Perform Same-Sex Marriage Or Go To Jail !!!!!!

[lilpixieofterror]

Maybe you can clear up some confusion I have here. If I open a commercial, for-profit business as a wedding mill, rather than being part of a private nonprofit recognized tax exempt church, have I given up any of my religious protections? Robrecht seems to be implying that there is some legal dance I can perform which will let me run a business free of the need all other businesses have not to discriminate on the basis of something I using to discriminate. Is this true? Is there some form I can sign, some official legal government get-out-of-obeying-the-law-free card?

I don't know if you've ever been married phank, but I sure didn't want my marriage filled with unhappy memories and times. I wanted my wedding to be a day of happy times that wasn't filled by somebody being forced against they will, to do something they didn't want to do. Who on earth thinks that is a great idea and a great way to start off their marriage is an idiot. Why would you want the happiest day of your life, to have that sort of memory attached to it? I sure wouldn't of thought suing somebody to make them marry my husband and I was a great idea. What kind of insanity is that and what kind of way is that to start off a marriage?

I know that other specifications on the announced ordinance list (race, gender, national origin, whatever) have no such option - you simply cannot refuse to serve negroes at your lunch counter no matter what forms you sign. Is the wedding mill business granted a special exemption?

Another non answer I see where the point jumps right over your head. Do you seriously think suing somebody to make them marry you, is a great idea? Don't these officiates have a right to pick and choose who they want to marry and don't want to marry? Why would you seriously think suing them to make them marry anybody is a great idea? Do you have an idea how insane that sounds?

Maybe another way of asking is, if a judge should rule in favor of the business in this case, what would be the rationale? Would the judge say "well, you can't discriminate on the basis of religion EXCEPT in this case"? Or would the judge point to Robrecht's special dispensation form, or what?

And the point zoomed right over your head, to begin with. Suppose an officiate has a rule that he doesn't marry anybody who had sex before marriage. If a couple did wanted him to marry them, but they had sex before marriage. Do they have the right to sue him and make him officiate their wedding? What sort of message does that send out and what sort of insanity is that? Why would you want your marriage to have the memory of somebody being forced, against they will, to do something for you. Call me crazy, but I wanted my wedding to be full of happy times and memories and not full of stuff, such as that. Can you please explain why you think that is a great idea and nothing will ever go wrong, from doing that?

[One Bad Pig]

Ah, I understand. If someone is breaking the law in a way you like, then the VICTIM is at fault for not going to someone who is NOT breaking the law. At least, if the victim is a pervert.

Victim? Your use makes a mockery of the word.

[robrecht]

Maybe you can clear up some confusion I have here. If I open a commercial, for-profit business as a wedding mill, rather than being part of a private nonprofit recognized tax exempt church, have I given up any of my religious protections? Robrecht seems to be implying that there is some legal dance I can perform which will let me run a business free of the need all other businesses have not to discriminate on the basis of something I using to discriminate. Is this true? Is there some form I can sign, some official legal government get-out-of-obeying-the-law-free card?

I know that other specifications on the announced ordinance list (race, gender, national origin, whatever) have no such option - you simply cannot refuse to serve negroes at your lunch counter no matter what forms you sign. Is the wedding mill business granted a special exemption?

Maybe another way of asking is, if a judge should rule in favor of the business in this case, what would be the rationale? Would the judge say "well, you can't discriminate on the basis of religion EXCEPT in this case"? Or would the judge point to Robrecht's special dispensation form, or what?

I am no expert in these laws. I am only referring to whatever option that the Knapps' had apparently already availed themselves of on October 6th by registering with the State of Idaho as some kind of religious corporation, which according to the city exempted them from having to comply with the nondiscrimination city ordinance. If this is true, as reported by the local newspaper, this whole affair was a complete nonissue as far as I can see.

[lilpixieofterror]

Ah, I understand. If someone is breaking the law in a way you like, then the VICTIM is at fault for not going to someone who is NOT breaking the law. At least, if the victim is a pervert.

Yep because we all know that shotgun weddings, where the officiate is made to marry or else goes to jail, is such a wonderful and happy way to start off a marriage. What could possibility go wrong, doing that?

[phank]

I am no expert in these laws. I am only referring to whatever option that the Knapps' had apparently already availed themselves of on October 6th by registering with the State of Idaho as some kind of religious corporation, which according to the city exempted them from having to comply with the nondiscrimination city ordinance. If this is true, as reported by the local newspaper, this whole affair was a complete nonissue as far as I can see.

Yes, that's what I'm confused about. If they ARE registered as a legal discriminator on the grounds of religion, why did they have these legal troubles in the first place? They need only show their registration to the city.

[phank]

Yep because we all know that shotgun weddings, where the officiate is made to marry or else goes to jail, is such a wonderful and happy way to start off a marriage. What could possibility go wrong, doing that?

Kills two birds with one stone. It gets you married (and let's be honest, a wedding can be a hoot, but a marriage is a lifetime of hard work), and it nails a business for violating a law that exists precisely to protect you from such instances.

And again, personally I don't understand why this wedding mill doesn't simply subcontract out such ceremonies.

[lilpixieofterror]

Kills two birds with one stone. It gets you married (and let's be honest, a wedding can be a hoot, but a marriage is a lifetime of hard work), and it nails a business for violating a law that exists precisely to protect you from such instances.

Yep, and nothing ever goes wrong, from using the force of law to make somebody do something against they will and turning your wedding into a circus act is always a good idea. What could ever go wrong, by using the force of law to make others do things against their will?

And again, personally I don't understand why this wedding mill doesn't simply subcontract out such ceremonies.

