US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 13 Jul 15 - 12:06 PM

Discrimination pays for bakers

More than two years ago Sweet Cakes By Melissa owners Aaron and Melissa Klein refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. The couple, Laurel Bowman and Rachel Cryer, filed a complaint with the State of Oregon, expressing the emotional upset that illegal refusal cost them. Later, they would also be forced to detail the death threats and other negative attention visited upon them by the Kleins' anonymous supporters who believe they were following the edicts of their Christian faith.

Late last month, after a lengthy legal battle – which at one point included the Kleins' lawyer asking for the proceedings to be stopped and the same-sex couple to be presented with a $200,000 bill for damages, and attorney and court fees, which was rightly denied – the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industry (BOLI) decided in favor of the Bowman-Cryers, fining the Kleins $135,000.

But the lengthy, drawn out case gave plenty of time and opportunity for conservatives and the religious right to paint the Bowman-Cryers and the LGBT community as "fascists" and to generate a great deal of public sympathy for the Kleins, mostly via false statements, hyperbole, truth-twisting, and just straight-up lying.

That sympathy has turned into big bucks for the Kleins.

[snip]

"We've been mischaracterized," Aaron Klein adds. "We've served gays on many occasions." In court documents he admitted to also quoting Leviticus 18:22 to Rachel Bowman-Cryer's mother after declining to bake the wedding cake.

"We're not those type of people." "We've been mischaracterized." Leviticus quotation notwithstanding.

The Kleins, via their Facebook page, are promoting other fundraisers too, like one by the Lynchwood Church of God, and their P.O. box address for please who wish to send them cash or checks directly.

So, $345,000, plus let's call it $60,000, and not counting any other cash from fundraising efforts like Graham's Samaritan's Purse and others, gives the Kleins $405,000. That's exactly three times the amount of the fine the people of Oregon imposed on them after discriminating against the Bowman-Cryers.

It's actually surprising how un-generous the Kleins' supporters have been. After all, to the far Christian right, they are heroes and martyrs who are standing up against the long arm of the law and gay "fascism."

By contrast, the owners of Indiana's Memories Pizza earlier this year merely told a reporter they couldn't, if asked, cater a wedding of a same-sex couple. A hypothetical that never came to pass. In return, conservatives and the religious right threw more than twice as much cash at the pizza purveyors – nearly $850,000.

The entire story is at the link.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Jul 15 - 09:23 AM

You have never heard any reasoned argument in favour of colour prejudice? There were plenty. That is, I must emphasise, "reasoned" as opposed to "right". So much depends on what your starting axioms are.

Morality is tricky: you cannot rely on what is obvious, or how many agree with you, and whether those affected by discrimination is a small minority or not is of no consequence, unless you want to get onto the unsteady ground of arguing that it is ok to discriminate against a group providing there are not very many of them.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Jul 15 - 01:28 AM

My only quibble with the "speaking truth to power" line is that I have little doubt there were many other Rosas who did similar things beforehand, got badly beaten up or worse, and we have never heard of. A huge part of the bravery of such acts is that you cannot know the consequences and are prepared to do them anyway.

---

Several posts deleted. --mudelf

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 11 Jul 15 - 12:46 AM

Rosa Parks spoke truth to power. Those few county clerks hoped they had the power to bluff their way through the same thing happening to them - but when the truth presented itself and they tried repel the customers, they lost. How they deal with that loss is entirely up to each one of them. No one need lose a job, so they weren't discriminated against. They just got busted in their discrimination practices, and all of them knew it was coming. It should be no surprise that the woman in Hood County, Texas, has a husband who is running for an elected office this fall. I'm sure the publicity did him some good with a certain set of voters.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Jul 15 - 12:37 AM

Indeed Pete, and that is why I said I think people are free to break it provided they accept the consequences. There is no necessary link between law and morality: again, I would recommend reading some of the philosophers over the years trying to tease out the connections. But it is clearly wrong to claim the clerks took the job expecting to implement the laws as they stood, unless they had a very odd view indeed. It was recognised on the day they signed that the state would continue to pass laws on subjects they had never considered, or amend ones that now existed, and it would be part of their role to help implement those changes. More bluntly, the role anticipates changes of the forty-odd years they miight be in the job and they signed up to that.

