Exactly. I have read a ton on this, and I have never found a rational argument from people that justifies denying gay people their civil rights. There are lots of things they will prop up as rational, but I've seen nothing that stands up.
When there's a big group of people who are obviously anti-gay, and an intertwined group who claims that they aren't anti-gay at all, but instead just happen to have a shifting array of horseshit reasons for acting anti-gay, Occam starts whispering in my ear.
Or he's against laws that leave religious freedom ambiguous. For instance, I'm 100% in favor of allowing 2 people of the same gender to marry, but I'm also 100% against a law that would require (or leave the issue ambiguous) a religion to perform those marriages to receive 1st Amendment protections. So if I donated to support a law that violated the second principle, would that make me anti-gay?
edit: To illustrate the relevance, the main criticism I heard from Prop 8's opponents was exactly this. It wasn't the usual references to Sodom & Gomorrah or that kind of thing.
> For instance, I'm 100% in favor of allowing 2 people of the same gender to marry, but I'm also 100% against a law that would require (or leave the issue ambiguous) a religion to perform those marriages to receive 1st Amendment protections.
I can't say I've ever seen such a proposal, the proposals I've seen[0] painstakingly carved a niche for exactly this[1].
It also has nothing to do with the case at hand, Prop 8 was not "specifically allow religious offices to not officiate in same-sex marriages if they don't want to", it was to add "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." to the state constitution following a mayor licensing purely civil same-sex marriage under the Equal Protection clause in defiance of Proposition 22 (the same as above as a law rather than a constitutional amendment).
[0] for legalising same-sex marriage, rather than legal challenges to laws going the opposite way
[1] and even if/when they don't, churches are allowed to discriminate in refusal of employment and services. They are specifically exempt from the Civil Rights Act 1964's Title VII for instance, and when the Gulnare Free Will Baptist Church voted to refuse service and recognition to mixed-race couples in 2011 it was completely legal.
What about private businesses? It's becoming apparent that there will be a series of lawsuits against businesses in the wedding industry to force them to participate in gay weddings or go out of business.
'bit more complex. Private businesses wouldn't be protected if they refused to participate in a mixed-race or a muslim wedding — and could always be sued either way — but I guess the exact result would depend on sexual orientation being a protected class.
Public accomodations ("workplace and facilities that serve the general public") are covered under Title II. Sexual orientation isn't a federally protected class under title II, but it can be protected at the state level, it is in Colorado (since 2008) where a couple successfully sued a bakery for refusal to sell a wedding cake (Craig v. Masterpiece Cakeshop).
In such states, or if sexual orientation ever becomes a federal protected class under title II, businesses will not be able to refuse service based on it, just as they can't based on "race, color, religion or national origin".
The analog wouldn't be a muslim wedding; it would be a Muslim religious ceremony.
The proprietors in question clearly stated they would sell a birthday cake to a gay couple. They wouldn't, however, sell them a wedding cake.
A better analogy would be whether a Muslim bakery could be forced to produce communion wafers. Or whether a baker would otherwise be forced to produce a cake containing speech he or she didn't agree with ("Happy Abortion!" or "Happy Bris!").
In my view, this issue is complex only because the position of the business owners in question is being elided.
No, it's closer to a Christian bakery refusing to sell communion wafers to a Muslim because they aren't Christian.
The problem is refusing an existing service to someone based upon them as a person. Not refusing to provide a service you don't usually provide.
> A better analogy would be whether a Muslim bakery could be forced to produce communion wafers.
No, it is a terrible analogy: a muslim bakery wouldn't usually produce communion wafers. The bakery in question did usually produce wedding cakes[0], and refused to provide a usual service on grounds of sexual orientation (the bakery had no problem providing a wedding cake for a pair of dogs when asked).
> In my view, this issue is complex only because the position of the business owners in question is being elided.
The business owners repeatedly made their position clear: they had a strict policy against selling wedding cakes to same-sex couples based on their "reading of the Word of God." Their position is illegal in Colorado.
Regardless, the result is that someone is refused their freedom of expression or forced to go out of business. You may be OK with that in this case, but let's call a spade a spade.
This attitude is certainly part of the reason that gay marriage has faced such opposition. Banning the expression of one group of people for the sake of advocating the freedom of expression of another[1] is not a winning argument.
[1] Not that marriage is only an act of expression.
> Regardless, the result is that someone is refused their freedom of expression
They can express whatever the fuck they want, what they can not do is discriminate against a protected class. It's been that way for the last 50 years. Don't like that? Don't be a public accommodation.
> This attitude is certainly part of the reason that gay marriage has faced such opposition.
No, that's just an excuse for the underlying bigotry. As it was back in the 60s.
