knitten Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-opw...,0,291989.story Read this article in the newspaper today. It is shocking to read something like this and to know that there are people out there who agree with this woman's sentiments. How is supplying flowers or cakes or photographs against a person's religion? These are secular activities. I would like to hear from anyone who cares to share their opinion on this issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tryp Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Doesn't piss me off as much as pharmacists having the right to refuse to dole out birth control. I mean, it's annoying and bigoted, but if they're going to be homophobic, I wouldn't want those assholes at my wedding anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deepster Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 [link=http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-wilson3-2009may03,0,248550.stor" target="_blank]http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commen...3,0,248550.stor[/link] Read this article in the newspaper today. It is shocking to read something like this and to know that there are people out there who agree with this woman's sentiments. How is supplying flowers or cakes or photographs against a person's religion? These are secular activities. I would like to hear from anyone who cares to share their opinion on this issue. Kitten- The link led me to a "page not found". Perhaps the Times has already jerked the article? Sounds like senseless, irresponsible, and inflamatory journalism anyway. D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tryp Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 Deepster, just add a y to the end of the link. See: here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knitten Posted May 8, 2009 Author Share Posted May 8, 2009 tryp--we corrected the link at the same time. guess we're on the same page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stickler Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 funny, all the comments i've read so far disagree with the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluelikejazz Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 meh just let the fundy's have their laws. I think as a general rule it's not a good idea to force people to do things they believe is wrong. Like Tryp said, if somebody disagrees with your lifestyle choice you wouldn't to feel like they are only doing the wedding because they are scared they will get sued if they don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stickler Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 you wouldn't to feel like they are only doing the wedding because they are scared they will get sued if they don't. Private church? yes, totally agree. Private business? Yep, them too. Court officer? absolutely not. If my tax dollars pay your check you have to treat me equally, or get another job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluelikejazz Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 Court officer? absolutely not. oh I missed that bit. Yeah, they should have to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnneMarie Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 Eh, what a load of hooey. It is like saying that we should have passed the Civil Rights Amendment with follow on legislation exempting all who did not receive tax dollars from providing goods or services to minorities if they didn't feel like it. Clergy already do not need to perform ceremonies to which they object. That one I can understand. The rest, nope. It doesn't just continue the discrimination, passing legislation supports it's furtherance. It says homophobic prejudice is okay, legal, sanctioned by the state. I personally would not want to give my money to those who object, but that's different than being told I am legally barred from buying something I want. Very different. Very wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nalgas Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 meh just let the fundy's have their laws. Laws bad. They might not seem like it at first, but ones like that can act to legitimize people doing things like that, and they also end up getting used as justification for other similar laws about other things. On top of that, they have a tendency to get applied more broadly than they were initially intended, and it's much harder to get rid of a stupid law than it is to pass it in the first place (which is part of why the legal system is such a clusterfuck). It's usually much safer to avoid having them exist in the first place unless they serve a clearly defined need. Also, sign me up as agreeing with the part of the thread about how if someone wants to be a dick on their own time, whatever, but there are some times and places where they shouldn't have the option to be, like the already-mentioned people being paid by tax dollars. That whole thing about the pharmacists drives me nuts, too, but that's another rant entirely... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
withing Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 you wouldn't to feel like they are only doing the wedding because they are scared they will get sued if they don't. Private church? yes, totally agree. Private business? Yep, them too. Court officer? absolutely not. If my tax dollars pay your check you have to treat me equally, or get another job. You said it before me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.