I guess I am having difficulty squaring two of the things you've mentioned. If a devout Muslim barber can refuse to serve women and this is not seen as discrimination why can't a devout Christian refuse to participate in a gay wedding and get the same respect from you?

As to the idea that religious rights, or rights of conscience are subservient to rights of physical attributes or genetic predisposition I need more convincing. The Civil Rights Act doesn't favor one over the other. Religion ranks as an equal with race, color, sex and national origin. How are physical rights "more protected?"

An instance comes to mind where someone's religious rights are actually weighed as more important that your physical rights. Members of the Native American Church may legally use peyote. You and I will be arrested.

I see the argument of conscience vs. genetics upside down from where you've landed. So does the State of Oregon. Did you know, that if there is no reconciliation between the bakery and the State then State will move to 'rehabilitate?' Because something must be defective in the bakery owner's mind they need to be 'rehabilitated.' That is chilling. The very idea that your thoughts could be somehow suspect indicates that the State has concluded that thoughts are incredibly important. Because thoughts lead to behavior. Not only do they not want you behaving in a certain manner, they don't even want you thinking it. I reference 1984 and Animal Farm.

I am not sure that people know what they are asking for when they back this kind of intrusion. It might seem right to them at this moment, but when their counterparts are are in charge (because the pendulum swings), it makes one wonder what thoughts will be in the dock then. How will that law be used to root out contrary thinking then? I want to be free to think what I want to think. I want the privilege of being right and the privilege of being wrong. I also want you to have that privilege, as well.

As I have mentioned before, I think these laws are blunt. While I agree that people should not be discriminated against and I practice that in my own life, what is to stop the members of Westboro Baptist Church from showing up at a bakery run by gays and demand they cater an anti-gay event? How can they refuse since they already cater other events? We have opened the proverbial can of worms

Thank you, Mr Eric. *dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Superman-with-a-GoPro

*dead

@Hanover_Phist

@ChaosEngine

There are several cases currently being discussed in the US regarding Christians not wanting to support a gay marriage either through attending/participating (photographer) or by providing goods thereby giving the impression that they celebrate gay marriage (wedding cakes, etc.). The case with which I am most familiar is the Oregon couple who decided not to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

Here is my understanding: The bakers were already serving gays and lesbians in the course of their day-to-day business. In fact, the couple whom they refused to provide with a wedding cake were already walk-in customers of the bakery. So, this isn't 'you're gay, you can't come in here.' This isn't a case of bigotry. They aren't saying, "I'm not going to serve you because of who you are." They are saying, "I can't do that wedding because of who I am." Bigotry says, "you can't come in here because you're black, gay, asian, white, straight, muslim, whatever." The bakers said, 'you are welcome here. We can serve you. You are also welcome to get married, however, we are not able to go there with you.'

In Canada, a woman went to a Muslim barbershop which only serves men. She demanded a haircut. Devout Muslim men are not allowed to touch a woman who is not a member of their own family. They denied her a haircut based not on who she was, but on who they were. They offered to find her a barber who would cut her hair. Not good enough. She pressed the issue. It became a case of what is now called 'conflicting rights.'

This is what has begun and will increase - cases of conflicting rights. People on both sides have rights. But the law is so blunt that all it has been able to accomplish at this point is to protect one side of those rights. I think that sooner or later our Supreme Court is going to have to take up this issue although, to date, they have been reticent to do so.

I would rather err on the side of love than the side of law any day. Love knows how to protect everyone.

@Hanover_Phist Sorry about that. I decided I had something more to say. I think I'll repost that comment.

Ooooh, you used the "F" word.

The marriage license is a legal document in effect at the time it is returned to the court with a signature from the party performing the wedding. My signature on that document is required by the state when I perform a wedding. If I don't sign it after I marry them, they aren't legally married. Ministers are acting as an agent of the State in these weddings. My position is that it needs to stop.

I have considered refusing to sign these licenses, but it creates such a hassle for people at this point it's not worth it. I predict that there will come a day that the Church tells the State, 'we don't sign those any longer," and that will be good for everybody.

