Wow. Pretty easy to see here how the gay community can justify their persecution complex. If I had to guess who fired the first shot in this war....
So - I promised a comment....
No one's forcing them to do gay weddings. They can simply stop doing "weddings for profit". They are being forced to choose another profession...
Pray tell, why should one have to give up their human rights just because they are engaging in commerce?
I know that makes it convenient for the Church of State to force everyone to worship at it's alter. All those that is, except those who don't eat.
But what is your excuse for advocating the abandonment of human rights?
First, let me preface this with the the fact that I do not agree with the current trend of granting homosexuals the same protected status as race, religion, and physical disabilities.
Now, moving on to the question. Let's just disregard the federal commerce clause, since it has to do with what states do to each other, but not necessarily what a state does to it's own citizens (I think we can agree on that - even if the political class currently does not).
So - the state chooses to "protect" a class of downtrodden people. Never mind whether we agree that those people are oppressed and never mind whether we like the law. What part of the Constitution prevents a state from doing so? I see a few posters here mention some right of freedom of association, but there is no such enumeration in the constitution that I am aware of. There
is this in the eleventh amendment...
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
....but that works both ways.
For instance - I am a gun owner and I like to kill animals to eat. If I have an accident (let's say I suffered a fall and broke my leg) while hunting and the only hospital within hours is run by people who believe hunting and killing are both immoral and they are morally obligated not to support such activity (I'm not making this up - I have met people who believe this way)....do they have a right to turn me away in my suffering?
I know the "gay is a choice" argument, and I am not getting into that. Just accept the fact that hunting - like a lot of things - is also a choice for the vast majority of us - so that contrast won't wash.
What about the right of free commerce (which also seems to missing, btw)?
I believe I have the right to breath clean air. If my neighbor decides to build a coal-fired factory that spews unfiltered smoke and ash into my residence, must I bow to his right to unbridled commerce?
[edit] This is where I tip my hat to all my anarchist friends and remind them that they may want to study the wonderful history of the unbridled capitalism of the industrial revolution. Step away from the textbooks and really study it.[/edit]
With all due respect - y'all are very good at remembering what rights you claim, but seem to be a bit forgetful of the rights of others. Some of those rights don't sit well with you (or maybe even me), but once they have been accepted as rights, they do seem to fall under protection of the 11th. Argue the validity of stated rights if you want - that is not the point of my reply here.
Then you seem to forget this, in the 12th...
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States,
are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.So, the states have powers not enumerated in the constitution - so long as they are not prohibited by it. One of those powers might be making laws against discrimination. You can argue that the sates are being coerced by the federal government into making such laws - but that has little to do with my point, and is a separate argument. BTW - the people have powers too, under this clause, and right now, the apparent majority is calling for this action. Like it or not - that is the reality of it.
There is plenty that is being done against the Constitution, but this one particular case is not part of that lot, IMO. This is background noise. The real fight is elsewhere. I agree that this is probably a deliberate affront to religion and the state is helping - but religion has some housecleaning of it's own to do before it can claim victim status in this case, IMO.
That's my position and y'all are free to disagree. I'm not going to defend it any more here. I find it absolutely disgraceful that those who seem to be crying the loudest about this attack on religion are engaging in or approving of hateful language. But then - there is that house cleaning thing I was talking about....
