The Right to Gay Marriage

[SGOS]

I never thought I'd actually see congress get involved in the issue.  It's seems like they have avoided it by waiting for the Supreme Court.  My first reaction was, "It's about time."  But an article from MSNBC, doesn't think the bill does enough, most because there are too many provisions for far right religious groups, like making sure they do not have to bake cakes for gay marriages, or perform church ceremonies for gays.  As an atheist, that seems rather minor.  People tend to think you are married when you walk out of the church after the ceremony, but that's just the church sticking their nose into everyone's marriage business, by making it look like they are in charge of the official union, when all that is needed is a document from the County Courthouse.  But right now, I'm interested in what my gay friends are thinking.

[GSOgymrat]

I'm happy The Respect For Marriage Act passed. States can still refuse to perform marriages but they have to honor marriages performed in other states, so it isn't ideal. It is a compromise but given how opposed so many Americans are to same-sex marriage I'll take it. Younger LGBTQ people crave acceptance but I'm content with having legal rights and being tolerated. If Christians don't want to sell their cakes to me because I'm gay, I'm happy to not give them my money.

[Hydra009]

The cake stuff does seem minor at first blush.  But essentially, the Right (led by the Far Right) has been clamoring to be able to legally deny services purely on the basis of sexual orientation, which goes well beyond wedding cakes.

[SGOS]

The cake stuff does seem minor at first blush.  But essentially, the Right (led by the Far Right) has been clamoring to be able to legally deny services purely on the basis of sexual orientation, which goes well beyond wedding cakes.

Yes, cakes are kind of a symbolic right wing articulation that they don't like gay people. They would discriminate on far more important issues, at least if they could. It's just one issue that made a huge splash with the media.  Of course, the big splash was gay marriage, itself. It wasn't long ago that George Bush wanted to pass an amendment making gay marriage impossible.  Gay issues are possibly the most dramatic shift of the political winds I can remember in my lifetime, not that I've completely thought this through.

[GSOgymrat]

The cake stuff does seem minor at first blush.  But essentially, the Right (led by the Far Right) has been clamoring to be able to legally deny services purely on the basis of sexual orientation, which goes well beyond wedding cakes.

If Christians can deny services based on "sincerely held beliefs" regarding sexual orientation can I deny services to Christians based on "sincerely held beliefs" they are immoral? After all, sexual orientation is at least partially based in biology where Christianity is a freely chosen belief system.

How about they stay out of my bedroom, I'll stay out their church, and no questions asked when people want to buy shit.

[GSOgymrat]

Gay issues are possibly the most dramatic shift of the political winds I can remember in my lifetime, not that I've completely thought this through.

I was talking with my older brother who met his husband December 15, 1972-- 50 years. It really is amazing how much things have changed. I don't think young LGBTQ people really understand what things were like 50 years ago, they certainly don't understand what gay men went through 30 years ago with AIDS... but that's a good thing.

[Dark Lightning]

I'm hoping that the actions of the xtian "right" are evidence of it spasming in its death throes.

[Hydra009]

If Christians can deny services based on "sincerely held beliefs" regarding sexual orientation can I deny services to Christians based on "sincerely held beliefs" they are immoral?

No.  Religion is a protected class, so your refusal is religious discrimination, while theirs is "exercising sincerely-held religious beliefs".  Even though, in reality, both are a form of discrimination based on bigotry.

[GSOgymrat]

No.  Religion is a protected class, so your refusal is religious discrimination, while theirs is "exercising sincerely-held religious beliefs".  Even though, in reality, both are a form of discrimination based on bigotry.

Yes, religion is a protected class but I've always found it suspect that unlike sex, race, age, or sexual orientation religion has nothing to do with inherent characteristics.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Two consenting adults? Have at it.

[Dreamer]

It's just the Pharisees who are refusing cakes to gay people, not actual followers of Jesus. While Jesus never mentioned anything about homosexuality being a sin, divorce is clearly discussed as (usually being, though not always) a sin.

Why don't these bakers and florists refuse to serve divorced people?

They'd go out of business, for one thing! Also, they don't care. They're just excited believing that their hatred is sanctioned and encouraged by God. (Spoiler: it's not!)

[Hydra009]

It's just the Pharisees who are refusing cakes to gay people, not actual followers of Jesus.

Ehhh...homophobe Christians are very much a thing.  They're not quite as numerous as they were (a lot have softened their views over the decades), but they're the majority in some parts of the US and a sizable minorty in others.

They're not particularly moral or nice (an argument could be had about how often religion is used for moral license - allowing people to engage in otherwise inappropriate ways without being shunned) or constistent (no problem with other stuff the bible condemns, but laser-focused on homosexuality) but Christian homophobia is very much a real thing.  That can't be denied without running afoul of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

In fact, Christians and Muslims against homosexuality are afaik the two most prevelant (and powerful) blocs against homosexuals in the world.

[Shiranu]

It's just the Pharisees who are refusing cakes to gay people, not actual followers of Jesus. While Jesus never mentioned anything about homosexuality being a sin, divorce is clearly discussed as (usually being, though not always) a sin.

Why don't these bakers and florists refuse to serve divorced people?

They'd go out of business, for one thing! Also, they don't care. They're just excited believing that their hatred is sanctioned and encouraged by God. (Spoiler: it's not!)

"It's just the Pharisees who are refusing cakes to gay people, not actual followers of Jesus. " - To be fair, most modern Jews are based off of the Pharisees, and they are overwhelmingly pro-LGBT ;).

(I get your point though)

[aitm]

It would be a far better "show",if people who oppose anything due to religious beliefs were forced to prove their dedication to such religion by point by point conceding their dedication of such by showing their opposition to other demands the Bible made that they willfully and  willingly ignore, such as mentioned above along with, the case of multiple marriages the case of sexual abstinence with the spouse due to his inevitable return, the point of caring for the immigrant, caring for the poor, the sick. Or how about the sanction against the mentally ill, the physically ill, the incompetent, the impotent from even being allowed in the church...how about that? But no, the court will never demand that real religious beliefs be put under the scope as none can pass the test. True hypocrisy is led by the courts knowing that religious "beliefs" are bull shit for open racism, bigotry, misogyny and pure hatred. Everything that religion professes to uphold, it allows to be ignored in favor of one verse that serves nothing but hate.