Important enough to ramble on about, wishing them bankruptcy, calling them names, since you have "absolutely HAD IT", "blah blah blah", in post after post after post. Seems they are "that important".
Politely declining to do business with someone for whatever reason is NOT hateful, prideful, or idiotic. And oh here is the laughable part, They aren't asking ANYONE to live by THEIR standards, but you sure are demanding that they live by YOURS. Pathetic.
So, do these "Christians" permit other types of weddings? civil ceremonies? Catholic? Buddhist? How about weddings where one of the parties is significantly older than the other? how about mixed weddings? Catholic and Muslim where the "Christian" is converting to Islam? Or Judaism? How about a Catholic wedding where one of they couple is divorced? Or is their "religious offense" only sensitive to Gays? Not familiar with the laws where they are but I do know right from wrong and their actions are wrong.
It's not an easy issue for me, either. I value liberty, but also recognize that sometimes one person's liberty conflicts with another's. In those instances, I consider it a question of who experiences the greater harm, along with the effects upon society as part of the bigger picture. In this instance, I am not persuaded that the owners of the venue will experience any real harm if they provide their services equally to the public. Nothing is allowed in my state. No marriage, no civil unions, no domestic partnerships (not even on a local level), no legal agreements that attempt to duplicate the protections of a legal marriage. It's more a situation of, "What the heck are they going to do to us next?" Moving somewhere else just isn't a realistic option for us. And there's no denying that religion does play a role in our state. Over half the funding for the campaign to pass my state's marriage amendment came from affiliates of the Catholic Church, and the Dutch Reformed Church and its 'cousins' have a strong presence on the west side of the state. I'm not anti-religion or anti-Christian, but that hardly means I'm required to turn a blind eye to their efforts to impose their religious beliefs about marriage on the rest of us through the tool of law. I'm not trying to change their beliefs. I simply demand that I'm entitled to my own. Thing is, I'm not seeking anyone's approval and I know that changing the law won't accomplish that anyway. I'm fully aware that it will never be safe for me to show even the most innocuous forms of affection for my husband in public the way that heterosexual couples do. I understand that changing the law won't stop people from giving us the evil eye in the supermarket if we dare to go shopping together. But there is a line to be drawn, and I draw it at the point where people try to use or exploit the law to put me at a disadvantage. I'm sick to death of the brand of Christians who think they're the boss of everyone else, including other Christians. I can distinguish between the majority who view their religion as a matter of personal faith and the mouthy minority who politicize it. The business operator isn't being asked to conduct the wedding or to actively participate in it. Renting a hall to members of the public for weddings is a business transaction, not a religious transaction. As a business establishment, they can prohibit certain activities on the premises as a matter of policy applied to all who rent that space. But prohibiting one segment of the public from renting the hall for the same purpose that others commonly do (such as a wedding) is another matter. On that, I agree. That offends me. Renting a hall for a same-sex wedding is not the equivalent of being shot at. Which is why we have laws to determine what is allowed, and what is not. In the state of Iowa, this kind of discrimination is not allowed. People are welcome to express the opinion that the law is trampling on some right, but I'm not obligated to share that opinion and its their burden to convince me of why their opinion is the right one. So far, I'm not convinced. I wasn't assuming that you were; merely using your post as a launchpad.
I disagree. There is a ton of information about how the Bible has been misconstrued to condemn homosexuality, in the same way it was misconstrued to justify the enslavement of African Americans. If we assume Jesus is all-knowing, then we must assume he understood that homosexuality could not possibly sinful. Homosexuals are doing nothing any differently than anyone else. Jesus was about love, and to say he would not have stood for love between two individuals just because they were the same sex is quite a leap. Ignorance has everything to do with it, just as ignorance had everything to do with the historical misconstructions of the bible to do harm to others, including its use to defend slavery. Simply having a belief does not make it true, and if the belief is false then holders of that belief are ignorant. I am sure I am ignorant about a lot of things--we all are. But I am not ignorant about the morality of homosexuality. There is nothing wrong or sinful about it. I am more certain about that than anything else. Yes it can. It's called a misinterpretation. With regards to this issue, you bet I am. And there are plenty of Christians who agree with me that have been reading the bible longer than either of us. The bible was not written in English, and many of the words used are ambiguous and can mean very different things when translated. That the concept of homosexuality did not exist when the Bible was written should right away make us skeptical that the bible so obviously condemns it. What has been translated to mean homosexual acts and the like could actual be referring to something different. Tell me the passages you believe argue homosexuality is a sin, and I will be glad to explain and point you towards the potential other meanings. For the same reason that people who disagree with black skin get called names like "racist", "hate-filled", and "ignorant". In every case, at least one of the terms applies. I am not meaning to use words like ignorance as a personal attack. I sincerely mean it to say that people simply do not understand the issue. Like I said, I am ignorant about a lot of things. Every human being is more ignorant than enlightened. I do not think you are hate-filled, or even very homophobic. But with all due respect I do believe you are ignorant on the nature of homosexuality. Again, no offense intended, it just needs to be said. Would you say somebody that says marriage between a black man and a white woman is sinful is ignorant? You would probably answer yes with certainty. Think about how ignorant it would sound to you if someone said the bible justifies the enslavement of black people. You would say "you are misinterpreting the bible" and would believe such a person is ignorant. To me the same is true with same-sex marriage and homosexuality.
Neither am I. Not in the slightest. But they are probably convinced they would be breaking a religious law, which scares them more than a secular law. I didn't know about the laws concerning gay marriage in your state, my comment was hypothetical. I'd fully support any effort in changing these laws, in that case I'm not conflicted at all. Both of you are entitled to your beliefs - which means any interaction between them and you would result in one party imposing their belief on the other. I think you misunderstood me here, because this is exactly what I wanted to point out but obviously couldn't. My mastery of the english language might be not as good as I thought. What I do understand perfectly well is the degree of sadness and frustration in that paragraph. I can't even begin to imagine what this must be like. I'm on your side, believe me. I didn't mean to offend you. Again, bad wording on my part. I apologize.
