About that Washington Post/ABC News poll on same-sex “marriage”

posted at 8:41 am on March 6, 2014 by Dustin Siggins

Yesterday, Allahpundit looked at the Washington Post/ABC News poll that shows 59 percent of the American public supports same-sex “marriage.” It’s a devastating number, but no real surprise, since the numbers have been trending that way for years.

Far more interesting than the support for same-sex “marriage,” however, is the way the poll reveals the real intent behind its creation: to create a narrative, not actually get the public’s opinion on the matters referenced in the poll.

First, the poll asks what people think about giving “gays and lesbians the legal right to marry.” This is the wrong question for three reasons:

A. Homosexuals cannot “marry” each other. Marriage is between heterosexuals. A secular government cannot change what “marriage” is, no matter how much it may want to.

B. Gay and lesbian Americans already have the legal right to marry. They can marry someone of the opposite sex.

C. Lastly, the poll should be asking what people think about gay and lesbian American couples having the right to participate in a marriage-like ceremony. Again, homosexuals can already legally marry.

Second, the poll asks if respondants “think businesses should or should not be allowed to refuse service to gays and lesbians”? Again, this is the wrong question. Businesses – or, rather, their owners – are not refusing to serve homosexuals. They are refusing to participate in helping homosexuals commit sin.

The difference is critical. From Conor Friedersdorf at The Atlantic, discussing the now-famous New Mexico photography case:

Jonathan and Elaine Huguenin lost a case before the New Mexico Supreme Court, and have now appealed the ruling. As noted in their petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Huguenins’ photography business does serve gay and lesbian clients, just not same-sex weddings. Insofar as a photographer can distinguish between discriminating against a class of client and a type of event—there is, perhaps, a limit—their business does so: “The Huguenins gladly serve gays and lesbians—by, for example, providing them with portrait photography—whenever doing so would not require them to create expression conveying messages that conflict with their religious beliefs.”

The photography business has also turned down clients other than gay and lesbian couples while citing religious objections. “They have declined requests for nude maternity pictures,” their petition states, “and photographs portraying violence.”

Finally, it isn’t just same-sex weddings they’d be uncomfortable photographing: their petition states that they’d also refuse business capturing a polygamous marriage.

A restaurant owner who provides a meal to a homosexual is not helping that person commit sin, and in fact by not serving that person would probably do more harm than good to the cause of evangelization. Similarly, a doctor who saves the life of a gay person is not an accomplice to that person’s immoral actions later on in life, in the same way that doctor is not responsible for the immoral sexual activities of a heterosexual person who sleeps around.

However, a Catholic restaurant owner who provides a wedding reception for a homosexual couple would be participating in sin.

 The poll also asks the following:

Do you think businesses should or should not be allowed to refuse service to gays and lesbians? (If should NOT,) What if the business says homosexuality violates their owners’ religious beliefs?

In American culture, “homosexuality” generally means someone has homosexual attractions (though many theologians and other intellectuals in religious circles would define “homosexual” as an act, not a person). Business owners aren’t asking people for their gay identification cards, or putting up gaydars on their front doors. Even the allegedly hateful Catholic Church distinctly separates homosexual attractions from homosexual acts.

It is the acts that are the issue, not the attractions, when it comes to service – something both ABC and the Post know, but choose to ignore in order to get the results they want.

Interestingly, the Post/ABC poll comes less than a month after the Public Religion Research Institute published a survey of 4,500 adults about various religious issues. While 53 percent of respondents supported same-sex “marriage,” 51 percent believe “sex  between  two  adults  of  the  same  gender” is immoral. (54 percent of respondants said abortion is morally wrong, and 65 percent believe pornography is morally wrong. So maybe there’s hope for American culture, after all.)

I’ll pull an Allahpundit and ask two exit questions: First, will the same people up in arms over Arizona Senate Bill 1062 (which is a surprisingly short read, and unsurprisingly is not “anti-gay”) be as angry if an unmarried heterosexual couple is turned down by an inn owner because they want one room, not two? And where’s the public flaying of the gay hairdresser who refused to serve the governor of New Mexico because of the latter’s opposition to same-sex “marriage”?

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 11

I think you sort of lose out on those “association” rights when you open a business that serves the public. Otherwise, there would probably still be restaurants that could refuse to serve black people.

mazer9 on March 6, 2014 at 9:41 AM

+1. You’re making some great points today, btw.

Attorneys have to take every case that walks through the door, right?

rogerb on March 6, 2014 at 9:42 AM

And cab drivers every passenger.

preallocated on March 6, 2014 at 9:50 AM

I think you sort of lose out on those “association” rights when you open a business that serves the public…
 
mazer9 on March 6, 2014 at 9:41 AM

 
Attorneys have to take every case that walks through the door, right?
 
rogerb on March 6, 2014 at 9:42 AM

 
No. But their reason for turning down a case should have nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the person.
 
mazer9 on March 6, 2014 at 9:45 AM

 
Let us know when you get those goalposts where you like them.

rogerb on March 6, 2014 at 9:50 AM

Probably the biggest issue with the question’s phrasing is the language of the Constitution giving rights to individuals rather than guaranteeing rights that individuals already possess.

The bedrock of our nation is the idea of natural rights. The government doesn’t give us rights. The Constitution was meant to protect us from our government by guarding rights that we have by nature.

yaedon on March 6, 2014 at 9:50 AM

I would love for all of these pro-gay people with vapors to explain how a photog refusing service to a gay wedding is any different than when I get in a taxi here in Lexington, KY and ask him to take me through the liquor store drive through and he refuses, or when I walk out of Rite-Aid with a brown bag and he asks me to go ahead and call another cab? This has happened multiple times almost to the point that I want to start requesting non-muslim drivers. There’s not one whit of difference yet I only see people getting worked up over the former.

preallocated on March 6, 2014 at 9:50 AM

preallocated on March 6, 2014 at 9:48 AM

I had to get out of the nuts and bolts business when all the nuts sued me for refusing to pair nuts together to fasten things.

