Couple must pay lesbian couple $1500 each, on top of 10K fine

[Eeset]

This thread could use a theme song.

Bolero in the court yard.

 

[rexlunae]

They are who marry them, which is why they cited their beliefs on it.

I'm pretty sure you're misreading that, as others have said. They were only asked to provide the venue, not the service, the venue is non-religious, which puts it in a totally different category.

If you can show that they are being fined for refusing to perform the ceremony themselves, I'll be the first to support their appeal. But normally people are married by some kind of minister or other qualified individual, and nothing I can find suggests that the Giffords are even that.

You dont seem to understand that wedding chappels and honeymoon resorts and such usually have the hosts perform wedding services. Most often the host of the property is certified to perform weddings.

That's not true. Some venues may offer their own ministers, but it's far from universal. Lots of people want to bring their own pastor.

The articles that have been posted only indicate that the McCarthys were interested in the venue. Lets keep to the facts actually in evidence instead of making up convenient conjectures.

 

[Eeset]

I suspect the Giffords are laughing all the way to the bank. This is the kind of marketing you just can't buy. It happens.

 

[annabenedetti]

Sorry anna, i dont see it that way, i see them trying to defend themselves and show that they indeed arent attempting to discriminate against anyone, but that they will not cross the line and perform an abomination before God.

I know, and understand that we won't find much to agree on here.

I'm interested in what you think about the last part of what I said, though. Do you see any hypocrisy there at all?

Sometimes someone out there represents what you believe in but they don't do it in the best way, because they - like all of us - are limited by our humanness. There is no perfect, in that sense.

Angel, this post is for you, not for the guys hiding under the couch.

It seems to me that perhaps the Giffords may have been accustomed to being self-righteously prejudicial in denying equal access, and then they got caught.

Their hapless hauling out and parading of their token gays

would be dark comedic if it wasn't so insulting to their employees and so clearly indicative that their "we respect and care for everyone!" is a talk without a walk, and their "we don't discriminate against anyone" obviously wasn't true prior to the court case.

And yet, they got to have their wedding cake and eat it too, because the minute they took money as the venue for the celebration of what they believe to be sinful is the minute they lost any credibility as some sort of last bastion in the culture wars.

 

[Ha Nazir]

The problem is that through your words, you and Musterion show that you look down your nose at them, you consider yourself better than them.

Maybe because you're a Luke 18:11 kind of Christian.

And you're not a Luke 18:11 kind of Christian? How ironic it is then that you try to find fault with others.

FYI, there will always be lesser and greater persons in this world. If not, why doesn't everyone understand Albert Einstein's work? Why would anybody have a preference of one theologian over another. We are not all on equal ground; some of us in much better places than others.

No personal offence intended, this is just for the record.

 

[Truster]

What a lovely couple......... not. lain:
What a racket. :nono:

‘We’ve gone from tolerance to compulsion,’ the Giffords’ lawyer, James Trainor, told the New York Post.

http://universalfreepress.com/punis...fused-to-marry-gay-couple-will-infuriate-you/

I would never employ a homosexual.
I do have to deal with clients that are in same sex relationships.
I have to purchase products off obviously homosexual shop assistants.
I would never invite a homosexual into my home or into a social event.
I would buy a plane ticket off a openly homosexual attendant.
I would never encourage or approve of homosexuality.

I also know that, there, but for grace, go I.

 

[Totton Linnet]

I would say they were sisters too...I would certainly have investigated that.

Now this is easy to say my friends but Christians if they want to defeat this will have to start going to prison for the right of freedom of conscience. Conscience is most surely a human right.

 

[rexlunae]

I would never employ a homosexual.

Don't mind me. Just saving this quote for posterity.

I also know that, there, but for grace, go I.

Awfully capricious, that "grace"...

 

[kmoney]

Angel, this post is for you, not for the guys hiding under the couch.

It seems to me that perhaps the Giffords may have been accustomed to being self-righteously prejudicial in denying equal access, and then they got caught.

Their hapless hauling out and parading of their token gays

would be dark comedic if it wasn't so insulting to their employees and so clearly indicative that their "we respect and care for everyone!" is a talk without a walk, and their "we don't discriminate against anyone" obviously wasn't true prior to the court case.

And yet, they got to have their wedding cake and eat it too, because the minute they took money as the venue for the celebration of what they believe to be sinful is the minute they lost any credibility as some sort of last bastion in the culture wars.

Good post. I think they lose credibility if they agree to host the reception.

I wonder what their gay ex-employee would say. :think:

 

[Angel4Truth]

I know, and understand that we won't find much to agree on here.

I'm interested in what you think about the last part of what I said, though. Do you see any hypocrisy there at all?

Would i do it? No, but i see their point too. Actually marrying someone is different than letting someone use a party space. Renting a space isnt participating in marrying them.

If they refused to rent for parties based on the sins of the people having a party, they wouldn't have anyone to rent to. That situation is much like a hotel renting a space, the hotel isnt endorsing those having a party, they would be if they married them, its a different situation.

 

[Desert Reign]

One way to find out. Do you consider yourself superior to them?

I'll take you up on that one Anna.

Yes, I do consider myself superior to them. Better. Clevererer, call it what you like.
It's not that I am unmerciful. I am the most merciful and forgiving you would want to meet. The issue is that these people do what they do knowingly and in full defiance of known morality. They didn't decide on a whim to get married; they knew exactly what it entailed. And in this case, they singled out the Christian people. They are the ones who are being offensive, not the people who own the ranch.
And it's not that I am or feel superior. It is that they make themselves lower. They do what they do not merely because they are stupid, which would be forgivable, but for the love of stupidity, not because they are inferior but for the love of inferiority, for the express purpose of glorifying wickedness and hatred towards God and those who love him.
Cheers,

 

[Tambora]

Is drinking to excess ok if one has a gene that causes alcoholism?