Now in this case we have a law which they personally object to. I see three honourable courses. They implement the law without raising objections because they perceive the state rules as more important than their opinion. Alternatively, they can resign because they find the law objectionable, and they can do so quietly or vocally. It is also acceptable for them to refuse to obey the law PROVIDING they simultaneously say they think it is a bad law and are willing to accept the penalty. All three of those I can live with. What I cannot accept is a skulking refusal to obey the law with nonsense about forms being unavailable. Or such stuff.

Compare this with Rosa Parkes. She thought the laws were wrong , openly broke them and openly accepted whatever the consequences might be. Totally Honourable. And none of this flummery about being prepared to obey the law but third parties stopping her.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 06:31 PM

well I hope others read the post instead of just taking jacks distortion of it. disagreement does not equal hatred....bless you .

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST, ^*^
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 06:26 PM

8 Stupid Arguments that Internet Debates Always Devolve Into

The Internet is full of debates about important subjects like abortion, censorship and religion, and even more important subjects like what is wrong with music these days and who is the most victimized group on earth, child soldiers or gamers. . .

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 05:47 PM

Well you people say "its not all about sex", and lots of people love their pets.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 05:33 PM

Accusations of hate speech by our friend Pete on another thread, but comparing homosexuality to bestiality is hatred at its most noxious.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 03:40 PM

dmcg, of course I know the law is the law. that is the point of the disagreement, ie that we differ strongly as to the validity of that law. I would presume that it is even now possible for that law to be found unlawful. and just because something is lawful , it don't make it moral. ww2 Germany had even worse laws....would you defend them because the law is the law ?
as to the marriage clerks risking dismissal for not doing what they are paid to do, I would argue that they took the job expecting to marry one man to one woman, which I expect has been the understanding of the american constitution from the beginning.
yes, I would be opposed even if the vote was unanimous, but on the thread on the Ireland vote, I acknowledged that it was at least not imposed against the will of the majority.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: frogprince
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 01:25 PM

"why even stop at Homo sapiens"

Why, indeed? Pete, if you find a cow, or bull, or chicken, or rooster, who expresses love for you and a desire to share marital bliss with you, please send me an invitation to the wedding.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 11:05 AM

Ake, Muskets, and Pete. Those who aren't familiar with the arguments of these three/five, go research the threads they have shut down over the years, don't start asking them what their positions are here. [edited by request]

Meanwhile, here is a map of states still fighting gay marriage.

Opt-outs, adoption bans, and religious exemptions are popping up across the country despite the Supreme Court's historic ruling for equality. . .

At last count, officials in seven states have opted out of marriage recognition since the landmark ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, while those in a total of 20 probably have the right to do so. Yet given the trend lines in public approval of marriage equality—now upwards of 60 percent, with a strong demographic tilt—the backlash, itself, is likely to backfire, alienating young voters and associating the Republican Party with prejudice.

States with officials opting out of marriage recognition

North Carolina. The nation's most comprehensive opt-out provisions are in North Carolina, which passed a law last month (over the governor's veto) to allow magistrates to opt out of performing same-sex marriages for religious reasons. So far, the Associated Press has reported, 14 have done so—2 percent of the state total. The North Carolina law requires officials to declare a "sincerely held religious objection" and withdraw from all civil marriages for six months.

Texas. Showboating Attorney General Ken Paxton issued an unprecedented condemnation of Obergefell, calling it "lawless." But Texas's only formal action, so far, is to offer to defend clerks, judges, and justices of the peace who opt out. Texas already has a Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), like Indiana's controversial one, which protects individuals seeking to discriminate against gays for religious reasons.

Alabama. Eight counties are refusing to issue any marriage licenses—until July 21, anyway, after a bizarre statement by Chief Judge Roy Moore that they can wait 25 days after the Obergefell decision before doing so.

Arkansas. In Arkansas, a battle has erupted between Gov. Asa Hutchinson on the moderate-right and state House Republicans on the farther-right. Gov. Hutchinson says Arkansas' RFRA already protects clerks and other officials who wish to opt out. But others say additional protection is needed. Hutchinson has so far refused to call a special legislative session, as requested by conservatives.