NotCoach on March 6, 2014 at 9:51 AM

I think you sort of lose out on those “association” rights when you open a business that serves the public. Otherwise, there would probably still be restaurants that could refuse to serve black people.

mazer9 on March 6, 2014 at 9:41 AM

So the African-American soul food restaurant owner has no rights to refuse to rent his restaurant’s banquet room to the local KKK for their monthly meeting?

The mere action of opening a business means that the owner loses his rights of freedom of association, speech, and the free exercise of their religious beliefs?

Are you endorsing ‘all are created equal and some are more equal than others’ or are you just endorsing tyranny?

Athos on March 6, 2014 at 9:52 AM

Axe on March 6, 2014 at 9:36 AM

All good points, but it actually is “better” for society if men choose women as partners and not other men. Individuals are equal, but the unions they form are not. It is the natural procreative nature of heterosexual unions – which creates natural mothers and fathers – which is necessary to a growing society.

This is the logic that Utah is pursuing.

monalisa on March 6, 2014 at 9:52 AM

Probably the biggest issue with the question’s phrasing is the language of the Constitution giving rights to individuals rather than guaranteeing rights that individuals already possess.

The bedrock of our nation is the idea of natural rights. The government doesn’t give us rights. The Constitution was meant to protect us from our government by guarding rights that we have by nature.

yaedon on March 6, 2014 at 9:50 AM

Have you read the Constitution? Enumerated rights in the Constitution are described as inherit by the language ‘shall not be infringed’.

NotCoach on March 6, 2014 at 9:53 AM

So sexual proclivity is the same as age, gender, and race when it comes to providing a service or product to the public?

Bishop on March 6, 2014 at 9:48 AM

I think that sexual orientation should be protected because I don’t think one has much choice regarding it. I didn’t chose to be heterosexual. I just was. The inevitable conclusion will be sexual orientation gaining protected status.

mazer9 on March 6, 2014 at 9:54 AM

And clearly an attorney has to take on a pedophile’s case because sexual orientation and what-not.

rogerb on March 6, 2014 at 9:54 AM

I think that sexual orientation should be protected because I don’t think one has much choice regarding it. I didn’t chose to be heterosexual. I just was. The inevitable conclusion will be sexual orientation gaining protected status.

mazer9 on March 6, 2014 at 9:54 AM

Just as you have no choice on your gender, age, or race?

Bishop on March 6, 2014 at 9:54 AM

I don’t think anyone who has ever discussed abortion, teacher tenure, school choice, minimum wage, government spending, tax rates, the PPACA, IRS abuse, military preparedness, etc., would call me a “faux conservative”.
MinnesotaSlinger on March 6, 2014 at 9:26 AM

Perhaps you’re not aware that the gay-sex marriage pushers such as the “Human Rights Campaign” say that any conservative position on any of those makes you a homophobe who wants to round gays up and put them in concentration camps.

Indeed, perhaps you should educate yourself on how gays and lesbians actively commit IRS abuses and crimes.

<blockquoteA House committee investigating the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of right-leaning groups has identified the IRS agent who leaked the confidential donor list of the National Organization for Marriage, a conservative organization that opposes gay marriage. NOM’s donor list, contained in a Form 990 Schedule B, which it is required by law to file with the IRS, was obtained in March 2012 by its chief political opponent, the Human Rights Campaign, and subsequently became the subject of several national news stories that centered on Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s donation to the group.

No prosecution, complete protection of the leaker. Even though it’s a crime and violation of Fourteenth Amendment rights.

Gay-sex marriage supporters fully endorse this crime and protecting the criminal organizations that carry it out.

You support that.

northdallasthirty on March 6, 2014 at 9:55 AM

rogerb on March 6, 2014 at 9:42 AM

preallocated on March 6, 2014 at 9:50 AM

Athos on March 6, 2014 at 9:52 AM

NotCoach on March 6, 2014 at 9:53 AM

You straight white Christians need to get over yourselves.

Its time for the gay, muslim and melanin blessed coalition of love.

cozmo on March 6, 2014 at 9:55 AM

Not if you are a public-serving business and you are discriminating against a protected class. No. Otherwise, anyone could come up with “religious beliefs” that suits their prejudices.

mazer9 on March 6, 2014 at 9:49 AM

You’re a little slow in your brain pan, aren’t you?

You seem to think we have a right of conscious except when the government defines what is conscionable. We have religious liberty, or we don’t. There is no protected class distinction, a distinction created out of nothing but the flavor of the moment. Forcing people to violate their religious beliefs is a violation of everything our founding and the Founders stood for.

NotCoach on March 6, 2014 at 9:56 AM

So the African-American soul food restaurant owner has no rights to refuse to rent his restaurant’s banquet room to the local KKK for their monthly meeting?

The mere action of opening a business means that the owner loses his rights of freedom of association, speech, and the free exercise of their religious beliefs?

Are you endorsing ‘all are created equal and some are more equal than others’ or are you just endorsing tyranny?

Athos on March 6, 2014 at 9:52 AM

Because we all know how much the KKK is dying to support black soul food restaurants economically.

mazer9 on March 6, 2014 at 9:57 AM

I think that sexual orientation should be protected because I don’t think one has much choice regarding it…
 
mazer9 on March 6, 2014 at 9:54 AM

 
We’ve covered this before. That’s a faith-based position and similar to people who believe man coexisted with dinosaurs or that the earth is only 6000 years old.
 
It’s fine that you believe in those fairy tales, but please don’t push your faith onto the rest of us.

rogerb on March 6, 2014 at 9:57 AM

Because we all know how much the KKK is dying to support black soul food restaurants economically.

mazer9 on March 6, 2014 at 9:57 AM

Not a very good deflection there sport.

You started it.

cozmo on March 6, 2014 at 9:58 AM

And the socons need to realize that we can allow for marriage equality without having to accept the rest of whatever this silly “gay agenda” consists of.

TMOverbeck on March 6, 2014 at 9:44 AM

Haha…you are new to politics aren’t you kid?

ClassicCon on March 6, 2014 at 9:59 AM

Because we all know how much the KKK is dying to support black soul food restaurants economically.

mazer9 on March 6, 2014 at 9:57 AM

As our favorite black gay studies perfesser might say: And scene.

When law is based on emotion the stupid prevails.

