One of THOSE topics

[moosetracker]

Ok.. I may have answered several in this topic, but this is my first ever starting one.

 

About a month ago I made a comment my little state of NH was proposing a bill that revoked a previous bill allowing marriages of homosexuals (which was passed maybe 2 years back.) So I have been waiting to see the results. Thought it was to happen mid Jan. as last I heard they were doing it around the time of our NH primary. But, nothing. Found out today that the proposed bill to revoke the bill was quietly dismissed. Meaning to me that they have figured out that there is no putting the genie back in the bottle..

 

So now here is a new bill. Which I read today, which is what made me ask what happened to the old bill to revoke the marriages.. They want to pass a bill that would allow people to refuse to provide services such as wedding planner, photography, catering, flowers, cakes etc for same-sex marriages if they have a moral or religious objection.

 

Although I sympathize with the wedding planner/photographer who would have to attend the wedding? Don't know about it being a bill passed on it.. Caterer, No it is not at the wedding but a party after the wedding, and the bill only covers them not catering a wedding not a 25th or 50th anniversary or birthday party of a homosexual.. So deal.. Cakes? flowers? These people just deliver and leave !!! What the?? This I see would soon mushroom into not renting apartments to them, selling them furnature etc.. So can I support a bill allowing only the wedding planner/photographer out of something he doesn't want to do?? Nah!!!

 

Most people I would think would already want to find people who are wanting to do a good job for them.. I am sure there is a list of the "good" people to use for services that are floated around by the gay community. Therefore I would think those who would prefer not to work with homosexuals would rarely be called by them.

 

So what is your opinion of the new proposed bill?? Think our State representatives have alot of time on their hands?

 

[JoeBob]

The proposed bill does NOT limit the ability to refuse service to gay/same-sex. The bill allows refusal of service to any couple. Which I find strange. Aren't there a lot more gay florists who might want to refuse service to straight couples?

 

As a photographer, a personal service business, I can refuse service to anyone for any reason. I have never refused a client, but there have been some who smelled bad. Their money was okay.

 

The slippery slope that got my attention a few years back was pharmacists refusing to sell birth control, because they feared it would lead to them being required to sell RU486, and thus participate indirectly in an abortion (murder?).

[moosetracker]

I wondered about if you could refuse service already..

 

My wedding was a wee odd:

1) we choose a photographer who basically was a commercial photographer but did 1 wedding a month to keep his hands in it.. (Our could have been the wedding he said no to, if he had his once a month customer.)

2) We choose a florist who did it as a side job out of her lovely home (well-to-do) had a whole florist shop in her basement.. Did only one wedding a week.. (again, she could have said "no" to us..

3) Well the cake was from a friend who did cakes as a hobby.. Couldn't really even call her a buisness.

4) Caterer was normal buisness, but I would have not blinked if they said they were already booked or over-booked..

5) DJ can only do one wedding at a time..

 

So unless they say they are booked, and you find them home twiddling their thumbs, and can prove their client didn't cancel.. They can say "No".. They just can't say "No, because I don't do same-sex marriages" or whatever else the person may discriminate against be it Jewish weddings or atheist weddings or whatever..

 

So why do they need a bill for this?

[eisely]

There was a case in New Mexico a couple of years back. To my knowledge New Mexico does not recognize same sex marriage under that label but has a domestic partnership law. Anyway, a lesbian couple approached a photographer to cover their ceremony and the photographer refused. The lesbian couple successfully sued under anti discrimination laws of the state of New Mexico.

 

So the threat is real.

 

One may question the business acumen of a photographer turning down business in the first place, but at least in New Mexico anybody (photographer, baker, etc) catering to the wedding industry had best be careful whom they refuse.

[John-in-KC]

Fastest, sanest way to refuse service that I know of:

 

"When is your ceremony?"

answer

 

"I'm sorry, I already have a booking that weekend."

 

 

[JoeBob]

For a fully involved wedding shoot, the photographer almost becomes one of the family:

 

Sales meeting, first consultation, engagement photo session (sometimes in the couple's favorite location), rehearsal dinner (where the photographer frequently stands in for an absent wedding planner, "Whadda we do!?"), pre-wedding morning shots, steadying the groom, complementing the bride, getting the bride's mom drunk so she'll get out of the way. You get to actually rest during the ceremony and shoot a few available light shots, then it's a whirlwind of family groups where it's a good thing that you've learned everyones' name and can move them around by voice. Then you talk the couple through cutting the cake, first dance, garter removal, bouquet toss, and escape to the honeymoon.

Makes me tired writing it all out!

 

So if the photographer was repulsed by the couple, for any reason; I can see it being very difficult for them to work in close proximity and be able to do a good job.

 

But there is absolutely no reason to verbalize your distaste for their form of union to the point that you get sued! There are a myriad of polite excuses you can make.

"I'll be up all night Friday shooting stars."

"My batteries will be dead."

"I'm having my camera cleaned."

"I'm booked."

"I'm not available."

"I'm camping with 85 Cub Scouts. How much cake you gonna have?"

[Scoutfish]

While I am not trying to tell anybody how they should choose to run their buisness...there is a difference between supporting a lifestyle and just selling to it.

 

I am not into the whole militia type of lifestyle, but if they need a garage door, I am installing it

in order to make a paycheck so I can support my family. That's all.

 

I am not into Goth either. Do not care for polygamous lifestyle either, but selling them a cake, a bottle of wine, tires, 10 pack of hyamburger or whatever else the want does not equate supporting it with all your being.

 

As far as a religious wedding goes, I do side with the offival in that they should be able to refuse based on religious beliefs. And in this case, it is because as the officiating person, you are putting your god or dietie's stamp of approval on the marrage.