Kentucky. At least two county clerks have refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples—one has stopped issuing licenses entirely, and the other has already been sued by the ACLU for discrimination. However, Kentucky's Democratic governor has rebuffed calls for a special legislative session to address the matter, saying "It's time for everyone to take a deep breath."

Ohio. A Toledo, Ohio, judge refused to marry a same-sex couple due to "personal and Christian beliefs." Another judge was procured, and the recusing judge is attempting to "opt out of the rotation" for performing civil marriages.

Tennessee. Three employees of the Decatur County Clerk's Office have resigned rather than have to issue licenses for same-sex marriages. (In Tennessee, they are already exempt from having to perform them.)

In addition to the seven states where officials have already refused to license same-sex marriages, a total of 20 states probably allow them to do so already.

It's a long article, read the rest at the link.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: frogprince
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 10:59 AM

I just tried looking up the percentage of childless marriages. I got a lot of inconsistent figures, but nothing higher than a figure of 20%, which would include all voluntarily or involuntarily childless.
Compare that with the percentages of marriages with instances of infidelity, and it appears inescapable that a majority of those who have extramarital affairs have children at home. I suspect that parenthood does in fact reduce the likelihood of infidelity and promiscuity within marriage, but if it "puts the brakes on", those are some very faulty brakes.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Monique
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 05:13 AM

From There

-Snip-
...Conservative infidelity statistics estimate that "60 percent of men and 40 percent of women will have an extramarital affair. These figures are even more significant when we consider the total number of marriages involved, since it's unlikely that all the men and women having affairs happen to be married to each other. If even half of the women having affairs (or 20 percent) are married to men not included in the 60 percent having affairs, then at least one partner will have an affair in approximately 80 percent of all marriages. With this many marriages affected, it's unreasonable to think affairs are due only to the failures and shortcomings of individual husbands or wives."

Note that the above adultry statistics of the prevalence of affairs were made more than a decade ago; so based on changes in society during the intervening years, the current percentage of the population who have had affairs is probably somewhat HIGHER. For instance, the continuing increase of women in the workplace and the increase of women having affairs on the Internet means that the numbers for women having affairs is probably similar to those for men—about 60%.
-Snip-

No further comment needed.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 02:40 AM

Yeah but God was made in pete's image.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 02:35 AM

I am curious, petefromsevenstars. You say: "...according to many of you we are related to the animal world."

Would you agree that mankind is a mammal?

When I see and watch the great apes, I cannot escape the notion that we are related to them. Look at a gorilla's hands, for instance. Or watch the behaviour of a chimpanzee. Or the relationships of the oranguatan. Look up the DNA sequences of both. Relatedness seems more clearly evident than that of many a parent and child.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 11:30 PM

there is also always a danger responding to Pete and co sends the threads off in the same old, same old. But in a way Pete can demonstrate how the Kansas clerks approach the law that could only really be better represented if they were posting themselves. So to my mind it is relevant as long as it stays on topic. The real risk is that people respond in a way sends us all down that same old well worn path. Now Pete has shown us some of the things that he claims feed his sense of injustice , such as the narrowness of the vote. I question that: I believe his objections would be voiced every bit as strongly if the vote been unanimous. But I can also see how the closeness of the decision can be used to feed the sense of injustice. And it is clear that he does not appreciate that any sackings that might occur - have any actually taken place? - are to do with failing to do the job they have agreed to do and are being paid to do.

The law is the law: my view is that clerks and whoever are at liberty to break it as long as they are prepared to pay the price. I don't know what that is: if it is purely a fine then I think we can expect to see lots of law-breaking because there are plenty who are opposed who would cover the fines. On the other hand, if it involves leaving the job or imprisonment I think we will see many fewer cases.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 10:36 PM

With respect, don, why are you addressing an argument I am not using. Not only that, but I think that argument is flawed anyway, since the biblical texts on same sex activity do not make procreation the point at all.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 04:11 PM

This thread is not about what half-baked ideas Ake and Pete have about who should get married, or why they shouldn't, or why they are inferior beings who will rot in their particular hell. It is about the process of marriage being acknowledged as a right for all Americans by the US Supreme Court.

