The article completely ignores the fact that there's already an ordinance for the city that states a for-profit business cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation. It also completely neglects to mention that the pastors in question are NOT a non-profit church- they are a FOR profit marriage service.

In principle, I don't think any business should be exempt from the law just because of a sincerely held religious belief. On the other hand, I think we should allow for some exceptions for for-profit marriage services.

But try to keep in mind that, like most things in life, this is a complex issue with lots of different ways to look at it. The Washington Times is feeding you the story with built in blinders.

I just believe in the right to refuse service. Forcing someone to do something is ridiculous like that baker who got in trouble for refusing service to a gay couple and was told he/she had to make them a cake.

Why cant they just go to another marriage place and let it go? They lose business so whats the big deal?

You have to understand that these anti-discrimination laws were often put in place to protect black people during the civil rights movement. Just like you can't legally discriminate against a person's race when running a for-profit business, either in employment practices, or who you choose to serve. You can't set up separate water fountains and bathrooms for White people and Everybody Else, and so you can't set up separate facilities for Gay People and Straight People.

I agree that the laws need updating in this regard, but it's important to understand what that law is there to protect. It's not there to attack cake makers and churches (again; not a church we're talking about in this particular case, as the laws ONLY cover for-profit businesses). It's a complex issue.

Apparently it is complex. Here you dont need to give reason to refuse service and thats the end of it. A wedding is not a legal proceeding its a religious idea and that's why I'm saying they shouldn't be forced into this it goes against freedom. Does freedom end when someone feelings get hurt? Apparently.

You seem to think that somebody came up with these ordinances to attack churches.
Once again, ordinance was already in place to protect against discrimination of all types, and again, it does -not- apply to non-profit churches or religious services or religious affiliations- only for profit businesses.
And again, the company that's complaining here is set up as a for profit venue.

Also- again- I agree with you.

But that article is clearly one sided on this issue. >3

But why can't they? Why should the same sex couple have to drag ass and beg every church and be turned down because it's against there faith. But I guess it's the oppression vs the discrimination but the church always have there way right geez but guess that's not oppression there right?

Churches handle religious ceremonies (weddings) not legal paperwork. Marriage can take place in a state building by signing a document.

You can get married without ever stepping foot in a church.

The business in question- not a church. :3

Business of Religious purpose.

Marriage is both a religious and a civic thing.

Marriage can be done by the state yes but they were talking about Weddings if I remeber right which is a religious custom.

Why the hell force pastors to do them if the court house already can?

Again- not a pastor. We're not talking about a church or any organization even remotely classified under law as religious. We're talking about a for profit business, which technically makes it subject to the same anti discrimination laws as every other business out there.

This wouldn't have made news if it wasn't controversial. But the law was not put in place to affect religious organizations, and the business it's being levied against is not a religious organization. >3

Right to refuse service. Fuck this "anti-discrimination" law. Forcing them against their own beliefs or face jail seems very discriminating.

Well, go and look up the law, other cases it's been used in, when it was passed, and for what reason. All I'm saying is that this is not a black and white issue and black and whiting thinking on the subject is ultimately inadequate to grasp the nuance. But it's great for generating hype and dividing people.

Discriminating should be illegal regardless, so I can't say I disagree with jail time for discriminating pastors :/

Having an opinion ahould not be jail time regardless. Also this breaks the rule of seperation of church and state.

Having an opinion not, no, but treating people like they're less than other people because of that opinion should. And that is bullshit, pastors are not above the law.

Thats the point of it being an opinion its just that, cant change that throwing them in jail only increases such enimity. A government body forcing religious figures into doing things against their beliefs breaks freedom of religion and the seperation of church and state. Its not being above the law its just the constitution. No real crime is being commited.

I'm pretty sure that's illegal here, but whatever. Another reason to dislike America.

._. We have right to refuse service to the the whim of the owner and or employees. A basic human freedom. Dont like someone? Walk away or tell them to go.

Not a basic human freedom if it becomes discrimination. And iirc it was specifically "you can't refuse service to gay people because they're gay" or something like that here.

Everyone has the right to not be around those they dislike. You dont need to give a reason to refuse a service.