The Gay Thread

[bono_212]

What do you think about the scenario they brought up, though? The one in which a photographer was sued for not taking pictures at a same-sex marriage, because of his religious beliefs? Do you think he should have been able to be sued for that? To me, that's a situation I can understand.

But a grocery store shouldn't be allowed to refuse service to an individual, either, so I don't know how you determine these things.

[LemonMelon]

Was the photographer hired and then didn't follow through once he found out what he was doing? I'd sue a guy for that. Otherwise, meh.

I'm not OK with this bill, in any scenario. It seems like opponents of increasing gay rights are ratcheting up the intolerance to cartoonish levels instead of seeking a helpful, diplomatic middle ground to ease us towards the inevitable. What a fucking waste of time.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by bono_212

What do you think about the scenario they brought up, though? The one in which a photographer was sued for not taking pictures at a same-sex marriage, because of his religious beliefs? Do you think he should have been able to be sued for that? To me, that's a situation I can understand.

But a grocery store shouldn't be allowed to refuse service to an individual, either, so I don't know how you determine these things.

the photographer is, to me, murkier than the baker. the baker is baking a cake and then he never sees it again. it's a product, and you can't refuse service to people like it's some lunch counter in Mississippi and it's 1956 when we have anti-discrimination laws (not all states do).

but the photographer does seem a much more active participant in that they're organizing and staging photos, etc. so, i don't know.

as i said in the other thread, we were turned down by one potential venue. it really does feel shitty, but there were other venues falling all over themselves to take our business so i'd rather spend my money there.

the worry, though, is that a blanket law like this could be used to justify all sorts of terrible behavior, and like marriage amendments, have no actual purpose other than targeting a specific group of people for discrimination out of animus as a way to scare up votes from a particularly old and paranoid section of the population.

in the end, it's stupid and bad business, as the AZ Republic points out:

Gov. Jan Brewer’s pen is a powerful economic-development tool.

She should use it to veto legislation that would allow businesses to refuse service to gays and lesbians on religious grounds.

Doing so would further what Brewer calls “ongoing work to make Arizona the best state in the country for high-tech companies to do business.”

Brewer voiced that optimistic hope for Arizona’s high-tech future in response to news that Google is considering building a superfast fiber-optic network in Phoenix, Tempe and Scottsdale.

Business advocates tout Arizona’s potential to lure companies from Silicon Valley to relocate here.

It’s a worthy goal.

Legislation passed in the state House and Senate undermines those aspirations.

Twin bills, SB 1062 and HB 2153, are promoted by socially conservative groups that oppose gay marriage. The proposed law is so poorly crafted it could allow a Muslim taxi driver to refuse service to a woman traveling alone.

Lawmakers opposed to this bill list a series of such scenarios.

The real target, however, is the gay and lesbian community.

Republican Sen. Steve Yarbrough pushed his bill in response to a New Mexico Supreme Court decision against a photographer who refused to take a gay couple’s wedding pictures.

Dare we suggest that Arizona laws should respond to Arizona issues?

In the rush to prevent anticipated problems, this bill elevates the religious beliefs of some above the civil rights of others.

There has to be a better way to address the concerns of photographers who oppose gay marriage, especially in a state that doesn’t allow gay marriage.

Some people are uncomfortable about the cultural and legal changes that increasingly recognize gays and lesbians as equal and worthy human beings. Those individuals have a right to their opinions. They have a right to follow whatever faith they choose. But using religion as an excuse to codify discrimination is wrong.

What’s more, this legislation will severely damage Arizona’s brand. It is the antithesis of the openness and diversity prized by the high-tech industry.

Google, for example, was a leader in providing benefits to same-sex couples. Silicon Valley executives actively opposed California’s 2008 ban on same-sex marriage, which was subsequently ruled unconstitutional.

Last year, Pew Research found that 70 percent of people born after 1980 support same-sex marriage.

Seventy percent.

High-tech companies need talented young workers, so they locate in places young people find attractive and welcoming.

Arizona should strive to be one of those places.

This bill is a do-it-yourself black eye that would tag Arizona as a champion of anachronistic views of sexual orientation.

That’s not just the wrong side of history; it’s the dumb side of economic development.

We urge the governor to veto this bill as part of her continuing message that Arizona is open for business.

Gov. Brewer, veto these religious-freedom bills

[Diemen]

Arizona needs a law to protect people in the state from heavy-handed actions by courts and law enforcement.

Wow. Apparently they have no problem with heavy handed actions from the legislature though, as long as the heavy-handed actions are against gays.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by LemonMelon

Was the photographer hired and then didn't follow through once he found out what he was doing? I'd sue a guy for that. Otherwise, meh.

agreed. we have someone in mind and we told him up front it's for an SSM, and he was all like, "cool beans, brah."

[Pearl]

This is a democratic country and everyone has the legal right to be treated equally to everyone else.

No matter what the Bible says about homosexuality, it also says "he who is without sin cast the first stone" and many other lines about not being holier-than-thou.

In other words...C'mon people!!!

ETA - Yeah, I know forcing business owners to go against their beliefs doesn't work well to move society forward, but this law is totally going backwards.

[Pearl]

The proposed law is so poorly crafted it could allow a Muslim taxi driver to refuse service to a woman traveling alone.

Exactly. Funny how Christian conservatives here have a lot in common with conservative Muslims than they realize.

[Galeongirl]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

No. The worst possible ending is that everyone catches the gay and humans fail to reproduce.

Which I think is the best possible ending.

Sure would do great things to our planet.