NotCoach on March 6, 2014 at 10:00 AM

Am I the only one who doesn’t see marriage as an ultra religious socon belief? In engineering and several other fields the word marriage describes things that were made to fit together to form a single entity. Fasteners, brackets, etc., as such, marriage describes the naturally occurring union of 2 people of different sexes. I’m on the very fringe of religiosity and don’t consider my views to be informed by Christianity or any other. Just because the bulk of people who believe something are religious it doesn’t make their beliefs inherently religious. The joining of 2 heterosexual humans is defined as marriage and has been since the dawn of time. It’s illogical and downright weird to want to change that.

preallocated on March 6, 2014 at 9:48 AM

No, you aren’t. But they always just glide by this. As if the founder of every major religion and every religion itself wasn’t talking about an ALREADY EXISTING INSTITUTION AND DEFINITION FOR MARRIAGE when they commented on it. Cavemen and women got married but you would think the definition of a man and a woman was set down last week if you listen to this debate.

Rocks on March 6, 2014 at 10:02 AM

However, a Catholic restaurant owner who provides a wedding reception for a homosexual couple would be participating in sin.

Correct.

This is why the nuns won’t sign the Obamacare insurance thingy…because it forces them by signing the document to perpetuate through enabling the sin against their religious doctrine.

In catholicism and many other christian doctrines…it would be just as sinful to refer a potential sinner to someone else to act on their sin.

If a catholic doctor refuse to prescribe artificial birth control or perform IVF services to a female…referring that female to a protestant doctor would perpetuate the sin…compound it. For the catholic doctor it would be better to refuse the patient and offer no referral.

If a catholic social worker refused an ineligible gay couple for catholic adoption services but referred said couple to another agency more aligned with the adoption petitioner’s revisionist social mores…it compounds the sin.

Pretty simple really and clearly stated in Catholic doctrine.

workingclass artist on March 6, 2014 at 10:02 AM

I think that sexual orientation should be protected because I don’t think one has much choice regarding it. I didn’t chose to be heterosexual. I just was. The inevitable conclusion will be sexual orientation gaining protected status.

mazer9 on March 6, 2014 at 9:54 AM

Well ole Bob didn’t “decide” to be a pedophile …

hawkdriver on March 6, 2014 at 10:02 AM

I think that sexual orientation should be protected because I don’t think one has much choice regarding it…

mazer9 on March 6, 2014 at 9:54 AM

LOL.

Prior to meeting Mr. de Blasio, Ms. McCray identified as a lesbian and had several long-term relationships with other women. In a seven-page essay she wrote for the September 1979 issue of Essence magazine entitled “I am a Lesbian” she frankly discussed her sexuality and expressed gratitude that she came to terms with her preference for women before marrying a man.

“I survived the tears, the isolation and the feeling that something was terribly wrong with me for loving another woman” Ms. McCray wrote. “Coming to terms with my life as a lesbian has been easier for me than it has been for many. Since I don’t look or dress like the typical bulldagger, I have a choice as to whether my sexual preference is known.”
She added, “I have also been fortunate because I discovered my preference for women early, before getting locked into a traditional marriage and having children.”

Lie, exposed.

northdallasthirty on March 6, 2014 at 10:02 AM

Here is where the Social Conservatives once again push the overall movement towards eventual obscurity. If you are going to be against all the thing’s the Bible says you shouldn’t do, (I just love Leviticus) then great, be consistent at least. I could respect that. Until you are as vehemently against all the sins of the book; unclean animals, mixing fabrics, getting tattoos, etc.. I can’t see how the pick and choose sin condemnation has any moral ground. I don’t practice homosexuality so that’s a “bad” sin but I have a tattoo so that’s an “ok” sin. Gay marriage cost me nothing. What do I care.

argusx2002 on March 6, 2014 at 10:02 AM

preallocated on March 6, 2014 at 9:48 AM

You don’t even have to be an engineer. Anyone who has strung together (Christmas) lights or put together a Thomas the Tank Engine train set knows this. The Male/Male or Female/Female components are dead-ends.

monalisa on March 6, 2014 at 10:03 AM

When you’ve been told by a wedding photographer that they don’t want to do business with you because they disagree with your lifestyle, and you, via the legal system, compel them to do it anyway, you’ve just announced to the world that you don’t really care about the quality of the pictures. You’ve just announced to the world that your “special day” really isn’t all that special after all; at least not as special as forcing someone to provide you a service against their moral and/or religious principles. You’ve just announced to the world that all you’re interested in is rubbing someone else’s nose in your own steaming pile.

CurtZHP on March 6, 2014 at 10:04 AM

Businesses – or, rather, their owners – are not refusing to serve homosexuals. They are refusing to participate in helping homosexuals commit sin.

No, they are self-righteously refusing service to people who live their own lives in a way that does not affect the owners in any way.

psrichter on March 6, 2014 at 9:01 AM

So, tell me again how the government’s forcing someone to violate his/her religious conscience in this way is constitutional under the first amendment.

BTW, forcing business owners to serve in a wedding contrary to their deeply-held religious convictions does in fact affect the owners negatively.

yaedon on March 6, 2014 at 10:04 AM

A. Homosexuals cannot “marry” each other. Marriage is between heterosexuals. A secular government cannot change what “marriage” is, no matter how much it may want to.

Really ? I get what the definition of the word is, especially over centuries of tradition. But the fact that OTHER people don’t see it that way does not make the question illegitimate.

Come on. That’s a ridiculous basis upon which to question this poll.

And you do realize this “they are already free to marry someone of the opposite sex” BS is the same way inter-racial marriage was once described. “You are already free to marry someone of the same race”.

I’m really agnostic on the idea of gay marriage, per se, but I don’t doubt for one second that on average the majority is now in favor of the idea. The arguments presented here are a decade out of date. Have you actually tried to make this argument to a gay person ? I’m sure that went well.

I don’t know where you came from, but if this is the direction Hotair is leaning, it will quickly be off the read list. I’ve already noted two posts from you and I’m not impressed.

deadrody on March 6, 2014 at 10:05 AM

argusx2002 on March 6, 2014 at 10:02 AM

Isn’t wonderful when people who clearly have no clue what the Old Covenant and the New Covenant are tell us how to practice our faith?