If people will stop responding to their trolling, it would be much appreciated.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 03:51 PM

That's a damned silly argument, pete!

----

The Judeo-Christian prejudice against homosexuality has less to do with "inherent immorality" than it does with procreation. The big mantra in Biblical times was to increase the tribe, and it wasn't just same sex relationships that were declared a "sin."   One incident in the Bible was warped way to hell-and-gone out of its original meaning to include masturbation.

When Onan's brother died, according to tribal custom, Onan was supposed to father children with his dead brother's widow. He tried, then had second thoughts at the last minute, withdrew, and "spilt it upon the ground." God slew him, because he had disobeyed tribal custom.

Subsequently, the term "Onanism" has been used as a synonym for masturbation—when in actuality, it should refer to "coitus interruptus"—and has been used to wag a finger at young teenage boys and tell them that if they masturbate they will go to Hell.

The main injunctions against non-procreative sex in Biblical times was that it didn't increase the tribe.

Considering the current general overpopulation of the world and its concomitant problems, I'd think that anything that allowed sexual expression without increasing the size of the "tribe" would be a good thing. And legalizing same-sex marriage certainly isn't going to do the job, considering the small percentage of the population who are same-sex oriented. Fears of severely reduced future populations as a result of the legalization of same-sex marriage are just plain silly!

Lest anybody draw any inferences about me from my position on this matter, I am heterosexual and have been married—to a woman—for nearly forty years.

Friends Paul and Phil got married a couple of years ago, but what they get up to in the privacy of their own apartment is nobody's business but their own. Not ours, nor anybody else's.   

Don Firth

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 03:39 PM

I hear that a former Mormon is already applying to marry two wives on the strength of the redefinition of marriage law. As I understand it, the same arguments apply. I would suppose that what he and two women do is their business, but is it not a further factor in redefining marriage to add legality to it.      And why stop at two, or why even stop at Homo sapiens , after all according to many of you we are related to the animal world. I might be missing something, but seems a reasonable argument to me.....so it will probably get deleted !.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 03:28 PM

Not being cognisant of your gun laws , dmcg, I am hesitant. However, suppose guns were never sold in supermarkets (I hope they aren't ! ) but then five judges against four said they must be sold in said shops.   Let us suppose that some till clerks refused to sell them due to religious or other moral reasons and were threatened with unemployment.......then, yes, I think that would ALSO be legalised descrimination. This seems some sort of comparison, and I hope it answers your question........

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST, ^*^
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 02:28 PM

Cherry-picking facts, that is the problem here. Letting Nero stand for all gay men. Now THAT is a strawman argument.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 02:24 PM

"Wel. I didn't wade through it all but...."

Ake, if you were not so prejudiced and unwilling to confront a little reality, you wouldn't be so much of a dinosaur.

The world left you behind a few thousand years ago. Same sex relationships, especially between men, was considered the "purest" form of love in ancient Greece. Read a little Plato.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 12:06 PM

Wel. I didn't wade through it all but, "Emperor Nero married an unwilling boy" just about sums it up......"Emporer Nero" was as mad as a fucking hatter.....Yes I know history repeats itself!!

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Monique
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 09:05 AM

History of same-sex unions

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 08:36 AM

"The idea that you can restrict rights to people purely because they are a "sexual minority"......This is a straw man argument, no one thinks that rights can be restricted purely because homosexuals are a sexual minority.   There are many sexual minorities.

It is the behaviour of any sexual minority which is important.
In this case, rights are not being restricted, but are being made up especially for this particular tiny sexual minority....regardless of the effect of redefinition on society.

To restrict rights, the rights must have been in existence to begin with. Homosexuals have never had the right to marry in any civilisation that I have read of.......am I wrong in that?

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 03:58 AM

If you have a negative view on the happiness and equality of others, I fail to see why your opinion is worth repeating in polite company.

The idea that you can restrict rights to people purely because they are a "sexual minority" is the sort of language my father's generation fought to remove from the western world.

Luckily, we live where the law has caught up with the needs of the people. It seems to have done so in The USA too. Here in Scotland, we pride ourselves in our multicultural society and despite the strong influence of sectarian religions over the years, we have largely thrown their ideas aside.

