And if one is able to refuse service on the basis of the content and nature of the products they are asked to produce, then the market will self-regulate. For example, if a guy is way too sensitive over a broad range of topics, he may refuse many people service, but you realize that this guy will go bankrupt rather quickly?It feels as if you're implying that when people are given the rights to refuse to make products which violate their consience, then there would be anarchy and everyone will refuse anyone service, because people dislike many things in general. No, it will be self-regulated. If you refuse service to many people, then fewer will come, your customers will be narrowed down to exceptions. There will be always who are after the profit and won't refuse service.
Well, that deescalated quickly....http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/10/24/theres-a-big-development-in-the-debate-surrounding-the-christian-ministers-who-refuse-to-marry-gays-inside-their-for-profit-chapel/
Lawyer: ACLU Is ‘Terrified’ and ‘Running Scared’ From the Case of the Christian Ministers Who Refuse to Marry Gays Inside Their Chapel
Actually, Crash, these laws aren't anti-SSM, you qualifying them as such is only to attach more emotional force to your words, however it is not the actual case here. These laws are anti-SSM as much as the definition of a cook is anti-all-professions-other-than-cook. No. Being a cook has a fixed definition - a person who has the ability to cook meals and its definition isn't there to be anti-people-who-cannot-cook-meals, but to mean what its definition means. But those who cannot cook do not go to ask those who can to change the definition of cook, or the very profession of cooks, because it discriminates against them(who cannot cook).
So, marriage is between a man and a woman, because that's what its purpose is, not because people want to exclude same sex marriages. The understanding of marriage has been such even before tehre were gay activists to lobby for SSM.
And for you to say that it is harmful, because it doesn't include people who wish to be included is simply not understanding semantics and language and its purpose, as well as the institution of marriage itself. When people decided that lawyer would mean a person who studies and applies the law, they didn't do it so that they exclude metal smithers, or carpenters, but because they wanted this word to have the purpose to describe what they wanted it to describe. Right?
And in this case - marriage as an institution, ritual and concept has always been between man and woman. Just as someone who can cook has always been called cook, not to discriminate against other pofessions, but becuase this is what the purpose of the concept/word/definition is.
You intertwining interracial weddings with SSM is also wrong, because interracial weddings issues are based on rase differences, something which the institution isn't concerned about and doesn't have a criteria about. Besides, discrimination based on rase is wrong, regardless of the area in question - whether that be weddings, evaluating job applicants, providing service of any sort. Whilst refusing to marry a gay couple is on the basis of the concept of marriage, not based on the person who is about to get married.
If you change marriage to include same sex couples, then it will then be no longer marriage, just as if you change definition of cook to include people who cannot cook, will no longer be cook.
And yes, they are asking me to change my concept, because there are legal consequences and I will be persecuted by the law if I refused to marry same sex couples. They can easily sue me, because that would be treated by the law as breaking of the law - since I am refusing to apply the legal definition of the word in my working enviroment. Yes, personally I may hold to the definition, but the legal treatment of the word woldn't care if I perceive of marriage as between only man and woman only, just as they don't care if I define murder as "being sweet to another person" if they sue me for killing someone.
changing the definition of marriage to include SSM doesn't mean it affects anything or anybody else. It just means now same sex couples can get married to each other.
It certainly has affected ministers/pastors.
Quote from: Trinity on October 24, 2014, 06:04:54 pmIt certainly has affected ministers/pastors.Business owners, who are offering state marriage, in certain areas, possibly.
Even with that in mind, joey's claim that ''changing the definition of marriage to include SSM doesn't mean it affects anything or anybody else'' is false.1. X does not affect anybody.2. X affects business owners.3. Therefore (1) is false.
Quote from: Crash Test on October 24, 2014, 07:06:50 pmQuote from: Trinity on October 24, 2014, 06:04:54 pmIt certainly has affected ministers/pastors.Business owners, who are offering state marriage, in certain areas, possibly.Even with that in mind, joey's claim that ''changing the definition of marriage to include SSM doesn't mean it affects anything or anybody else'' is false.1. X does not affect anybody.2. X affects business owners.3. Therefore (1) is false.