 

Of course, I have no doubt that there is somebody within that religion in an officiating capacity that will perform.

 

Then there is justice of the peace who will perform civil ceremonies.

 

Not trying to change course or hijack the thread, but this is so close to and on track with the movement to create an amendment to the constitution to ban gay marrage.

 

I am so opposed to that amendment!

 

No, it's not that I suuport gay marrage, nor am I against it. I really don't care either way.

 

But I do not like the idea of ANY group wanting to make Constitutional amendments to solidify their religious beliefs on the country as a whole.

 

Religious beliefs do not belong in the ruling laws of our country.

 

What if...in 5 years..those same people rally to have a Constitutional amendment to ban all alcohol ( not a big drinker myself, so I guess it wouldn't matter to except on principale) or any shopping at all on SunDay. Maybe Constitutionally outlaw music that doesn't suit their particular taste.

 

Maybe they become super homophobic and just assume that any guy who is willing to be a leader of a group of boys must be homosexual?

 

It's simple: You do not believe in a gay lifestyle - do not live one.

 

If you do not like alcohol - do not drink it

 

If you do not like wrestling - do not watch it!

 

 

[moosetracker]

Scoutfish - I never heard there was a movement to create an amendment to the constitution to ban gay marriage!

 

I agree with you.. Part of my reasoning as to once NH passed a bill to make same-sex marriages legal they could not then revoke it due to it being against some religious beliefs.. Not having a (right/privilege) to begin with and not giving it, is a little different then out and out revoking that (right/privileged) to a group of people who had it. Because the ruling was very verbally announced that it was due to some peoples religious views, there was definite proof that church & state was not being separated.. I know someone said it is quite worded to keep them separated, but it definitely was worded that you can't pass laws in favoritism of the current lawmakers personal religion of preference..

 

[Scoutfish]

Been on the news I watch, but it very well could be just a state thing and not a national thing>

 

I tried to find it, but the closest i could find is this:

 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h0IhyLW8JW1txCX1NfmR-ceCiILw?docId=328b4de69c2e4cf78cec0a0a6f50e6c7

 

 

Which as I look at it, seems to be more of a compilation of various state amendments instead of National .

[Eagle732]

Seems to me if someone owns a private business they should have the right to not serve or work for anyone they choose.

Another example of this line of thinking is here, (not surprising coming from Texas):

 

http://biggeekdad.com/2011/10/kellers-rivers

 

[sherminator505]

Threat?! Someone sees their rights going unrecognized and successfully sues. Where's the threat?

[eisely]

I too do not care very much about same sex marriage. I care about the bigotry exhibited here in California by some same sex marriage proponents after the Prop 8 vote went against them in 2008. I also care about judges imposing same sex marriage, as the now out of the closet retired federal judge did who ruled prop 8 to be unconstitutional.

 

I don't care too much about the commercial aspect of the wedding industry. The government has already involved itself in such private business decisions regarding "public accommodations" in the civil rights laws overturning racial segregation, so it is not a big leap for the government to come down on service providers in the wedding industry regarding same sex marriage. Personally I hope the government at any level does not go there, but I think it will happen in some states.

 

Of greater concern is the government at any level trying to force religious acceptance of same sex marriage. Rabbis, ministers, imams and priests, and their affiliated religious establishments should have the right to refuse to perform such marriages.

 

We shall see.(This message has been edited by eisely)

[Scoutfish]

One of the very basic reasons I thoroughly believe in seperation of church and state is based on this hypothetical situation:

 

Suppose that due to increasing violence in..um...Iraq ( or wherever you like) there is a sudden mass influx of immigrants that come to our country and apply for sanctuary ( I am so suddenly going blank on the proper term ) or ...Asylum? Nah, that's not it...but maybe you get what I am trying to say.

 

So anyways, they come here seeking reliefe against persecutuon and I am not talking 300 or 400 people, but rather 1,000,000 or 2,000,000 people.

 

They get btheir visas and after living here legally for 5, 10, or even 15 years - decide to get their citizenship .

 

Soon enough they are legal law abiding productive citizens of the United States of America>

 

And that is awesome too! That's what America is all about ( "Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:

I lift my lamp beside the golden door" )

 

But what if they themselves - due to the overwhelming number of legal citizens- successfuly get an amendment that says women must cover their faces, or that no music is allowed anymore, or tv?

 

Maybe due to the Islamic ( or any other religion - you pick) citizens, there is a couple new laws that apply to EVERYBODY based on what may one day be the new religious majority in America?

 

Yeah, I would not want that...and in that same light, I pass that same respect to those who are not of the current majority's views.

[Scoutfish]

"Of greater concern is the government at any level trying to force religious acceptance of same sex marriage. Rabbis, ministers, imams and priests, and their affiliated religious establishments should have the right to refuse to perform such marriages. "

 

Yeah, that's what I was trying to say...I just used 20,000 more words to do it!

 

But I would also add:

 

That same concern also goes to those who would be prevented from getting married due to the personal religious beliefs of those same Rabbis, ministers, imams and priests, and their affiliated religious establishments .

 

Religion belongs in the church and in the heart. not in Government or laws governing the general population.

(This message has been edited by scoutfish)

[packsaddle]

Yes, Sherminator505, THREAT!!! You must understand the code being used here...the threat is from 'those fill-in-the-blank people', don't you know? They are going to infect our 'NOT fill-in-the-blank-people society'. 'Those people' could TAKE OVER!!

I've heard this code used often here in the South. Most recently it was during a voter registration effort and the man wanted to register so 'those people' won't be able to take over. There's nothing more dangerous to 'us' than 'those people'.