- Joined
- Dec 3, 2011
- Messages
- 10,051
liaerfbv|1435670251|3896745 said:telephone89|1435612648|3896487 said:I think it is one thing for a private business/company to deny services (ie that pizza place somewhere that wouldn't cater a gay wedding). I don't agree with it, but at least you don't work for the government. I really don't see how its going to fly that govt employees can deny someone else their RIGHT, as made so by the FEDERAL government.
I believe one issue that has come up is that some churches feel they will be obligated to marry gay couples, and I dont know exactly how it will play out in the US, but in Canada the church is still considered private, and may marry who they wish. So, again, not impeding on THEIR specific beliefs, or forcing them to do anything they dont want.
Its interesting though. You say something like 'well would you not cater/marry/whatever a black couple?' And its all of a sudden 'oh no no no, thats totally different, we love different races, look at how diverse we are!!!111!!' . There is still racism, but it is far less acceptable to be 'publicly' racist. Right now, it is still acceptable to be 'publicly' homophobic. It will change, but it may not be quick.
We were talking about this at work yesterday, and though I 100% support the ruling, I don't think churches should be forced to perform SSMs if it goes against their teachings. It's interesting to see how this will be handled, particularly with the federal tax-exempt status afforded to most churches.
I agree with this 100%...