The motto of The Scottish National Party is "prosperity through equality." All real Scottish people are proud to be associated with that sentiment.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 02:23 AM

It never ceases to surprise me how much quibble, random stum und drang and sheer babble can be generated by the moronic conflation of things that are different. Without this single element of identifying things that are actually different, I suspect ninety percent of Mudcat's BS section wouldn't exist. The differences, for example, among the following:

# The cloud of various moral judgements about same-sex relations, both positive and negative

# The various religious assertions about same

# The assorted emotional reactions to all the above

# The policy stances of religious organizations with regard to such relationships

#The civil requirements of law under the U.S. constitution requiring equal opportunity under the law

Each of these sets of noise has their own gradations of heat and light. And they are entirely different sets of things.

The Supreme Court took the correct step with regard to the last set, but it has no *or very little) bearing on any of the others.

A

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: DMcG
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 11:23 PM

Sorry, a cultural mismatch there. Make it people who work on tills in supermarkets which sell guns.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: DMcG
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 11:20 PM

You seem to be arguing that since it is now law to require employees to either go against their conscience or leave their employment , that they are not discriminated against. IMO, it just amounts to legalised discrimination against them

We might actually be able to get a quick answer to this one, Pete. Do you think that situation is unique to Christianity? Are there not for example people who think the gun laws are insane who issue gun licences because that's what the role calls on them to do?

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST, ^*^
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 10:13 PM

Morehead, Kentucky, this time. Rowan County Clerk calls police after denying couple a license. She may have felt set up since their friends were taping, but what did she expect?

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 04:59 PM

You're quibbling, Ake. There is no there there.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 04:46 PM

Acme....."In the U.S. it is a right that has been restored to fulfill the full meaning of the Constitution in that the legal protection of marriage has now been extended to all. Period."

Please excuse me as I am not familiar with US law, but you say "restored", do you mean that this legislation was in force at an earlier time?
In the UK marriage between two people of the same sex has never been legal until now. in fact it is only legal in three of the four countries which make up the UK.

Additionally, marriage has NOT been extended to all. Period.
It has been extended to a small sexual minority.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 03:54 PM

the homosexual lobby

pete, for Christ's sake, enough eithj the BS already.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 12:56 PM

Pete, how many times must you be told that marriage is a social/legal contract that has nothing to do with your religion? In the U.S. it is a right that has been restored to fulfill the full meaning of the Constitution in that the legal protection of marriage has now been extended to all. Period.

Those who oppose it for all of the flawed reasons I've read from you and others here are responsible for the choices they make. They can follow the law, or they can oppose it and be sued or fired. If they choose to quit, that is their decision. You can plead religion or AIDS or STDs or any such nonsense all day long, but those have NOTHING to do with this legal interpretation of the right to marry. Your arguments are the window dressing to conceal a small, closed mind that apparently thinks only a portion of the population should be able to marry their loved ones. This is not an invitation to debate the topic.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 11:56 AM

I think you got my drift, spleen, though of course emphasising your own perspective. You seem to be arguing that since it is now law to require employees to either go against their conscience or leave their employment , that they are not discriminated against. IMO, it just amounts to legalised discrimination against them.   And the tolerance the homosexual lobby and and it's allies demand , is denied to those of an opposing view. As noted above, there will be an increase of religious conscience versus "gay rights" . And it seems to me, that being as a judge can change existing law, or interpret it according to his fancy, that each case will be at the mercy of the individual judges bias. One thing for sure though.....it won't go away in a hurry ...

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST, ^*^
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 09:31 AM

Coupled with the right to marry is now the right to discriminate against those with the legal right to marry, whether it be a county clerk issuing a license or a private business offering a service. The second part of this is more dicey.

Let them eat cake

DENVER — The case before the court on Tuesday grappled with issues of equal rights, religious objections to same-sex marriage and wedding cake.

At issue was whether Jack Phillips, a Colorado bakery owner, had broken state antidiscrimination laws when he refused to make a cake for a gay couple's wedding reception, citing his religious beliefs. With same-sex marriage now legal everywhere nationally in the wake of the United States Supreme Court ruling in June, his case is being closely watched as a test of the boundary between personal religious objections and legal discrimination.