No, it's not OK.
But it won't affect their salvation.

 

[bybee]

No, it's not OK.
But it won't affect their salvation.

Each of us has challenges. One either exercises one's will to do the right thing or one gives in to temptation.
"Do no harm!" is a good basis for behavior.

 

[Traditio]

For an act of God, marriage sure has a high failure rate.

Matthew 19:6.

 

[annabenedetti]

I'll take you up on that one Anna.

Yes, I do consider myself superior to them. Better. Clevererer, call it what you like.

Well, at least you're honest about it.

The issue is that these people do what they do knowingly and in full defiance of known morality.

You're presuming to read their minds, and that's above even a superior, better, cleverer pay grade. Maybe their morality isn't your morality, and in that light I can't help but remember back to our unresolved disagreement in the upskirt thread:

I suggest the problem arises from growing up in a monoculture. Perhaps many of you will hate me for saying it but in the States you don't get so much interaction with other cultures as there is in other countries. You are culturally isolated. In Europe it is on your doorstep. Many of you here seem to equate morality/immorality with right and wrong, or good and evil. If this were the case then why do we use separate words? You grow up with your society's ideas of acceptable standards and they get programmed into your sub-conscious as if they were absolute things. It is regarded as normal to lie on the beach in a bikini but I assure you that in times not so long past and in countries not so far away today you would have been prosecuted for immoral behaviour and all your protestations that you have the right to do so and it is your choice what to display of yourself in public on the beach, which to you now seem like absolute unquestionable things, would have fallen on uncomprehending ears and you would have got a fine or imprisonment and likely been labelled as a whore.

Perhaps they see no immorality in being with someone they love, and it has nothing to do with a desire to be defiant, and you're presuming to speak for them.

They didn't decide on a whim to get married; they knew exactly what it entailed.

You have absolutely no way of knowing this. Do you not think that straight people get married on a whim all the time? That they have any idea at all what marriage entails? Really entails?

And in this case, they singled out the Christian people. They are the ones who are being offensive, not the people who own the ranch.

I don't know that they singled them out, do you? And I happen to think the people who own the place are offensive, first for being prejudiced and second for profiting off the very marriages they find offensive.

And it's not that I am or feel superior.

You just said you were.

It is that they make themselves lower. They do what they do not merely because they are stupid, which would be forgivable, but for the love of stupidity, not because they are inferior but for the love of inferiority, for the express purpose of glorifying wickedness and hatred towards God and those who love him.
Cheers,

Really. Is that the omniscience that being cleverer grants you?

 

[annabenedetti]

Matthew 19:6.

And yet, they're separated all over the place.

 

[Spitfire]

Hmmmm... if a man/woman couple wants to get married, but they've both been married and divorced, and if, because of his religious beliefs, the first minister they go to says "Sorry, I won't remarry people who've been divorced," is that a civil rights issue?

 

[annabenedetti]

Hmmmm... if a man/woman couple wants to get married, but they've both been married and divorced, and if, because of his religious beliefs, the first minister they go to says "Sorry, I won't remarry people who've been divorced," is that a civil rights issue?

No. Clergy may opt out. Depending on the denomination though, it's often not a problem.

 

[The Barbarian]

We are not all on equal ground; some of us in much better places than others.

Not before God. We are all sinners, and fallen short. Be grateful that He is merciful and forgiving, and then be willing to accord the same thing to others, lest you be like the servant who was ungrateful:

Matthew 18:32 Then his lord called him; and said to him: Thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all the debt, because thou besoughtest me: [33] Shouldst not thou then have had compassion also on thy fellow servant, even as I had compassion on thee?

 

[Desert Reign]

Well, at least you're honest about it.
You're presuming to read their minds, and that's above even a superior, better, cleverer pay grade. Maybe their morality isn't your morality, and in that light I can't help but remember back to our unresolved disagreement in the upskirt thread:

Thanks for reminding me of that. When Adam and Eve saw that they were naked, they made loin cloths from fig leaves. They didn't make a bra for her.

Perhaps they see no immorality in being with someone they love, and it has nothing to do with a desire to be defiant, and you're presuming to speak for them.

I'm not speaking for them. I'm speaking for myself. If all they were interested in was love for each other, they wouldn't have sought so much publicity.

You have absolutely no way of knowing this. Do you not think that straight people get married on a whim all the time? That they have any idea at all what marriage entails? Really entails?

It's simple: because they would have needed time to plan a wedding reception.

I don't know that they singled them out, do you? And I happen to think the people who own the place are offensive, first for being prejudiced and second for profiting off the very marriages they find offensive.

On the contrary, they were being generous. I would do the same. If I were running a hotel, I would allow homosexuals to stay. But I would not let them get married on the premises.

You just said you were.

Really. Is that the omniscience that being cleverer grants you?

I don't take comfort in my level of intelligence (whatever that is). I don't feel superior to person y because he is less intelligent than me or inferior to person x because he is more intelligent than me. The issue is that these people make themselves inferior, as I pointed out. They revel in it.

But they will not last long. Because a lasting relationship needs to be based on more than defiance. When finally everybody leaves them alone, they have to live with themselves regardless of who they are defying. They have to live with bad body odours, untidy habits, lack of punctuality, selfishness and so on. I doubt they will have enough to carry them through for very long.

No. Clergy may opt out. Depending on the denomination though, it's often not a problem.

So why should clergy be exempt? If you believe that lesbians should have equal rights with ordinary married people, how do you justify that someone who wears a cassock has more rights than a couple who let their ranch out for functions?