[deep]

planet is over due for a culling

there should be generous compensation for self sterilizations

[bono_212]

I'm bored on my break, and just kinda felt like posting what I feel/believe, just to do it. This is the umbrella thread, after all. Based on other posts I've made in the past, none of this is likely going to come as a shock:

On a personal level, I don't like to see the word marriage used with gay couples. It's not because I don't want gay couples to have the same rights as me, or that I don't think two committed individuals shouldn't be allowed to share their lives together. I just find the term marriage to be a word rooted in religious background, and from the standpoint of my religion, I can't deny what I've interpreted from the things I've read in the Bible. I've read a lot on this matter, on both sides and I've come to the basic impasse that I'm at now. If there was a way to have a split term that meant the same exact thing as marriage, including benefits and all that jazz, I'd be just fine with that.

That begs the question, then, of what I think of non-religious marriage, and to be honest, I've thought very little about it. Society hasn't forced me to pick a side on that topic, so I just haven't chose to take that reflection time yet.

But, I hope that doesn't make you think I hate you, Irvine, or that I think you're a disgusting sinner. I worry always about that with my best friend. He knows exactly how I feel, and I always worry that he secretly resents me. It's hard to rectify the world we live in and a religious beliefs system. But, with all the time I've spent thinking about it (and praying about it), I've come to the conclusion that the Bible is pretty clear: we're all sinners and we're all supposed to treat each other with love and kindness. To be charitable and to make our beliefs clear. To spread the gospel, as it were.

So, what it comes down to is: unless an alternative term comes into play, I'm not going to vote on anything to support same sex marriage, and I will actively oppose anything that tries to take away the rights of my friends and family (as I did when the bill was up here in Indiana last month). I know that's a really awkward middle to be in, but I can't think of a better option that works for me at the moment.

Anyways, I just figured if I was going to be an active participant in this thread, I should have my stance made clear.

[Irvine511]

i don't think you hate me.

i have 2 questions:

1. do you feel it's right to use your religious beliefs to justify denying *civil* marriage rights for people who may or may not share your religious beliefs?

2. do you also understand that it's difficult to hear that you believe that someone's most intimate longings -- for love, for sex, for companionship, for family, for protection, for security, for safety -- are inherently sinful, and that it's comparable to stealing, adultery, etc.

[Pearl]

Thank you for your honesty, bono_212. I figured you weren't that supportive of SSM, and I'm glad you are being open about it.

In regards to being kind and charitable to others when we're all sinners, how can we do that yet deny anyone basic human rights? You may disagree with who they are, but do you really think they shouldn't be on the same level as you? Meaning here, refusing to call gay unions marriage is pretty much creating a "us v. them" mentality which isn't very healthy for society.

Also, regarding your friend, chances are he does think you resent him. Eventually, he may not want to be friends with you anymore. I don't know too many people who would be friends with someone they know disapproves a big part of who they are (race, gender, religious beliefs, etc). And what if he finds someone he wants to marry? Are you going to be kind by denying him the right to marry? Better yet, how do you define kindness?

As for following God in this world, it was never easy ever - and God knows! The world is very complex and there is no black and white. The fact that people are born the way they are changes the argument over whether homosexuality should be accepted or not. The way I see it, it comes down to the fact that homosexuals are people and deserve human rights like everyone else. It's as simple as that.

I don't think you are a bad person, BTW. I just think you need to think a few things over with. I'm sure you did already, but I felt you contradicted yourself a few times

[jeevey]

Regarding 212's friend, he may not feel resented but he may feel unvalued. I think Irvine really hit it on the head with his second point. How would a friend feel about that? 'I love you, you're a good friend, you're a lovely person, I want you to be happy, but I can't feel good about you getting married in the way that I can get married.' That would be difficult to hear.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by Pearl

Also, regarding your friend, chances are he does think you resent him. Eventually, he may not want to be friends with you anymore.

Pearl, not that I think you intended it to, but this comes across awfully harshly. You don't know bono_212, her friend or their relationship.

[bono_212]

It's ok... We've been very close friends for about 13 years now, so, I'm not up at night about it. I'll answer the rest later.

[deep]

based upon what you have written I would say your friend is tolerant and compassionate, you are fortunate to have this friend.

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by Diemen

Pearl, not that I think you intended it to, but this comes across awfully harshly. You don't know bono_212, her friend or their relationship.

You're right, I didn't mean it like that. It's true I don't know their relationship, so sorry about that. I think jeevey summed it up better than I did.

[Galeongirl]

It certainly shows of an open mind that you're willing to discuss this openly Ashley. That alone shows a lot to me.

Just one thing I'm curious about though, how would you feel if gay marriage was accepted, even with you voting against it?

[bono_212]

I'm actually pretty much ok with it right now, I just personally wish the terminology weren't different, but, as has been pointed out above, I don't want an us v. Them mentality, either, so it's probably for the best that things are currently developing the way they are.

[deep]

Originally Posted by bono_212

I know that's a really awkward middle to be in,

an awkward middle is not a conmfortable place to be at
is there an awkward middle on 'civil rights' ? 'antisemitism'? 'women's rights'?

I live and work in a very conservative area. When 'gay marriage' comes up the assumption is that I would oppose it.
Saying nothing would be easy. But as of late I say "Who cares?" 'these people pay all the same taxes, have to obey the same laws, why should they be treated differently?"

I don't duck it or dodge it anymore. Choosing a side, one that is more sound and kind, is much better than being in the awkward middle. Yes, it does put me at odds with members of my immediate family that oppose it religious grounds. But I don't harp on it. and over time as history is leaving them behind they are slowly softening.