Quote from: kravarnik on October 24, 2014, 05:54:04 amAnd if one is able to refuse service on the basis of the content and nature of the products they are asked to produce, then the market will self-regulate. For example, if a guy is way too sensitive over a broad range of topics, he may refuse many people service, but you realize that this guy will go bankrupt rather quickly?It feels as if you're implying that when people are given the rights to refuse to make products which violate their consience, then there would be anarchy and everyone will refuse anyone service, because people dislike many things in general. No, it will be self-regulated. If you refuse service to many people, then fewer will come, your customers will be narrowed down to exceptions. There will be always who are after the profit and won't refuse service.One of the express purposes of anti-discrimination laws are to ensure that services are freely available in the market, and to specifically protect classes of people from the burdens they may otherwise face if such services were to be denied to them. To be honest, I didn't think too much of this purpose until I read the New Mexico Supreme Court Decision in the Elaine Photophaphy vs Vanessa Willock case (where photography services were denied to a lesbian couple). Basically, the point of making services freely available to people is to protect them from unwanted economic hardships that cause disruption to their lives due to the fact that they are of that class. I find this point to be fairly unobjectionable if one agrees that people ought not face economic or survival hardships due to the ability to obtain services that available, which most people would in principle agree with, myself included. To make this point clear think of this scenario. Imagine a single grocery store in a small isolated town refusing to sell its products and services to a certain class of people for whatever reason. Such a denial of service might prove disastrous to that class of people. It could well mean that the most basic of necessities are out of reach for them; that simply providing food on the table is now very difficult, even if money isn't at all an issue. Now one might differentiate a single grocery store providing the only source of food from a more expressive type business like those in the wedding industry but the economic hardships are still potentially present in both, though obviously in different degrees. For example, what if that same isolated town has only one business that provides wedding services (ie. photography, catering etc)? If a same-sex couple living in that town seeks to get married and use their services but is denied due to the nature of their relationship then the consequences of that could well be economic hardship for that couple. The couple may be forced to go out of town to obtain the same services. And even that's not guaranteed. Many businesses offering wedding services only operate within a certain distance (usually locally). If this hypothetical town was significantly far from a populated urban center, and the same-sex couple only wished to get married in that town, it may well be the case that other wedding businesses outside that town aren't willing to travel the distance to this town provide their services. The couple's situation becomes even more difficult in this area. Again, the economic hardship on this couple may be significant, which is precisely what anti-discrimination laws are designed in part to prevent, among other things. What the above points out is that it's not enough to just let the market self regulate. In urban settings where many different kinds of the same service are available, self-regulation may present no difficulties or problems at all for the diverse people who live there, but in other geographical and regional contexts, it might be quite different. It might be the difference between merely going down the street to get a different service in one setting and not receiving any services at all in another.
Also, Crash, do not expect an answer to your latest reply to me in this thread. Your respnse is pretty much a waste of time to even consder replying to. You didn't even try to deal with my points, but responded with one-liners that do not explain anything. You barely even commented on my essential points.I'm sorry, I don't think you understand how marriage works and what tradition is. ANd that tradition means a lot to a great number of people - way more than the minority of homosexuals, or atheists - so, in your eyes you're not doing anything wrong. But there are traditionalists who have as much right to keep things as they are as progressive minorities. Once again, I'll repeat this. Marriage isn't defined as such as to exlude SS couples, but because the purpose of it is to be between a man and a woman. It wasn't made so that gay people may be together. Just as science is about people who do science - and those who cannot do science do not go to scienists and ask them to change science to include also people who cannot do science - so, they do science and they didn't define it as such just to exclude people who cannot do science.
A church building, often simply called a church, is a building used for religious activities, particularly worship services. The term in its architectural sense is most often used by Christians to refer to their religious buildings but can be used by other religions. In traditional Christian architecture, the church is often arranged in the shape of a Christian cross. When viewed from plan view the longest part of a cross is represented by the aisle and the junction of the cross is located at the altar area. Towers or domes are often added with the intention of directing the eye of the viewer towards the heavens and inspiring church visitors. Modern church buildings have a variety of architectural styles and layouts; many buildings that were designed for other purposes have now been converted for church use; and, similarly, many original church buildings have been put to other uses. The earliest identified Christian church was founded between 233 and 256. During the 11th through 14th centuries, a wave of building of cathedrals and smaller parish churches occurred across Western Europe. A cathedral is a church, usually Roman Catholic, Anglican, Oriental Orthodox or Eastern Orthodox, housing the seat of a bishop.