NotCoach on March 6, 2014 at 10:06 AM

Business owners aren’t asking people for their gay identification cards, or putting up gaydars on their front doors. Even the allegedly hateful Catholic Church distinctly separates homosexual attractions from homosexual acts.

It is the acts that are the issue, not the attractions, when it comes to service – something both ABC and the Post know, but choose to ignore in order to get the results they want.

Because the Media is playing up the sentimental…It sells.

It also confuses the electorate and divides them.

workingclass artist on March 6, 2014 at 10:06 AM

And the socons need to realize that we can allow for marriage equality without having to accept the rest of whatever this silly “gay agenda” consists of.

TMOverbeck on March 6, 2014 at 9:44 AM

Got a pen and paper? Ready?

Ok..define “silly”. Be concise.

Bishop on March 6, 2014 at 10:06 AM

As our favorite black gay studies perfesser might say: And scene.

When law is based on emotion the stupid prevails.

NotCoach on March 6, 2014 at 10:00 AM

It’s a ridiculous hypothetical, but to humor you, KKK members should have every right to soul food and banquet halls as anyone else. However, if the business owners can prove that having a known hate group using their facilities is detrimental to their business, they should have the right to turn them down. Arguing it hurts their religious sensibilities shouldn’t be sufficient.

mazer9 on March 6, 2014 at 10:07 AM

Gay marriage cost me nothing. What do I care.

argusx2002 on March 6, 2014 at 10:02 AM

” Then said Hezeki’ah to Isaiah, “The word of the LORD which you have spoken is good.” For he thought, “Why not, if there will be peace and security in my days?” 2 Kings 20: 9

Cleombrotus on March 6, 2014 at 10:07 AM

Isn’t wonderful when people who clearly have no clue what the Old Covenant and the New Covenant are tell us how to practice our faith?

NotCoach on March 6, 2014 at 10:06 AM

Why would an unchanging God require different covenants?

mazer9 on March 6, 2014 at 10:08 AM

You don’t even have to be an engineer. Anyone who has strung together (Christmas) lights or put together a Thomas the Tank Engine train set knows this. The Male/Male or Female/Female components are dead-ends.

monalisa on March 6, 2014 at 10:03 AM

Funny. As an audio engineer, that’s exactly how I explained the mechanics of sex to my son. I held up a patch cord with a male connector on it. “We call this a male connector. What does this remind you of?”

I then pointed to a point on the patch panel and said, “This is called a female connector.”

I plugged the cord into the panel and said, “Signal flow.”

He thought for a moment and then started nodding.

CurtZHP on March 6, 2014 at 10:08 AM

20:19

Cleombrotus on March 6, 2014 at 10:08 AM

Here is where the Social Conservatives once again push the overall movement towards eventual obscurity. If you are going to be against all the thing’s the Bible says you shouldn’t do, (I just love Leviticus) then great, be consistent at least. I could respect that. Until you are as vehemently against all the sins of the book; unclean animals, mixing fabrics, getting tattoos, etc.. I can’t see how the pick and choose sin condemnation has any moral ground. I don’t practice homosexuality so that’s a “bad” sin but I have a tattoo so that’s an “ok” sin. Gay marriage cost me nothing. What do I care.

argusx2002 on March 6, 2014 at 10:02 AM

Before you start talking bout consistency you should start with yourself. Most Social Conservatives in this country are Christians. Leviticus is great but next try reading the Gospels, Acts, etc. Why don’t people like you when they make this point insist we build a temple and do animal sacrifice for the remission of sins too?

Rocks on March 6, 2014 at 10:09 AM

I don’t know where you came from, but if this is the direction Hotair is leaning, it will quickly be off the read list. I’ve already noted two posts from you and I’m not impressed.

deadrody on March 6, 2014 at 10:05 AM

Agreed. This was one of the most cringe-worthy posts I’ve ever read on this site.

mazer9 on March 6, 2014 at 10:10 AM

Here is where the Social Conservatives once again push the overall movement towards eventual obscurity. If you are going to be against all the thing’s the Bible says you shouldn’t do, (I just love Leviticus) then great, be consistent at least. I could respect that. Until you are as vehemently against all the sins of the book; unclean animals, mixing fabrics, getting tattoos, etc.. I can’t see how the pick and choose sin condemnation has any moral ground. I don’t practice homosexuality so that’s a “bad” sin but I have a tattoo so that’s an “ok” sin. Gay marriage cost me nothing. What do I care.

argusx2002 on March 6, 2014 at 10:02 AM

Gay Marriage is just one element in the leftist/fascist statist agenda…Y’know like the scam called Global Warming…Or the scam called White Privilege…Or the scam called Heterosexism…Or the scam called fleece the Rich & Successful…Or the scam called Open Borders…etc…

You will be made to care.

workingclass artist on March 6, 2014 at 10:11 AM

Thanks, Hawk. And

Business people of faith. Just do what the tyrants demand. Then take out an ad in your local paper explaining your actions.

“My fellow (Insert faith discipline here), On (date) I was approached by a gay couple who asked to retain me as their photographer for a ceremony that they saw as a marriage in the eyes of God that I did not. For fear of retribution from their community and litigation, I am compelled to comply against my will. I will do my best to fulfill their request although I do not support their assertions this is an actual marriage.”

If you don’t cave, they will gut you. They are the most powerful victims in all of known history and I’m afraid they cannot be opposed anymore for fear of them destroying your life.

hawkdriver on March 6, 2014 at 9:21 AM

–One reason it’s so creepy, this fundamental transformation, is that it seems determined to force people to do evil. I really don’t think it’s possible for the government to “get out of the marriage business” because a married couple is odd; it acts as one unit, has one mouth. A husband speaks (with authority) for a wife, and the other way around; and it comes up in taxing; and it comes up . . . it comes up a lot. One person or two or somewhere in between? It’s a fundamental structure of the species, and a law that can’t even recognize it can’t really fit a society of human beings very well. But, the point — I wish it could, the government, “get out of the marriage business,” because I would choose to put one foot into anarchy and call myself “libertarian” rather than choose this new totalitarianism. Full circle: because it seems determined to force people to behave in ways that ignore God (this is not a choice anymore) and rationalize whatever they need to (the only Jesus available is the hip one who thinks that your desires are your guiding stars; if you desire to do it, it must be good). Hence the creepy.