I used to drive that road all the time.

Thank you.

Yes. I don't think the Church ought to act as an agent of the State. If people really want the State to recognize their marriage, they can go to a Justice of the Peace. If they want a church (mosque, temple, etc.) wedding they can arrange that where they worship. I would vote for that in a heartbeat.

you're welcome!

I am guessing that I was one of the first pastors, if not the first, in my community not in opposition to gay marriage. I don't say this with any sense of accomplishment of having wrestled through some sort of epic moral struggle, because I never have opposed gay marriage as sanctioned by the State. I don't believe there is any Constitutional basis for opposing it. . I also see no issue with a business serving the gay community. By default, our family business has happily done so for decades. One of my favorite mottoes is, 'live and let live.' I am confident that people around me, including those gays that call me 'friend' know this about me already. Although I am a part of the Christian community where I live, not one of my gay friends has exited our relationship due to that, nor have I ever been considered a homophobe. My views on marriage are exactly that: conclusions I have come to with the resources at my command. And whether or not I disagree with you, I believe that I have no right whatsoever to impose my view of marriage on anyone. In the same breath, after considering my own failings, I have no right to judge how someone else chooses to live their life. I have concluded that whatever path they choose was never between me and them, but between them and God anyway.

The solutions to this common struggle today (the question of religious conscience living side by side with gender liberty) cannot be solved by enacting more law. Americans are, as always, legislating the soupe du jour. The trouble is, in a society where that kind of 'might makes right,' the pendulum can and does swing the other way to deleterious effect. I think that our common issue can be solved by a simple but powerful idea: a stronger community. Like it or not, we are in this together and only together can overcome the vitriol on either side.

I remember an incident many years ago when my Muslim ex-Uncle showed up at my grandparent's house for dinner. On the menu: pork. In one of the most despicable acts of imposition that I can remember happening in our family, my Grandfather decided that serving pork that day would give him some kind of twisted self satisfaction; a victory, of sorts. He decided that he would attempt to get our Uncle to violate his religious conscience and, if that not be possible, at the very least, offend my Uncle as much as possible within his power. I don't think anyone would argue that it wasn't within my Grandfather's rights to serve whatever meal he wanted in his own home. But was it morally right? If he had loved my Uncle, he would have put aside his own rights and made a way to foster community. That is what living together is about.

In the same vein, I don't believe any one of my gay friends would ever ask me to perform their wedding. Even given that right legally, they wouldn't ask because they love me and they would not attempt to get me to violate both my conscience and my own understanding of marriage. While we agree to disagree, we remain friends out of love. Love is what binds. The law divides. The law is a foreigner to community, the enemy of community, when it says, 'we can live together only when you do as I want you to do in order to satisfy me or my sense of offense for another." While laws are necessary in society, they are superfluous when love will do. But we don't want to work that hard. So we make rules. We call people names. We stereotype. We divide, condescend, and foment bitterness toward our neighbors, gay and straight alike.

I had a friend confess to me once, "My whole family is racist. I was racist. But I'm not racist any more." That didn't happen because of legislation. It happened because he got to know some black people and found out that he had some love in his heart for them. Wouldn't you have liked to have been there when he shook a black man's hand for the first time in his life? Yeah, me too.

Just once, I'd like to see someone brew some iced tea, walk across the street to that gay neighbor or that Christian neighbor and sit down and find some commonality. I read above (can't remember who wrote it) that the Bible's morality is trumped by today's morality. I say that the epitome of morality exists in the words of Jesus when he says, "Love your enemies." That, to me, is the fulfillment of what it means to be human.

In related thoughts, I think the Church needs to tell the State, 'Goodbye. We are not going to act as your agent any longer in arena of legal marriage. We will not sign your documents. You have the legal authority over marriage in our society but the Church has the spiritual authority as the Church sees fit." That leaves room for some congregations to perform gay weddings and others to not as they see fit. It leaves room for live and let live. It leaves room for love.

Welcome!

*promote

The snake spells out "2013" It was the year of the snake.