A lawyer for Mr. Phillips, who is an evangelical Protestant, argued before the Colorado Court of Appeals that his refusal to make the cake was no different from a baker's rejecting a customer's request for a cake frosted with an image of the Confederate flag. But lawyers for the gay couple said the refusal was more akin to a bus company turning away a female passenger, or a hospital refusing to treat a gay couple's child.

"This case is simply not about cake," said Ria Mar, a staff lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, which represented the couple, Charlie Craig and David Mullins. "Businesses open to the public must be open to all, on the same terms."

Similar debates are echoing across the country as legal skirmishes over same-sex marriage shift to county clerks who refuse to perform same-sex vows and other instances of resistance. States are wrestling with whether they can or should grant legal protections to business owners, religious groups or others who object to same-sex weddings.

read the rest at the link

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 04:58 AM

Sorry, Greg! I do think when someone comes out with a weird and meaningless suggestion implying gay marriage discriminates against Christians, though, the least they can do is enlighten us as to what on earth they're on about... I suspect he means that if people in positions of trust - like registrars - refuse a service to customers because of their sexuality, and in doing so put themeslves in breach of their employment responsibilities, then it's somehow discrimination if they are held to account for their actions.

When you have a job, you can't pick and choose according to your personal political or religious opinions (and I'm of the view that a lot of these so-called religious objections are entirely politically motivated). I'm a social worker. A proportion of my service users have quite virulently racist and homophobic views. I'd rather not hear them, but I'm there to work with people on their mental health and social care needs, not to police the shit they come out with. They get the same level of service, therefore, as anyone else. I'd suggest that regardless of their remarkably unchristian 'Christian' views, these registrars need to show a bit of professionalism in the workplace. If they are unable to do this, its probably time to start looking around for another job. Preferably one where the general public don't have to deal with them. Drainage clerk, or something.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,LynnH
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 04:01 AM

Uh-oh....does this mean Janis Ian will have to drop "Married in London" from her set-list?

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 05:43 PM

Pete, It is that simple. These clerks who are denying gay people their civil rights are unlawfully discriminating against them regardless of their stated reason for doing so. To draw an analogy between their actions ,or inactions, and Rosa Parks defiance of Jim Crow laws is ludicrous. Again, she was fighting to expand civil rights and the people you champion are fighting to curb them. I'll also remind you that "traditional" marriage has been redefined many times over thousands of years. Look it up.
On a happier note I witnessed the wedding of our two closest friends, they happen to be gay, at the county courthouse last week and all the government folks shared in the joy of the occasion.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 05:42 PM

Oh, shit, Spleen - now you & the rest of us are all in for it......

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 05:23 PM

Just a quick (and genuine question), Pete. How does gay marriage discriminate against Christians?

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 04:44 PM

not as simple as that, gillymoor. for a start, opposition to redefining marriage is not discrimination. discrimination, for example would be refusing to serve homosexuals even when it involved no moral compromise [ as serving a marriage license might be seen to be ].      secondly it is now Christians [ or any others with faith related objections ] who are now discriminated against because of their religious convictions.
I expect the usual posters will call me a bigot, and I can live with that.       except for not doing anything that might seem that I endorse what is against my biblical convictions, I have perfectly fine social interaction with anyone, whatever their sexuality.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Will Fly
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 08:22 AM

Glad to hear that, Michael. My next-door neighbours had a civil partnership ceremony about 3 years ago, to which we, other friends from the village and family were invited. Most of the guests in the town hall chamber were locals from the village.

There was a great bash in our local pub afterwards - I played guitar in a jazz trio for the occasion (and donated my services free as their partnership present from me).

Two good blokes - good neighbours - good friends. No fuss, no bother. What's all the fuss about. eh?