You see Cal Thomas’ column? Biblical thing to do would be to go ahead and bake the cake. This is where we’re going. All you need is love, man. Sickening, sweet Christianity with no power to deliver anyone from anything.

/end-aside-hijack, just talkin’, etc.

Axe on March 6, 2014 at 10:12 AM

I think that sexual orientation should be protected because I don’t think one has much choice regarding it. I didn’t chose to be heterosexual. I just was. The inevitable conclusion will be sexual orientation gaining protected status.

mazer9 on March 6, 2014 at 9:54 AM

I could just as easily say that one’s religion is genetically determined.

ddrintn on March 6, 2014 at 10:12 AM

Attorneys have to take every case that walks through the door, right?
 
rogerb on March 6, 2014 at 9:42 AM

 
No. But their reason for turning down a case should have nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the person.
 
mazer9 on March 6, 2014 at 9:45 AM

 

So the African-American soul food restaurant owner has no rights to refuse to rent his restaurant’s banquet room to the local KKK for their monthly meeting?
 
Athos on March 6, 2014 at 9:52 AM

 
KKK members should have every right to soul food and banquet halls as anyone else. However, if the business owners can prove that having a known hate group using their facilities is detrimental to their business, they should have the right to turn them down.
 
mazer9 on March 6, 2014 at 10:07 AM

 
So you don’t mind businesses refusing to serve someone based on their life choices so long as they are life choices found on your “approved” list.

rogerb on March 6, 2014 at 10:12 AM

It’s a ridiculous hypothetical, but to humor you, KKK members should have every right to soul food and banquet halls as anyone else. However, if the business owners can prove that having a known hate group using their facilities is detrimental to their business, they should have the right to turn them down. Arguing it hurts their religious sensibilities shouldn’t be sufficient.
mazer9 on March 6, 2014 at 10:07 AM

Sorry. The courts have already held that you can ban religiously-themed decorations if they offend people’s’ religious sensibilities.

So you have exposed yourself as a hypocrite.

northdallasthirty on March 6, 2014 at 10:13 AM

Halal caterer required to service the annual meeting of the National Pork Producers Council?

Bishop on March 6, 2014 at 10:13 AM

NotCoach on March 6, 2014 at 10:06 AM

+1

GT on March 6, 2014 at 10:14 AM

Why would an unchanging God require different covenants?

mazer9 on March 6, 2014 at 10:08 AM

Because that’s the way He wants it, I guess.

ddrintn on March 6, 2014 at 10:14 AM

Here is where the Social Conservatives once again push the overall movement towards eventual obscurity. If you are going to be against all the thing’s the Bible says you shouldn’t do, (I just love Leviticus) then great, be consistent at least. I could respect that. Until you are as vehemently against all the sins of the book; unclean animals, mixing fabrics, getting tattoos, etc.. I can’t see how the pick and choose sin condemnation has any moral ground. I don’t practice homosexuality so that’s a “bad” sin but I have a tattoo so that’s an “ok” sin. Gay marriage cost me nothing. What do I care.
argusx2002 on March 6, 2014 at 10:02 AM

Why should Christians take lectures from uneducated bigots like yourself who have never actually read the Bible and just repeat lies?

northdallasthirty on March 6, 2014 at 10:15 AM

It’s a ridiculous hypothetical, but to humor you, KKK members should have every right to soul food and banquet halls as anyone else. However, if the business owners can prove that having a known hate group using their facilities is detrimental to their business, they should have the right to turn them down. Arguing it hurts their religious sensibilities shouldn’t be sufficient.

mazer9 on March 6, 2014 at 10:07 AM

Thank you for your honesty. You admit that people’s conscious are secondary to governmental dictate, thus you admit being a fascist. Now let me be honest with you. I think all fascists should be lined up on a wall and shot, but my conscious prevents me from acting on that without fascists first trying to force themselves upon me. But you better pray to God that people let their conscious prevail over any governmental dictate in the future that requires us to kill those deemed unprotected classes.

NotCoach on March 6, 2014 at 10:16 AM

So you don’t mind businesses refusing to serve someone based on their life choices so long as they are life choices found on your “approved” list.

rogerb on March 6, 2014 at 10:12 AM

Exactly. Stop the h8, by the way.

ddrintn on March 6, 2014 at 10:16 AM

Why should Christians take lectures from uneducated bigots like yourself who have never actually read the Bible and just repeat lies?

northdallasthirty on March 6, 2014 at 10:15 AM

Sure, he’s read the Bible. The way a middle-schooler reads the dictionary.

CurtZHP on March 6, 2014 at 10:17 AM

KKK members should have every right to soul food and banquet halls as anyone else. However, if the business owners can prove that having a known hate group using their facilities is detrimental to their business, they should have the right to turn them down.

mazer9 on March 6, 2014 at 10:07 AM

What if the group isn’t officially defined as a “known hate group”? It seems like your criteria is now proving detrimental effects and that is wide, wide open, I mean like Christy Canyon wide open.

Bishop on March 6, 2014 at 10:17 AM

First of all let me state the following beliefs I have as both a Christian and a libertarian.

1. Homosexuality is a sin.

2. Therefore, homosexual marriage is a sin.

3. However, our Constitution provides equal rights to our citizens.

4. So homosexual marriage should be allowed.

5. However this does not mean that a Christian business owner should be forced to support that marriage in any way.

So, having said all that, if the courts refuse to provide the protection a Christian business owner SHOULD have in these cases then I see only two options for the business owner. Shut down the business or provide the worst service imaginable to people who want to force you to take part in their sin. Those wedding photos? Oops, I forgot to take the lens cap off. That wedding reception? Oops, we put way too much salt in the food.

Will you lose some money for not providing the services? Sure but it makes a clear statement that you WILL NOT be forced into taking part in a sin.

