The gay agenda strikes again.

[Kapadons]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...ples-nuptials/

Cliff-notes; Wedding coordinators/wedding establishment won't let a gay couple hold their ceremony at their place. Will offer flowers and cakes, just can't have the actual wedding at their establishment. This is due to the owner's Christian beliefs regarding actual marriage vows. The gay couple intends to sue. The owners have receive hate mail and phone calls.


I found the following comment particularly enlightening; Originally posted by "MTCountrygirl"

"Our church was under construction during the time when I was getting married, so we went to find another church to get married in. I wanted to have dancing at my reception (and our church has no problem with dancing), but the church we selected did not allow two things at weddings in their facility…alcohol and dancing. So in respect for their beliefs, we booked the reception somewhere else where dancing was not a problem. If you want to be respected for what you believe, you have to respect other people’s beliefs. That is TRUE TOLLERANCE"

This for me is the major issue I have. For something that simply could have been a " OK, we understand.We will try another place that will marry us. Have a nice day" has turned into legal issues, death threats and hate mail, and people taking away their business elsewhere.. I think people leaving their business is just fine and dandy. Just as the owners have their beliefs, others can voice theirs by taking their business elsewhere. But why in the hell do we have to sue and give death threats over this? Why was EHarmony forced to accept homesexual dating when there are hundreds of sites dedicated to such? It is people taking their beliefs and shoving them down your throat. For all the bitching progressives do about the religious right forcing their views, they are doing the exact same thing to others.

It is truly mind boggling that gays have fought for rights for so long and are now hell bent on destroying others. If there was ever a minority that I would have pegged to not be spiteful dicks about things, it would have been the LBGT. But human nature has let us down again.

What are your thoughts?

Edit- The moment the WestBoro Baptist Church wanted to support me, I would have run for the hills. I know people have their rights to opinions but those people seriously creep me out.

[Wilian]

Is it a private company/church/whatever? If so I don't see the issue.

[Rucati]

On the one hand, if it's a private company it's their decision.
On the other hand, I'm tired of the religious idiots trying to take away other people's rights because of what their imaginary friend tells them in a book for thousands of years ago.

I don't really think suing the business will get anywhere, but I have no problem with them getting hate mail and everything, they kind of deserve that.

Infracted: Please don't be insulting towards people of certain religious beliefs.

[Kraenen]

What are your thoughts?

"Gay agenda", rofl. Sensationalist post... hell bent on destroying others? Give me a break. Think for yourself and question your beliefs critically before you post. You even say yourself that it was human nature that let us down, so wtf are you talking about gay agendas and gays necessarily not being 'dicks about things' as if it were some property of their essence.

[Very Tired]

Why was EHarmony forced to accept homesexual dating when there are hundreds of sites dedicated to such?

Seems like eHarmony had 2 separate sites and was charging people double to use both, but separate but equal is great right?

[bals]

Seems like eHarmony had 2 separate sites and was charging people double to use both, but separate but equal is great right?

yes they set up a separate dating website for same sex couples to circumvent the rules.

[Time Sage]

They have every right to be offended. " Oh we'll let you BUY stuff from us. But you can't have it here, no no no. That's would horrible! "

That seems very off to me. Either refuse buisness outright or give them everything. You can't have it halfway. It's just an excuse for the owners to be an ass while trying to preserve a moral highroad.

[Amnasty]

I dont know of a business that it legally allowed to decline black because THEIR BELIEVES are that blacks are inferior.

The above statement infringes on civil rights.

As does any establishments beliefs of turning away any one single minority.

Money is green, just green, you can't tell a gay's dollar from a heterosexuals dollar. There is no good valid reason why this establishment will take their money so long as these people follow all THEIR demands on the COUPLES SPECIAL DAY.

Establishments are also sued for things like not being handicapped accessible, charging one particular group more/forcing an instant gratuity because you believe a certain group doesn't tip well. These all infringe on the rights of others and as a business you are there to sell goods and services to people, not certain people.

This church deserves whatever comes their way, save for the death threats, that is plain unwarranted.

[McCulloch]

I probably would have taken you more seriously if you hadn't used "gay agenda".

If one couple represents the entire gay community, then I suppose the entire straight community must be much worse considering there are tons of those couples who want to stop marriage equality and ban interracial marriage (yes, they still exist).