That is their choice. I just find it rather entertaining that you seriously think using the equivalent of the shot gun, to force somebody to marry you or go to jail, is an awesome idea and nothing can ever go wrong from doing such a thing. Be careful of what you wish for because it might come true.

[robrecht]

Yes, that's what I'm confused about. If they ARE registered as a legal discriminator on the grounds of religion, why did they have these legal troubles in the first place? They need only show their registration to the city.

That's what the city says. No big deal at all.

[phank]

Yep, and nothing ever goes wrong, from using the force of law to make somebody do something against they will and turning your wedding into a circus act is always a good idea. What could ever go wrong, by using the force of law to make others do things against their will?

Again, two reasons. First, you get married. Second, you help apprehend a lawbreaker. I even tried to make the point that a wedding is not a marriage. Recently the TV told me that there is in fact a negative correlation between the size of a wedding and the duration of the marriage. My own marriage took 20 minutes at the courthouse to fill out and sign forms and pay a fee. My marriage has lasted decades. So the marriage is something very distinct from the wedding.

That is their choice. I just find it rather entertaining that you seriously think using the equivalent of the shot gun, to force somebody to marry you or go to jail, is an awesome idea and nothing can ever go wrong from doing such a thing. Be careful of what you wish for because it might come true.

Just as the equivalent of a shotgun was used to integrate businesses in the South. None of the blacks to my knowledge is pining to return to the days of "separate but equal". I find it a hoot that you champion bigotry and discrimination with such enthusiasm. Yes, I think ending LEGAL discrimination is an awesome idea. You're right. I understand that you find anti-gay discrimination equally praiseworthy. To each his own, I guess.

[phank]

Sincerity doesn't make reality phank. Many people are sincere, but it doesn't make them right.

Besides, why would you want to force other people to accept you and your beliefs? Doesn't make very much sense to me...

Nobody is deluded enough to think they can force others to accept their beliefs. But people CAN be forced to follow the law, whatever their beliefs.

However, I agree with you entirely about the sincerity. Religious believers may be totally sincere, but it hardly makes them right.

[phank]

That's what the city says. No big deal at all.

According to the links in the OP, it was the city that insisted these people provide the advertised service or face jail time. Now you are saying that they city says they have no reason to do what they are doing? I don't understand.

[phank]

Victim? Your use makes a mockery of the word.

How so? Are victims of illegal disrcimination not victims because YOU don't like them either? Or are you saying there can be no such thing as a victim of discrimination?

[robrecht]

According to the links in the OP, it was the city that insisted these people provide the advertised service or face jail time. Now you are saying that they city says they have no reason to do what they are doing? I don't understand.

I was just quoting the city's attorney and spokesperson as cited in the local newspaper. Who knows, maybe they are lying to cover up the fact that they are truly wicked liberal totalitarian gnomes that desire revenge, intimidation and control and not equality? Or maybe The Alliance Defending Freedom is trying to develop a test case?

[phank]

Another non answer I see where the point jumps right over your head. Do you seriously think suing somebody to make them marry you, is a great idea? Don't these officiates have a right to pick and choose who they want to marry and don't want to marry? Why would you seriously think suing them to make them marry anybody is a great idea? Do you have an idea how insane that sounds?

No, I don't. If someone is breaking the law, I see suing them to correct this violation as a Good Thing. Apparently, in being a for-profit wedding mill, they have traded their ability to be choosy about their customers in exchange for profits. Like any other business. If, as part of being married, I ALSO struck a blow against illegal discrimination against me and those like me, I'd consider it a victory and a very good memory.

And the point zoomed right over your head, to begin with. Suppose an officiate has a rule that he doesn't marry anybody who had sex before marriage. If a couple did wanted him to marry them, but they had sex before marriage. Do they have the right to sue him and make him officiate their wedding?

Absolutely. Just as hanging out a sign at your business door that says "We do not serve blacks or Jews" doesn't give you the right to actually DO that. You can't make illegal private rules. Didn't you know that?

What sort of message does that send out and what sort of insanity is that?

If you regard it as insane to try to end illegal discrimination, I can only feel sorry for you.

Why would you want your marriage to have the memory of somebody being forced, against they will, to do something for you.

Talk about missing the point. Imagine you are a member of a minority facing systemic discrimination. Imagine if you could not only marry your love, but strike a blow against such discrimination for yourself and those like you. Would you not see this as an opportunity to celebrate? Would you not get even a little satisfaction punishing a bigot for illegally exercising bigotry?

Call me crazy, but I wanted my wedding to be full of happy times and memories and not full of stuff, such as that. Can you please explain why you think that is a great idea and nothing will ever go wrong, from doing that?

I've done my best. So I'll just repeat - if I'm the victim of illegal discrimination and I can do something to end it AND get married at the same time, I'd be happy indeed. Who wouldn't?

You seem unable to understand anything but the "let them eat cake" attitude of "well, I'M not the target of discrimation, so why should I care if those who are targets suffer? After all, those doing the illegal discrimination are doing so for reasons I agree with."

And I personally don't think bigotry is a sufficient excuse to break the law and mistreat people, EVEN IF people hide behind their religion to defend their bigotry.

[phank]

I was just quoting the city's attorney and spokesperson as cited in the local newspaper. Who knows, maybe they are lying to cover up the fact that they are truly wicked liberal totalitarian gnomes that desire revenge, intimidation and control and not equality? Or maybe The Alliance Defending Freedom is trying to develop a test case?

I think it would be a truly lousy test case, if a special registration form trumps the ordinance being otherwise violated. Maybe the city isn't entirely monolithic, and some officials disagree with others. Or maybe those who attempted to enforce the ordinance hadn't been advised that this was an exception. I don't know.