Benaiah on March 6, 2014 at 10:17 AM

Thank you for your honesty. You admit that people’s conscious are secondary to governmental dictate, thus you admit being a fascist. Now let me be honest with you. I think all fascists should be lined up on a wall and shot, but my conscious prevents me from acting on that without fascists first trying to force themselves upon me. But you better pray to God that people let their conscious prevail over any governmental dictate in the future that requires us to kill those deemed unprotected classes.

NotCoach on March 6, 2014 at 10:16 AM

If being in support of anti-discrimination laws makes me a “fascist” then I thank you for the compliment.

mazer9 on March 6, 2014 at 10:17 AM

I go to a nondenominational Christian Bible church, and their philosophy is to condemn the sin, not the sinners. All people are welcome at the church, but certain acts are not condoned. It seems reasonable that that philosophy would carry over to Christian business owners.

lea on March 6, 2014 at 10:18 AM

I’m really agnostic on the idea of gay marriage, per se, but I don’t doubt for one second that on average the majority is now in favor of the idea. The arguments presented here are a decade out of date. Have you actually tried to make this argument to a gay person ? I’m sure that went well.
I don’t know where you came from, but if this is the direction Hotair is leaning, it will quickly be off the read list. I’ve already noted two posts from you and I’m not impressed.
deadrody on March 6, 2014 at 10:05 AM

I am gay, and I don’t have a problem with Dustin’s argument.

But with antireligious bigots like yourself who think you can speak on my behalf and use my sexual orientation to push your hatred of Christians, churches and morality I DO have a problem.

northdallasthirty on March 6, 2014 at 10:18 AM

When you’ve been told by a wedding photographer that they don’t want to do business with you because they disagree with your lifestyle, and you, via the legal system, compel them to do it anyway, you’ve just announced to the world that you don’t really care about the quality of the pictures. You’ve just announced to the world that your “special day” really isn’t all that special after all; at least not as special as forcing someone to provide you a service against their moral and/or religious principles. You’ve just announced to the world that all you’re interested in is rubbing someone else’s nose in your own steaming pile.

And this is the easiest solution for people that don’t want to participate in something they don’t believe in. Not all services are created equal. If a provider doesn’t believe in giving a service that is not up to par with a wedding he does believe in what will be the recourse then when the wedding pictures come back all out of focus or most of the shots are of your feet.

Or for that matter, what is stopping a photographer or wedding planner, cake baker, whatever from quoting an outrageous price for his service. Knowing it is costing him more by violating his religious beliefs, he should be justified in passing that cost on to the consumer. Simply charge a million dollars for a cake, and see how much of your business they truly want.

Totodog on March 6, 2014 at 10:19 AM

I mean like Christy Canyon wide open.
 
Bishop on March 6, 2014 at 10:17 AM

 
I’m so old I thought you were making a geography reference until I googled it.

rogerb on March 6, 2014 at 10:19 AM

What if the group isn’t officially defined as a “known hate group”? It seems like your criteria is now proving detrimental effects and that is wide, wide open, I mean like Christy Canyon wide open.

Bishop on March 6, 2014 at 10:17 AM

Well I was given the KKK as a hypothetical and they are a known hate group.

mazer9 on March 6, 2014 at 10:19 AM

mazer9 on March 6, 2014 at 9:57 AM

That’s about the expected level of vapidity….and I noticed the questions went unanswered – in particular the last one.

So, if a private business owner, simply because they decided to open a business, no longer has the rights of free speech, association, or the free exercise of their religion, why can’t the state then force a church that opposes SSM to conduct SSM?

Arguing it hurts their religious sensibilities shouldn’t be sufficient.

The thing is, when it comes to federally recognized suspect classes, race, religion, national origin, and alienation are the four that exist and are subject to strict scrutiny. Those ‘religious sensibilities’ are protected / sufficient under the Constitution despite how much someone wishes they didn’t…or how much someone wants to invoke tyranny in the name of ‘social justice’.

Athos on March 6, 2014 at 10:19 AM

What if the group isn’t officially defined as a “known hate group”? It seems like your criteria is now proving detrimental effects and that is wide, wide open, I mean like Christy Canyon wide open.

Bishop on March 6, 2014 at 10:17 AM

Well, you see, h8 groups are often those designated as such by those who are pushing the gay marriage thing. It’s a circular sort of thing. If the SOuthern Baptists say they are against gay marraige, then voila! The SBC will be a hate group. You don’t believe me? Just watch.

ddrintn on March 6, 2014 at 10:20 AM

*marriage

ddrintn on March 6, 2014 at 10:20 AM

Why don’t people like you when they make this point insist we build a temple and do animal sacrifice for the remission of sins too?

Rocks on March 6, 2014 at 10:09 AM

That’s exactly what I don’t understand. As a Deist I acknowledge a God but I don’t understand how religions who have specific texts get to pick and choose what parts they follow and don’t follow.

argusx2002 on March 6, 2014 at 10:21 AM

I think you sort of lose out on those “association” rights when you open a business that serves the public. Otherwise, there would probably still be restaurants that could refuse to serve black people.

mazer9 on March 6, 2014 at 9:41 AM

There is a difference between opening a business which is a public conveyance, and contracting for an event. You can make a case for the former, but the latter is problematic as it forces you to be ‘hired’ at the whim of another person.

Ricard on March 6, 2014 at 10:21 AM

Gay marriage cost me nothing. What do I care.

argusx2002 on March 6, 2014 at 10:02 AM

Gay marriage is about obtaining financial benefits. Of course there is a cost. Who do you think bears the cost? The children of heterosexuals who are going to inherit 17 trillion of debt.

Just remember, if the Windsors were sisters, liberals would have been complaining that they didn’t want to pay their fair share of taxes.

monalisa on March 6, 2014 at 10:22 AM

All good points, but it actually is “better” for society if men choose women as partners and not other men. Individuals are equal, but the unions they form are not. It is the natural procreative nature of heterosexual unions – which creates natural mothers and fathers – which is necessary to a growing society.

This is the logic that Utah is pursuing.

monalisa on March 6, 2014 at 9:52 AM

No argument. Interesting.