[Monoxyde]

if it's a private business, they have as much right to their opinions as anyone else. all forcing the issue will do is hurt the cause. both sides will have to make concessions in this. people who support gay rights have to accept that just because logic is on our side doesn't mean everyone will see that, and forcing people will just generate hatred. we can't just wave a wand and make all the religious folks see that they are taking a book of guidelines far too literally, especially in this day.

[Amnasty]

They have every right to be offended. " Oh we'll let you BUY stuff from us. But you can't have it here, no no no. That's would horrible! "

That seems very off to me. Either refuse buisness outright or give them everything. You can't have it halfway. It's just an excuse for the owners to be an ass while trying to preserve a moral highroad.

^^^^^^ this...

Further more I could have sworn the Christian thing was to let God judge, not the Christian who is supposed to "Do unto others, as others have done unto you"?

#hypocrisy

[vindicatorx]

The business owners have a right to refuse service for whatever reason they want. I don't agree with them but it is their right to service whomever they choose.

[Amnasty]

if it's a private business, they have as much right to their opinions as anyone else. all forcing the issue will do is hurt the cause. both sides will have to make concessions in this. people who support gay rights have to accept that just because logic is on our side doesn't mean everyone will see that, and forcing people will just generate hatred. we can't just wave a wand and make all the religious folks see that they are taking a book of guidelines far too literally, especially in this day.

The problem with this is that the government put its tax dollars to give Religious sites exemption.

If they are taking goverment money and or using government laws to support themselves or relieve themselves of the same taxes everyone else has to pay, they are and rightfully should be held to the same standards of equality the government sets before them.

[DEATHETERNAL]

The LGBT agenda has always been to simply have a new brand of tyranny that favors them implemented. It has never been about liberty or freedom. Stuff like this is just one example of such.

Any group that fights for tyranny in their favor instead of liberty for all isn't worth listening to.

[Wilian]

"Do unto others, as others have done unto you"
#hypocrisy

I'm fairly sure they don't go around asking if they would have same sex marriages for themselves arranged in places.

[vindicatorx]

I dont know of a business that it legally allowed to decline black because THEIR BELIEVES are that blacks are inferior.

The above statement infringes on civil rights.

No, business owners have the right to refuse service to anyone for whatever reason they want.

[Windfury]

Oh no! Not the gay agenda!



Seriously that makes me completely switch off.

Beyond that after actually going to your link the website is biased as hell, and not something I'd consider a respected or reliable news source. So I'd like to hear more about this before I properly make up my mind. But, from what I'm reading some bigots are upset that they're being called bigots after they behaved like bigots.

Also from your article:

Iowa law does prohibit service refusals based on sexual orientation, but religious sentiment often makes these scenarios more complicated.

So you're complaining that they're not getting away with breaking the law?

And again from your link:

In sum, Betty and Dick report getting between 50 and 60 emails and about 20 to 30 phone calls per day about the incident, although a majority of these are actually positive. But while verbal support has been great, there hasn’t been an influx of people coming in, the couple said.

Soooooo they're not exactly being bombarded with vast amounts of hate mail either. They're annoyed because they're not getting more business?

If this article is the best you can come up with for your rant about the gays you should probably give up now.

[Garnier Fructis]

Businesses should not be allowed to refuse service unless they can demonstrate that the refusal of service is in the interest of the business. This case can pretty much be viewed as the next logical step of the Federal Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibit businesses from discrimination based on features defined in those laws.

And before the usual crowd cries foul, churches are not businesses so they can deny as much as they want.

Any group that fights for tyranny in their favor instead of liberty for all isn't worth listening to.

This pretty much classifies all proponents of social conservative laws as not worth listening to.

[Wilian]

The problem with this is that the government put its tax dollars to give Religious sites exemption.

If they are taking goverment money and or using government laws to support themselves or relieve themselves of the same taxes everyone else has to pay, they are and rightfully should be held to the same standards of equality the government sets before them.

This is the only argument I can side with on the side of forcing someone to do what they didn't. But my solution wouldn't be forcing them to do it, it'd be to cut all the funding from religious things.

[s_bushido]

This is what people think when you use the term "gay agenda" by the way.

There are laws against discrimination, as pointed out in that very article. The owners broke said laws, and are facing potential legal action because of it.

The comments of jackwads on either side are meaningless. If they want to file charges for harassment, they would be within their rights to do so as well.