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 03:59 AM

Don't you lot over there love to make heavy weather of things! When, here in UK, the Civil Partnership Act of 2004 was passed, three longstanding pairs of my friends, John-Stuart & Ricky, Mandy & Nicola, David & Brian, all invited us to their Civil Unions and receptions. A few years later, when the status was emended to be called 'marriage', they all proceeded to go back to the registrar's office and get married, and gave us another lovely lot of canapés and drinkies. I can't recall any of them suffering the remotest degree of obstruction or inconvenience from the officials concerned or anybody else.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 09:21 PM

His point is clear, Greg - the old folks who can't tolerate the change will be gone sooner than those who accept the change. Assuming no one is casting votes for them from the graveyard (known to happen here in Texas and elsewhere in the South), their opposition will be moot and mute.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 08:50 PM

Uh, Stim, are you trying to endict the Society of Friends for something specific, or is this just a genralized slur on Quakers?

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 08:37 PM

Among Quakers, who require unity of the their meeting in order to proceed on all matters(and who often do not move forward on contested matters for years) their is a saying to the effect that "We are a memorial service away from consensus".

This rather dark reflection seems to mirror this situation today. The younger generations, whose numbers increase every day, tend to accept and embrace gay lifestyles and gay rights, while the virulent opponents tend to be among the older generations, and dwindling in number.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 08:28 PM

So far there have mostly been short blurbs about the county clerks clogging the marriage license system. This one has more meat to it:

Marriage Comes to Hood County, Texas

"Which one of you is going to be the husband?" the assistant Hood County clerk asked the two men standing before her last Thursday afternoon.

"Both of us," said one of the men.

"You can't both be the husband," the assistant clerk said, confused or disdainful, depending on varying accounts. The men had shown the clerk their IDs, social security numbers, dates and places of birth, and were waiting to give her their $83.00 for their marriage license, and now the husband conundrum. Never mind that the new forms issued from Austin didn't include the words "husband" or "wife," nor were they gender-specific in any way. The men, a couple of ranchers from down the road, had waited 27 years for this day, and the government of Hood County, Texas, was determined to make them keep waiting.

Today's constitutional crisis takes us to the Hood County clerk, Katie Lang, whose office as of this morning seemed to be holding out for a higher civil authority than the United States Supreme Court, and for her troubles she got herself sued in federal court in the Northern District of Texas in Fort Worth, in papers filed before dawn today. The suit was filed on behalf of two lifelong Texans, Jim Cato and Joe Stapleton, who had been hoping to obtain a marriage license without force or drama, only to have clerk Lang instruct her staff shortly after the Obergefell decision on June 26, "We are not issuing them because I am instilling my religious liberty in this office."

I spoke at length to Cato and Stapleton yesterday afternoon, along with their attorneys, Jan Soifer and Austin Kaplan, about the saga of Jim and Joe, the historic fight that was brewing in Hood County, and the lawsuit that will at last bring the rebel counties of Texas into compliance with the U.S. Constitution.

Cato and Stapleton have been together for 27 years and live on a ranch in Granbury, population 7,978, the Hood County seat. Last Thursday afternoon, at about 3:45, they put on their cowboy hats and made their way to the courthouse. In the past week it has been common for recalcitrant county clerks in Texas to claim that they simply didn't yet have the proper paperwork for a same-sex marriage license, even the though the Texas Bureau of Vital Statistics had in fact updated the marriage license form the very afternoon that the Supreme Court made its landmark ruling. The Hood County clerk's office has been a roiling mess of shifting excuses since then, none based in law or reality—first, Lang's "religious liberty" declaration, followed two days later by an announcement that her office would indeed follow the law and issue licenses, once she received new forms (Lang herself wouldn't issue licenses based on her moral objections, but, in the words of Austin activist Glen Maxey, "she would find a heathen in her office who would"), to telling Cato and Stapleton on Thursday afternoon that there would be an indefinite delay in their ability to get a license in Hood County. After the couple produced the updated form that they had brought with them, they were told again that they would not be getting a license that day in Hood County. They were then ordered to leave the premises by Lang, who, according to Cato, said she felt threatened by all this marriage business, and by the local media that had come along to watch. To make sure she was safe, she called in a phalanx of sheriff's deputies to keep Cato and Stapleton out of the public building.

Read the rest at the link. Jim and Joe have lived in Texas as a couple for 27 years. In North Texas, but in a rural part of North Texas. It can't have been easy, so more power to them for doing this now.