CA: Gay people to be miserable, too!

[Telera]

Re: CA: Gay people to be miserable, too!

Or farther away, I don't know, but when a religious ceremoney has benefits recognized by the state then you must remove either the religion or the state.

Agree. And I personally don't give a fuck who marries who and what gender they are as it has zero to do with my life. But at the same time, said state cannot force any religion under it to perform these ceremonies, as that would infringe on the rights of the religion, and if this is going to work it needs to work with respect both ways. Respect the rights of the gay community to marry, and respect the rights of certain religions that believe it is wrong to not have to marry them. If some churches want to, peachy, but there better never be a law forcing the point, or the government would be infringing on rights again, just in the opposite direction.

[Temagori]

Re: CA: Gay people to be miserable, too!

I fully agree. You can't say that just because someone has the right to do something that a place of business has to give them service. They have the right to refuse service to anyone regardless of new laws. I don't see the reason for being so closed minded about it, but meh... To each his own.

[Feba]

Re: CA: Gay people to be miserable, too!

Churches are considered tax-exempt entities though, not businesses.

[Temagori]

Re: CA: Gay people to be miserable, too!

Tax-exempt yes, but they still "Rent" out the space for the marriage, thus have the right to "refuse service" to anyone. They own the space, they own the rights to do as they please.

[Karinya]

Re: CA: Gay people to be miserable, too!

Businesses don't actually have the right to refuse service for discriminatory reasons. That's why you don't see so many white-only restaurants in the South anymore. It isn't because the owners stopped being asshats, I guarantee.

I doubt if a California restaurant could have gotten away with a "No Gays Allowed" policy even *before* this ruling (although in other states you might).

But religions aren't businesses, and are generally allowed to be asshats if that's what their religious beliefs prescribe. So I doubt if any religions would be required to perform the ceremony; but there are plenty like Unitarians who would have no problem with it and there's no requirement to have a religious ceremony at all, you can just do the paperwork in front of a government official and then throw whatever kind of party you want with your friends and family.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: CA: Gay people to be miserable, too!

Businesses don't actually have the right to refuse service for discriminatory reasons. That's why you don't see so many white-only restaurants in the South anymore. It isn't because the owners stopped being asshats, I guarantee.

"Don't see so many" "in the south anymore"

There aren't any restaraunts in the South like this and there haven't been for several decades nows. Do you just assume we all have KKK memberships and chew tobacco down here while watching Andy Griffith reruns on the farm? Do you think we still want to cecede from the Union?

[TheGrandMom]

Re: CA: Gay people to be miserable, too!

People can use "religious reasons" for not getting shots for their children...shots that are required by law. If people can use "religious reasons" to bypass other laws then they certainly can use "religious reasons" to deny a gay couple from being married in a church. Which, btw, I think is a bone that should be thrown to the various religious congregations out there. Let them have that little victory as long as gay people are allowed to be legally married.

[Feba]

Re: CA: Gay people to be miserable, too!

There aren't any restaraunts in the South like this and there haven't been for several decades nows.

They never said they were common up until a few years ago. "Anymore" is much more broad than that. For example, America isn't a collection of British Colonies anymore. It's been over 200 years, but 'anymore' still applies.

And anyway, just because restaurants don't post signs or tell people to leave doesn't mean they'll treat you equally well; or not 'encourage' you to leave.

[TheGrandMom]

Re: CA: Gay people to be miserable, too!

And anyway, just because restaurants don't post signs or tell people to leave doesn't mean they'll treat you equally well; or not 'encourage' you to leave.

I have been denied service at more places than I care to admit and all because of dressing/looking the way that I do. It still happens no matter how much we'd like to believe otherwise. Exact words used to me on several occasions "We don't serve people like you."

[Feba]

Re: CA: Gay people to be miserable, too!

goddamn old biker ladies

[Satimasu]

Re: CA: Gay people to be miserable, too!

If I'm understanding this right... The people of the state voted to ban gay marriages, then the judges just gave them a big "screw you" and overturned it? Even one of the judges that is for gay marriage voted against it. I think they overstepped their authority on this one.

[Feba]

Re: CA: Gay people to be miserable, too!

Not at all. Ever heard of checks and balances? The judicial branch is there to overturn unconstitutional laws.

[Satimasu]

Re: CA: Gay people to be miserable, too!

Of course, but I don't see how this is unconstitutional. Even one of the judges that agrees with having gay marriages voted against it. That just strikes me as odd is all.

[Feba]

Re: CA: Gay people to be miserable, too!

Well, I'm not sure about Judges, but I am pretty sure that juries have a right to ignore laws they find unjust.

[TheGrandMom]

Re: CA: Gay people to be miserable, too!

goddamn old biker ladies

/em runs Feba over with her FXRS! VROOOOM! VROOOOM!