(Please don’t mistake any one-foot-in-front-of-the-other of mine for an argument against complimentary positions. I’m just trying to step on particular mines. :)

Axe on March 6, 2014 at 10:22 AM

That’s exactly what I don’t understand. As a Deist I acknowledge a God but I don’t understand how religions who have specific texts get to pick and choose what parts they follow and don’t follow.

argusx2002 on March 6, 2014 at 10:21 AM

“As a believer in republican government I don’t understand how you can pick and choose between the Magna Carta and the US Constitution.” Silly.

ddrintn on March 6, 2014 at 10:22 AM

Agreed. This was one of the most cringe-worthy posts I’ve ever read on this site.
mazer9 on March 6, 2014 at 10:10 AM

But both of you would be barking and clapping like trained seals if he’d wished death on all conservatives, so no one cares.

northdallasthirty on March 6, 2014 at 10:23 AM

Have you read the Constitution? Enumerated rights in the Constitution are described as inherit by the language ‘shall not be infringed’.

NotCoach on March 6, 2014 at 9:53 AM

The game has changed, NotCoach. For Madison, Jefferson, et al., who were well-versed in both Natural Law and Natural Rights stemming from Natural Law, the Constitution was merely an iteration, an attempt to enumerate those Natural Rights that the Crown had sought to curtail. Statists and communists have command of the dialogue now. The Constitution doesn’t “enumerate” rights (enumeration infers listing already existing rights), it “grants” rights. Such a distinction gives the impression that all you need to do is change the Constitution, and POOF! rights are added or subtracted on a whim. This is why the question is insidious and is attempting to create a narrative.

mrteachersir on March 6, 2014 at 10:23 AM

Well, you see, h8 groups are often those designated as such by those who are pushing the gay marriage thing. It’s a circular sort of thing. If the SOuthern Baptists say they are against gay marraige, then voila! The SBC will be a hate group. You don’t believe me? Just watch.

ddrintn on March 6, 2014 at 10:20 AM

Frankly, I’m still waiting for all the doomsday prognosticating about DADT repeal causing mass exodus of straights from the US military to come to fruition. What’s taking so long?

JetBoy on March 6, 2014 at 10:23 AM

If being in support of anti-discrimination laws makes me a “fascist” then I thank you for the compliment.

mazer9 on March 6, 2014 at 10:17 AM

You’re welcome, fascist.

Ever hear of the Dunning–Kruger effect? Yeah. You’re too stupid to get it. Forcing people to violate their conscious is the ultimate governmental tyranny.

NotCoach on March 6, 2014 at 10:24 AM

where’s the public flaying of the gay hairdresser who refused to serve the governor of New Mexico because of the latter’s opposition to same-sex “marriage”?

Gays, unlike Christians, have the right to refuse service to people when providing such service would conflict with their beliefs because . . . . uh, well as George Orwell explained, all animals are equal (but some are more equal than others).

AZCoyote on March 6, 2014 at 10:24 AM

Well I was given the KKK as a hypothetical and they are a known hate group.

mazer9 on March 6, 2014 at 10:19 AM

So don’t use the KKK.

Can a bar have ladies night? Can a restaurant have seniors night for the over 55 crowd? Should a halal catering company be forced to cater the Pork Producers of America annual convention?

Bishop on March 6, 2014 at 10:24 AM

That’s exactly what I don’t understand. As a Deist I acknowledge a God but I don’t understand how religions who have specific texts get to pick and choose what parts they follow and don’t follow.
argusx2002 on March 6, 2014 at 10:21 AM

That’s because you’re busy trying to rationalize why your belief system is better by claiming everyone else is a hypocrite.

Christians can explain things very readily, but when dealing with reactionary bigots like you who insist Christians are hypocrites because you don’t understand their Scripture, it’s generally a lost cause.

northdallasthirty on March 6, 2014 at 10:25 AM

Frankly, I’m still waiting for all the doomsday prognosticating about DADT repeal causing mass exodus of straights from the US military to come to fruition. What’s taking so long?

JetBoy on March 6, 2014 at 10:23 AM

Weren’t you saying not too long ago that there wouldn’t be lawsuits against “straight” photogs and churches and churches and bakers and the like? That was just alarmist talk, wasn’t it?

ddrintn on March 6, 2014 at 10:25 AM

Gay marriage cost me nothing. What do I care.

argusx2002 on March 6, 2014 at 10:02 AM

Forcing blacks to the back of the bus doesn’t cost me anything either so I must assume you support segregation.

Thank you for proving you’re a racist.

Kingfisher on March 6, 2014 at 10:26 AM

You see Cal Thomas’ column? Biblical thing to do would be to go ahead and bake the cake. This is where we’re going. All you need is love, man. Sickening, sweet Christianity with no power to deliver anyone from anything.

/end-aside-hijack, just talkin’, etc.

Axe on March 6, 2014 at 10:12 AM

Didn’t, but I have it saved to read later Axe. off to dig a hole and kill trees.

hawkdriver on March 6, 2014 at 10:26 AM

* minus one of the “and churches” above, of course

ddrintn on March 6, 2014 at 10:26 AM

I think you sort of lose out on those “association” rights when you open a business that serves the public. Otherwise, there would probably still be restaurants that could refuse to serve black people.

mazer9 on March 6, 2014 at 9:41 AM

Show me where, in the Bible, that Christians are required to reject people based upon their physical traits rather than their practices and I’ll agree with you.

(Sound of crickets)

Kingfisher on March 6, 2014 at 10:28 AM

If being in support of anti-discrimination laws makes me a “fascist” then I thank you for the compliment.
mazer9 on March 6, 2014 at 10:17 AM

Ah, but you aren’t.

You admitted that “anti discrimination” laws don’t protect everyone, just “protected classes”.

Which means they are segregation and Jim Crow laws.

northdallasthirty on March 6, 2014 at 10:28 AM

Why would an unchanging God require different covenants?

mazer9 on March 6, 2014 at 10:08 AM

Because that’s the way He wants it, I guess.

ddrintn on March 6, 2014 at 10:14 AM

A covenant is basically a contract, and the Bible records more than two between man and God. Man has a tendency to break them.

