITH YOUR RELIGION, AND TO HELL WITH THE FREEDOMS YOU CLAIM FOR THAT RELIGION! AND TO THE VERY HELL YOU CONDEMN OTHERS WITH YOU!

YOU ARE SCOUNDRELS, YOU ARE SCOURGE, YOU ARE A POX ON ALL THE FREE PEOPLE OF THIS PLANET!

To Hell with you!

To Hell with your worn out excuses!

To Hell with your hatred of your fellow human beings!

AND TO HELL WITH YOUR GOD!

FREEDOM!

FREEDOM!

FREEDOM!

[SailingCyclops]

Duplicate post due to system troubles

[SailingCyclops]

First, yes, you CAN discriminate against Christians, if that descrimination is limited to not being forced to, say, stock crucifixes in a New Age store devoted only to Wicca.

What you carry, or don't carry in a retail store has no bearing on discrimination. If I were to ban gay people, or Catholics from entering my store, then it is discrimination.

You do NOT have to provide services that you don't advertise. In the case of an artist, that means you don't have to take pictures of a commitment service if you don't want to.

True. BUT if you are in the business of photographing weddings, you can't refuse to photograph a black couple's or a gay couple's wedding. That would be illegal, and that is what Elan was slammed for. Elan's refusal was based solely on the fact that the couple was gay. That's bias, and it's illegal.

Now, you can't decide to photograph a commitment service for one couple...and not another, but you can decline to photograph all commitment services, period. You do not have to make an exception to that simply because the client who wants the service happens to be gay.

That's not what happened in the Elan case. Go back and read the court papers. You have turned the situation on it's head.

Elan was asked for a quote twice by the same gay couple. The first time, the gay woman identified herself as gay and Elan declined saying Elan does not provide the service to gay folks. The second time the gay woman did not identify herself as gay, and was quoted a price.

This is all clear in the email exchanges between the gay couple and Elan, and it's in the court record.

As to the legality of the case, yes, it was settled. It is also being appealed, and to decide that it is constitutional because it is a law is, well...not how the system works.

I believe I have read where the appeal was also lost. As to the constitutionality? Well, nowhere in the constitution is discrimination allowed, let alone mandated.

After all, if all laws passed were good ones, slavery would still be legal, women would still not have the vote, Catholics would not be able to hold certain jobs in Boston, and the FLDS folks would all be in jail and their kids still in foster care.

It's called progress. Moving towards a more civilized, just, and equitable society.

Discrimination against gay people will be history in the same way it is history for those who have won their freedom in the past. What I don't understand is why you support equality for blacks, women, Catholics, and LDS folks, but not for gays? Why do you single out gay people for oppression, and wish to deny them the same rights that you and everyone else enjoy? That's just plain bigotry.

Bob

[SailingCyclops]

Would a commissioned poet who refused to compose a poem for a gay marriage be within their rights?

That depends. If the poet advertised "Poems for weddings", and that was his or her business, then it would be illegal to deny the work based on bigotry. The same would hold true for the painter and sculptor.

Can a person have their free speech curtailed whenever somebody decides to write them a check?

This has nothing to do with free speech, it has to do with commerce. If you are in the business of providing a service to the public, you cannot discriminate about who you sell your services to. Simple.

Bob

[lo_rez]

Would a commissioned poet who refused to compose a poem for a gay marriage be within their rights?

That depends. If the poet advertised "Poems for weddings", and that was his or her business, then it would be illegal to deny the work based on bigotry. The same would hold true for the painter and sculptor.

Can a person have their free speech curtailed whenever somebody decides to write them a check?

This has nothing to do with free speech, it has to do with commerce. If you are in the business of providing a service to the public, you cannot discriminate about who you sell your services to. Simple.

Bob

I don't think it is that simple. Photography is an art form. The photographers at Elane are artists. I think removing an artist's ability to be selective in their subject matter violates the artist's first amendment rights. I don't think the government should be allowed to compel speech just because somebody shows up with a checkbook.