4 ms·

a) Opposition to all marriage. b) Insistence on having marriage be concretely defined as "one man and one woman" and potentially introduce similar but differen

a) Opposition to all marriage. b) Insistence on having marriage be concretely defined as "one man and one woman" and potentially introduce similar but differently named unions for non-traditional couples. This actually has some basis, as marriage used to be widely defined as such (even in dictionaries) until the debate of gay marriage led to a shift in terminology. Those are two that I can name of. Note that I personally belong to argument A. Not that it's a vehement opposition, just a personal view on the futility of it.

protomyth 13y ago
I can tell you the position of some of the churches that funded Prop 8[1]. It has very little to do with the rights of others. It is basically the fear of the chain that goes from: suing a wedding photographer and cake designer who did not want to be involved in a wedding that violated their religious beliefs[2]. The attack on Catholic Family Services and other churches providing adoption services. Next, Catholic Nuns and other church organizations being forced to buy healthcare that provides for abortions. With the thought it will lead to a church being sued to allow a marriage that does not meet their doctrine. The churches have learned a great deal from the ACLU given its constant suing of any religious display. They know you fight every inch of the way and don't compromise, since your opponents won't. They are fearful of the state forcing doctrine on them. The 1st amendment is very fragile given what has happened to the 4th, 5th 1) once again, I don't believe in state sponsored marriage of any type beyond basic contractual law between 2+ people meeting certain biological conditions (no possible inbreeding). I also have some problems about lack of consideration for the situation of conjoined twins and current rules given our ability to allow them a healthy life will exceed our ability to separate them in vitro. 2) an artist is a different discussion then a restaurant, motel, hospital, etc.
- bashinator 13y ago
  The thing about the wedding photographer and cake designer who did not want to be involved in a wedding that violated their religious beliefs, is that the United States has already been there on a wide scale. Go back fifty or sixty years, and you'll find vast numbers of businesses that refused to serve non-whites, often for sincerely held religious reasons.
  - protomyth 13y ago
    I have no dispute on restaurant, motel, hospital, and other public establishments, but wedding photographer and cake designer are artists. What about goldsmiths, painters of portraits, and software developers? Can you be compelled to work? What about priests then? This is the slope that fuels the money.
    - Crito 13y ago
      You cannot be compelled to work. Hell, you can't even compel a restaurant owner to serve black people. There is legal recourse when a restaurant owner refuses to serve black people, but forced labor is not on the list of possible outcomes.
      - protomyth 13y ago
        Once again, I know the history of restaurants and public establishments you down voters[1]. You are wrong about a restaurant since they can be compelled (as it should be since they are a public establishment and licensing takes care of that). We already have a case of forced labor in a photographer which is why the churches are worried about being compelled to perform by the state. 1) don't ever think that it didn't happen to others
        Crito 13y ago
        No, they cannot actually be compelled to work. They can be offered the choice, "Do it, or suffer the legal ramifications.", but if they choose "suffer the legal ramifications" standard legal ramifications are the extent of what happens. You can't actually legally force them to do the work, they can choose to not do the work and accept the consequences instead.
        protomyth 13y ago
        First you state untruths about what restaurants are required to do and now you misstate what actually was ruled by the New Mexico Supreme Court on the photographer: http://www.nmcompcomm.us/nmcases/nmsc/slips/SC33,687.pdf http://www.nmcompcomm.us/nmcases/nmsc/slips/SC33,687.pdf "Accepting the consequences" is a nice way to say the law makes it illegal and you will be punished. So, yes, you can be compelled to do work. In the case of a hospital or restaurant that is a public place and licensed as such, this is a very good thing. Forcing artists (which the ruling acknowledges get no exceptions) is another and leads to the reason why churches and others will spend the money campaigning (see my original post). I think it is important to understand the law before posting foolishness and twisting the meaning of words.

protomyth 13y ago

I can tell you the position of some of the churches that funded Prop 8[1]. It has very little to do with the rights of others. It is basically the fear of the chain that goes from: suing a wedding photographer and cake designer who did not want to be involved in a wedding that violated their religious beliefs[2]. The attack on Catholic Family Services and other churches providing adoption services. Next, Catholic Nuns and other church organizations being forced to buy healthcare that provides for abortions. With the thought it will lead to a church being sued to allow a marriage that does not meet their doctrine. The churches have learned a great deal from the ACLU given its constant suing of any religious display. They know you fight every inch of the way and don't compromise, since your opponents won't. They are fearful of the state forcing doctrine on them. The 1st amendment is very fragile given what has happened to the 4th, 5th 1) once again, I don't believe in state sponsored marriage of any type beyond basic contractual law between 2+ people meeting certain biological conditions (no possible inbreeding). I also have some problems about lack of consideration for the situation of conjoined twins and current rules given our ability to allow them a healthy life will exceed our ability to separate them in vitro. 2) an artist is a different discussion then a restaurant, motel, hospital, etc.

bashinator 13y ago
The thing about the wedding photographer and cake designer who did not want to be involved in a wedding that violated their religious beliefs, is that the United States has already been there on a wide scale. Go back fifty or sixty years, and you'll find vast numbers of businesses that refused to serve non-whites, often for sincerely held religious reasons.
- protomyth 13y ago
  I have no dispute on restaurant, motel, hospital, and other public establishments, but wedding photographer and cake designer are artists. What about goldsmiths, painters of portraits, and software developers? Can you be compelled to work? What about priests then? This is the slope that fuels the money.
  - Crito 13y ago
    You cannot be compelled to work. Hell, you can't even compel a restaurant owner to serve black people. There is legal recourse when a restaurant owner refuses to serve black people, but forced labor is not on the list of possible outcomes.
    - protomyth 13y ago
      Once again, I know the history of restaurants and public establishments you down voters[1]. You are wrong about a restaurant since they can be compelled (as it should be since they are a public establishment and licensing takes care of that). We already have a case of forced labor in a photographer which is why the churches are worried about being compelled to perform by the state. 1) don't ever think that it didn't happen to others
      - Crito 13y ago
        No, they cannot actually be compelled to work. They can be offered the choice, "Do it, or suffer the legal ramifications.", but if they choose "suffer the legal ramifications" standard legal ramifications are the extent of what happens. You can't actually legally force them to do the work, they can choose to not do the work and accept the consequences instead.
        protomyth 13y ago
        First you state untruths about what restaurants are required to do and now you misstate what actually was ruled by the New Mexico Supreme Court on the photographer: http://www.nmcompcomm.us/nmcases/nmsc/slips/SC33,687.pdf http://www.nmcompcomm.us/nmcases/nmsc/slips/SC33,687.pdf "Accepting the consequences" is a nice way to say the law makes it illegal and you will be punished. So, yes, you can be compelled to do work. In the case of a hospital or restaurant that is a public place and licensed as such, this is a very good thing. Forcing artists (which the ruling acknowledges get no exceptions) is another and leads to the reason why churches and others will spend the money campaigning (see my original post). I think it is important to understand the law before posting foolishness and twisting the meaning of words.