Ministers threatened with arrest

[Novorobo]

And what if we used the money from taxing them to send a justice of the peace to their location to provide a wedding service instead? It'd technically be a subsidy, but it'd be a lot less intrusive than telling private businesses, including churches, what sorts of services they have to provide.

I don't give a damn about religious freedom, but I do give a damn about how much authority the state has over private property. Sending blacks away was something made illegal because it was rampant, there was no comparable public-sector equivalent for many of the services in question, and even then there was dispute as to whether or not that was going too far as it is. But the very nature of the wedding itself provides at least one degree of separation from discrimination based purely on who someone is.

And while I do give a damn about how much authority the state has over private property, telling people that they have to serve everyone regardless of sexual orientation as part of a for-profit business does not cross that line. It can't possibly be that hard for them to bring aboard someone who doesn't mind solemnizing the occasional Adam and Steve pairing.

What about my live-action pornography analogy, then?

My point is, there's a difference between actively discriminating based 100% on who people are and refusing to cater to a particular relationship itself.

[Mavorpen]

4a) As above, they aren't refusing services to gays, they're refusing a particular type of service (I'll admit this is a weak argument, but I still think it makes your case problematic).

This doesn't make his case problematic at all. Precedent by the Supreme Court has stated that these two things are functionally equivalent.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

And while I do give a damn about how much authority the state has over private property, telling people that they have to serve everyone regardless of sexual orientation as part of a for-profit business does not cross that line. It can't possibly be that hard for them to bring aboard someone who doesn't mind solemnizing the occasional Adam and Steve pairing.

What about my live-action pornography analogy, then?

My point is, there's a difference between actively discriminating based 100% on who people are and refusing to cater to a particular relationship itself.

It's the difference between a product being created and a service being performed as a public accommodation.

[Mavorpen]

And while I do give a damn about how much authority the state has over private property, telling people that they have to serve everyone regardless of sexual orientation as part of a for-profit business does not cross that line. It can't possibly be that hard for them to bring aboard someone who doesn't mind solemnizing the occasional Adam and Steve pairing.

What about my live-action pornography analogy, then?

My point is, there's a difference between actively discriminating based 100% on who people are and refusing to cater to a particular relationship itself.

No, there effectively isn't. Arguing otherwise is splitting hairs and being massively disingenuous.

[Upper America]

Blatant violation of the 1st amendment. The ministers shouldn't be forced to perform them, but the same sex couples should still be allowed to be given an official marriage by the government. Besides, I'm sure with the Vatican's recent approval of same-sex marriages, they'll find a church that is willing to stop being homophobic.

See my last post.

They're not refusing service because they're gay, they're refusing service because they don't offer that kind of service. That's like forcing McDonalds to make spaghetti even though that's not on the menu, or suing a spa because they didn't offer a complimentary manicure in their services. Now, if the ministers said "You're gay, so we don't want to provide you with service", then there's a problem.

[Mavorpen]

They're not refusing service because they're gay, they're refusing service because they don't offer that kind of service.

Those two things are effectively he same thing.

That's like forcing McDonalds to make spaghetti even though that's not on the menu, or suing a spa because they didn't offer a complimentary manicure in their services.

No it fucking isn't.

Now, if the ministers said "You're gay, so we don't want to provide you with service", then there's a problem.

And since that's effectively what they're doing, there's a problem.

[Dyakovo]

See my last post.

They're not refusing service because they're gay, they're refusing service because they don't offer that kind of service

They're a wedding chapel that doesn't do weddings?

[Upper America]

They're not refusing service because they're gay, they're refusing service because they don't offer that kind of service.

Those two things are effectively he same thing.

That's like forcing McDonalds to make spaghetti even though that's not on the menu, or suing a spa because they didn't offer a complimentary manicure in their services.

No it fucking isn't.

Now, if the ministers said "You're gay, so we don't want to provide you with service", then there's a problem.

And since that's effectively what they're doing, there's a problem.

So not providing someone with a certain service means that they're discriminating?

[Novorobo]

What about my live-action pornography analogy, then?

My point is, there's a difference between actively discriminating based 100% on who people are and refusing to cater to a particular relationship itself.

It's the difference between a product being created and a service being performed as a public accommodation.

And if the limitations on the services provided were stated outright on the front door, would that too constitute a "public accommodation?"

What about my live-action pornography analogy, then?

My point is, there's a difference between actively discriminating based 100% on who people are and refusing to cater to a particular relationship itself.

No, there effectively isn't. Arguing otherwise is splitting hairs and being massively disingenuous.

So the minute argues for why the line in the sand should be drawn somewhere else you make them out to be dishonest about it?

You can't prove a thing.

[Upper America]

They're not refusing service because they're gay, they're refusing service because they don't offer that kind of service

They're a wedding chapel that doesn't do weddings?