Axe on March 6, 2014 at 10:28 AM

northdallasthirty on March 6, 2014 at 10:02 AM

Let’s not forget how the media wishes the inconveniently heterosexual identical twin brother of their favorite NBA player didn’t exist.

Although, I’m sure there’s a “scientific” explanation for the disparity. He probably hogged all the masculine hormones in the womb, or something.

Herod on March 6, 2014 at 10:29 AM

Christians can explain things very readily, but when dealing with reactionary bigots like you who insist Christians are hypocrites because you don’t understand their Scripture, it’s generally a lost cause.

northdallasthirty on March 6, 2014 at 10:25 AM

That’s why, some time ago, I made a decision to never engage in a debate with a non-believer over my beliefs. It accomplishes nothing. They don’t want to be convinced, and I will not be moved. I don’t owe them an explanation, and come to think of it, neither does God.

Besides, it’s Biblical.

2 Timothy 2:23 — But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do engender strife.

CurtZHP on March 6, 2014 at 10:30 AM

Frankly, I’m still waiting for all the doomsday prognosticating about DADT repeal causing mass exodus of straights from the US military to come to fruition. What’s taking so long?

JetBoy on March 6, 2014 at 10:23 AM

Then it must have been the crack talking during one of your little fantasies because I have heard or read nothing of the sort.

Come to think of it, if gays can serve with honor then why is it so f*cking important to announce to the rest of the military that you’re gay? As usual, homosexuals believe that the rest of the world revolves around them.

Kingfisher on March 6, 2014 at 10:31 AM

A covenant is basically a contract, and the Bible records more than two between man and God. Man has a tendency to break them.

Axe on March 6, 2014 at 10:28 AM

Yep, there are by most counts 7 or 8. But if there is a God, why does He need to rely on 66 canonical books when He could’ve just settled on one? *tongue in cheek, as you know what the game is*

ddrintn on March 6, 2014 at 10:31 AM

Why would an unchanging God require different covenants?
mazer9 on March 6, 2014 at 10:08 AM

Fulfillment. Revelation is progressive.

tommyboy on March 6, 2014 at 10:31 AM

Can a bar have ladies night? Can a restaurant have seniors night for the over 55 crowd? Should a halal catering company be forced to cater the Pork Producers of America annual convention?

Bishop on March 6, 2014 at 10:24 AM

“Hooters.”

I’m not putting it in the form of a question. :)

Axe on March 6, 2014 at 10:32 AM

Frankly, I’m still waiting for all the doomsday prognosticating about DADT repeal causing mass exodus of straights from the US military to come to fruition. What’s taking so long?
JetBoy on March 6, 2014 at 10:23 AM

Easy.

There’s what you wanted, JetBoy; a military where advancement is through adherence to political reliability and gay- sex bigotry instead of military requirements.

northdallasthirty on March 6, 2014 at 10:32 AM

argusx2002 on March 6, 2014 at 10:21 AM

So you’re the deist that gives the rest of us a bad name.

Educate yourself.

cozmo on March 6, 2014 at 10:32 AM

Have you read the Constitution? Enumerated rights in the Constitution are described as inherit by the language ‘shall not be infringed’.

NotCoach on March 6, 2014 at 9:53 AM

Yes I have. I don’t think we’re disagreeing.

yaedon on March 6, 2014 at 10:32 AM

…make me a sammich!

KOOLAID2 on March 6, 2014 at 10:32 AM

If being in support of anti-discrimination laws makes me a “fascist” then I thank you for the compliment.

mazer9 on March 6, 2014 at 10:17 AM

Well there we have it.

I don’t feel guilty for being a heteronormative catholic cracka and as such for defending traditional family values….despite the flailing on social and mainstream media…

The Gay Marriage Lobby had their chance with the common sense solution of civil unions…But they wanted to go after the Religions and those that practice their religious beliefs.

Wendy Davis lost 1/2 of the border electorate counties in the Texas primary over her abortion barbie stunt…she lost them to her primary challenger who was a pro-life democrat…imagine that?

She’ll be trounced in the upcoming election for Governor.

Why?

Because those pesky traditionalists just keep objecting to the social anarchy caused by the Leftist Fascists.

workingclass artist on March 6, 2014 at 10:33 AM

What’s taking so long?
JetBoy on March 6, 2014 at 10:23 AM

Becasue it’s illegal to leave before your enlistment is up.

tommyboy on March 6, 2014 at 10:34 AM

Oh, heck another gay thread on HotAir with the same old argruments. I will sit this one out.

SC.Charlie on March 6, 2014 at 10:34 AM

Did anyone give up posting on gay threads on Hot Air for Lent? Didn’t think so.

monalisa on March 6, 2014 at 10:34 AM

Arguing it hurts their religious sensibilities shouldn’t be sufficient.

mazer9 on March 6, 2014 at 10:07 AM

Silly me. And I thought that freedom of religion thing meant just that. Not freedom of religion as long as it doesn’t piss anyone else off.

Lanceman on March 6, 2014 at 10:34 AM

I mean like Christy Canyon wide open.

Bishop on March 6, 2014 at 10:17 AM

I’m so old I thought you were making a geography reference until I googled it.

rogerb on March 6, 2014 at 10:19 AM

I, um, did not.

Have to Google it, I mean.

. . . just disclosure.

I’m a work in progress/leave me alone.

Axe on March 6, 2014 at 10:35 AM

Did anyone give up posting on gay threads on Hot Air for Lent? Didn’t think so.

monalisa on March 6, 2014 at 10:34 AM

I’m giving up Lent for Lent.

CurtZHP on March 6, 2014 at 10:35 AM

I don’t know where you came from, but if this is the direction Hotair is leaning, it will quickly be off the read list. I’ve already noted two posts from you and I’m not impressed.
deadrody on March 6, 2014 at 10:05 AM
Agreed. This was one of the most cringe-worthy posts I’ve ever read on this site.
mazer9 on March 6, 2014 at 10:10 AM

We still have AP, and Ed tends to be much more nuanced.

MinnesotaSlinger on March 6, 2014 at 10:36 AM

Schadenfreude

Bmore on March 6, 2014 at 10:36 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 11