Indiana's governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

[Tassman]

Sure. But that's the nature of licenses--they license some people and not others. They necessarily create inequality before the law. To achieve equality, we either need to abolish the license, or to hand out the paper freely and indiscriminately (including groups larger than 2, individuals, close relatives). The latter makes the piece of paper meaningless and is effectively equivalent to the former.


Many (a majority?) of Christians consider marriage a sacrament, like baptism or the Eucharist. If they are consistent, they won't be swayed in their definition by external popular opinion or statutes, any more than they would simply accept a popular or legal re-definition of baptism.

[Epoetker]

And certainly non-religious people don’t see marriage as a sacrament.

You're assuming way too much.

Furthermore, in the eyes of the Law, the only thing that makes a marriage valid is what takes place in the Vestry at the signing of the legal document, not the religious ceremony.

The lies just get flimsier and flimsier, don't they.

And it is only the legal recognition of their marriage that most homosexuals are demanding AFAICT.

Legal recognition was simply their gateway to their true goal: social acceptance. It's not going to work, since just as when you allow counterfeiting, the only lasting effect is the debasing and devaluing of the original currency. Not that there were never any other forces hard at work for that purpose. Gays are simply riding that wave of degeneracy for their own purposes, they never had any greater altruistic goals.

[Bill the Cat]

And it is only the legal recognition of their marriage that most homosexuals are demanding AFAICT.

And the demand to be "equally" served by businesses that cater to that subset of business. So much for "it won't affect your life at all"

[Mountain Man]

Their ultimate goal is to suppress and criminalize all dissent.

[Tassman]

And the demand to be "equally" served by businesses that cater to that subset of business. So much for "it won't affect your life at all"

Their ultimate goal is to suppress and criminalize all dissent.

The ultimate goal is equality under the law for all citizens.

[Bill the Cat]

The demand is that homosexuals receive the same standard service available to everyone else without being discriminated against because of the personal views of the service–provider. Nothing more, nothing less!

Which falsifies your earlier claim "And it is only the legal recognition of their marriage that most homosexuals are demanding AFAICT."

They want more than legal recognition. They want equal footing in every facet of society.

[Joel]

And that is the thing that Christians (if they are consistent, I think) don't care about (i.e., the piece of paper). So then there is no need for conflict here, because the two parties are concerned about different things. The only reason there is political conflict is because the two things are bound up together (e.g. by the word "marriage"). So the solution is to separate them. There is no reason for the government to use the word "marriage".

The ultimate goal is equality under the law for all citizens.

Which would imply that marriage licenses should be abolished.

(It also implies that anti-discrimination laws should be abolished. They impose inequality before the law.)

[Tassman]

Which falsifies your earlier claim "And it is only the legal recognition of their marriage that most homosexuals are demanding AFAICT."

They want more than legal recognition. They want equal footing in every facet of society.

The two statements are complimentary. In obtaining "equal footing in every facet of society", which is their right as citizens, they're are entitled to full recognition of their marriages as per every other citizen.

[Tassman]

And that is the thing that Christians (if they are consistent, I think) don't care about (i.e., the piece of paper). So then there is no need for conflict here, because the two parties are concerned about different things. The only reason there is political conflict is because the two things are bound up together (e.g. by the word "marriage"). So the solution is to separate them. There is no reason for the government to use the word "marriage".

Precisely!

Which would imply that marriage licenses should be abolished.

(It also implies that anti-discrimination laws should be abolished. They impose inequality before the law.)

No they protect equality before the law.

[Bill the Cat]

The two statements are complimentary. In obtaining "equal footing in every facet of society", which is their right as citizens, they're are entitled to full recognition of their marriages as per every other citizen.

But it's more than about legal recognition. It's about full faith and credit. And that's not what you said initially. Complementary statements are still not the same thing, so your statement is false. They want more than to be married.

[Juvenal]

The two statements are complimentary. In obtaining "equal footing in every facet of society", which is their right as citizens, they're are entitled to full recognition of their marriages as per every other citizen.

"Complementary." </nitpick>

[Epoetker]

The two statements are complimentary. In obtaining "equal footing in every facet of society", which is their right as citizens,

No it isn't.

they're are entitled to full recognition of their marriages as per every other citizen.

I stand by the right of people, including government workers, to look askance at and discriminate without reason against any ugly public performance artists, whether they're gay or Westboro Baptist Church members. Determining a law's original intent is everyone's responsibility.

[Tassman]

But it's more than about legal recognition. It's about full faith and credit.

What's the problem? Under Article IV of the U.S. Constitution each state must recognize the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.

And that's not what you said initially. Complementary statements are still not the same thing, so your statement is false. They want more than to be married.

AFAIK they want full recognition as citizens including the right to marry. What more are they after in your view?

No it isn't.

Yes it is.

I stand by the right of people, including government workers, to look askance at and discriminate without reason against any ugly public performance artists, whether they're gay or Westboro Baptist Church members. Determining a law's original intent is everyone's responsibility.

You're free to look "askance" all you want, you are not free to discriminate against others based upon personal views. The intent of the anti-discrimination laws refers to the right of people to be treated equally.

"Complementary." </nitpick>

[Starlight]

AFAIK they want full recognition as citizens including the right to marry. What more are they after in your view?

Non-discrimination in employment and business is the other big thing: Surety that they can't be fired if their employer finds out they're gay.


Also I'm pretty sure that somewhere about step #108 on teh gay agenda is to force all Christians to become gay.

[Tassman]

Non-discrimination in employment and business is the other big thing: Surety that they can't be fired if their employer finds out they're gay.

Also I'm pretty sure that somewhere about step #108 on teh gay agenda is to force all Christians to become gay.