Doesn't do a certain type of wedding. Would they be legally required to do a Jewish wedding, even though they're christian?

[Mavorpen]

Those two things are effectively he same thing.

No it fucking isn't.

And since that's effectively what they're doing, there's a problem.

So not providing someone with a certain service means that they're discriminating?

If they do so in a way that blatantly disproportionately negatively affects a protected group, of fucking course it is. And the Supreme Court has already stated that the effective distinction between the two is completely asinine.

[Mavorpen]

So the minute argues for why the line in the sand should be drawn somewhere else you make them out to be dishonest about it?

You can't prove a thing.

The fuck are you talking about?

[Novorobo]

And since that's effectively what they're doing, there's a problem.

By their standards, it isn't solely being gay that's the problem but also marrying the same sex. Just as straight priests within the Catholic church technically aren't supposed to get married, yet I doubt it'd be considered "discrimination" if a Catholic-owned businesses refused to serve Catholic priests.

[Novorobo]

So the minute argues for why the line in the sand should be drawn somewhere else you make them out to be dishonest about it?

You can't prove a thing.

The fuck are you talking about?

You tell me, you're the one making me out to be insincere about my opinions.

By their standards, it isn't solely being gay that's the problem but also marrying the same sex.

I don't give a shit about their standards. They are effectively the same thing. And per Christian Legal Society Chapter of the University of California, Hastings College of the Law v.Martinez, this is legally recognized by the Supreme Court.

So the same applies to Catholic priests requesting marriage by a Catholic business owner, then?

[Mavorpen]

And since that's effectively what they're doing, there's a problem.

By their standards, it isn't solely being gay that's the problem but also marrying the same sex.

I don't give a shit about their standards. They are effectively the same thing. And per Christian Legal Society Chapter of the University of California, Hastings College of the Law v.Martinez, this is legally recognized by the Supreme Court.

[Dyakovo]

It's the difference between a product being created and a service being performed as a public accommodation.

And if the limitations on the services provided were stated outright on the front door, would that too constitute a "public accommodation?.

A public accommodation is a type of business.

[Mavorpen]

The fuck are you talking about?

You tell me, you're the one making me out to be insincere about my opinions.

Again, the fuck are you talking about?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

It's the difference between a product being created and a service being performed as a public accommodation.

And if the limitations on the services provided were stated outright on the front door, would that too constitute a "public accommodation?"

Yes, so long as they are incorporated as a business.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

They're a wedding chapel that doesn't do weddings?

Doesn't do a certain type of wedding. Would they be legally required to do a Jewish wedding, even though they're christian?

No, but they would be required to marry a Jewish couple if said couple didn't mind not having a Jewish wedding.

[Upper America]

So not providing someone with a certain service means that they're discriminating?

If they do so in a way that blatantly disproportionately negatively affects a protected group, of fucking course it is. And the Supreme Court has already stated that the effective distinction between the two is completely asinine.

The supreme court also decided that the Boy Scouts could kick Dale out because he was gay.

[Mavorpen]

If they do so in a way that blatantly disproportionately negatively affects a protected group, of fucking course it is. And the Supreme Court has already stated that the effective distinction between the two is completely asinine.

The supreme court also decided that the Boy Scouts could kick Dale out because he was gay.

That's nice. I'll just wait for you to address my post.

[Novorobo]

You tell me, you're the one making me out to be insincere about my opinions.

Again, the fuck are you talking about?

You referred to the line drawn by the courts. I referred to why there's room for a marginally less interventionist position that would be logically distinct from, let's say, a McDonalds turning away a customer solely for being gay. You made me out to be disingenuous for this.

Which is fine if it's offered up as speculation, but not with the degree of certainty you were implying.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

And since that's effectively what they're doing, there's a problem.

By their standards, it isn't solely being gay that's the problem but also marrying the same sex. Just as straight priests within the Catholic church technically aren't supposed to get married, yet I doubt it'd be considered "discrimination" if a Catholic-owned businesses refused to serve Catholic priests.

I don't see how it wouldn't be.

[Upper America]

The supreme court also decided that the Boy Scouts could kick Dale out because he was gay.

That's nice. I'll just wait for you to address my post.

Clear cut sign you know you lost. I addressed your post. Who mentioned "Supreme Court"? You did. Cut the BS.

[Mavorpen]

Again, the fuck are you talking about?

You referred to the line drawn by the courts. I referred to why there's room for a marginally less interventionist position that would be logically distinct from, let's say, a McDonalds turning away a customer solely for being gay. You made me out to be disingenuous for this.

Which is fine if it's offered up as speculation, but not with the degree of certainty you were implying.

Again, what the fuck are you talking about? When did McDonalds come into the fold?