Mennonite couple files counter-lawsuit against Iowa to avoid gay marriage hosting

[Brannigans Law]

Sorry for clunky title.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/10/14...sex-weddings/A Mennonite couple in Iowa who declined to host a same-sex wedding at their business has filed a counter-lawsuit against the state’s Civil Rights Commission, fearing that the agency will make them pay financial damages and host the events.

In August, Dick and Betty Odgaard, who operate The Gortz Haus Gallery in Grimes, declined a request from Lee Stafford and his partner, Jared, to host a same-sex wedding.

"They did so because their religion forbids them from personally planning, facilitating or hosting wedding ceremonies not between one man and one woman," the counter-lawsuit says.intcmp=latestnews

Isn't this a simple case of you're free to religious freedom so long as it's not denying others their rights?

[PIMking]

well it's their right to decline business if it's against their religious beliefs.

[4X4]

While it's sad that people still think this way, it's also BS that other people are forced to change the way they think. In a democracy, it is your right to believe whatever you want. Declining the wedding isn't infringing on the rights of the couple. Just give it another generation, and homophobia and racism will hopefully be history. Not entirely, of course, but for the vast majority.

The thing is that a lot of people that are still alive today were raised being told that being gay is evil. I guess that's still happening, but as kids grow up and get to make their own decisions, they tend to agree with the majority. It's mostly the old people that still think this way. Let them die off. Taking away their rights is no better than refusing the rights of gay people.

It's not like they're protesting a gay wedding. They're simply refusing to host it at their establishment.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by PIMking

well it's their right to decline business if it's against their religious beliefs.

But it isn't. Businesses do not have religious beliefs, and the business being referred to is not a religious organization that would meet the requirements for an exemption (such as organizations wanting to reject paying for any sort of contraception under the new US laws on religious grounds).

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Brannigans Law

Isn't this a simple case of you're free to religious freedom so long as it's not denying others their rights?

This, honestly, is one of those cases where you are going to infringe on someone's rights either way, so it becomes a case of choosing the lesser of two evils. Freedom of association is also a right, and one that this couple is likely to be denied because this case relates to their business rather than their person. And that is very likely the right way to read it in this case.

I have no idea how precedents work from one state court to another, but there have been very similar cases in other jurisdictions, and based on that, I expect this couple is going to lose.

e.g.: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8...ight-isnt.html

[photon]

Originally Posted by PIMking

well it's their right to decline business if it's against their religious beliefs.

Can they deny serving black people because if they say it's against their religious beliefs?

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by photon

Can they deny serving black people because if they say it's against their religious beliefs?

Oh boy, lets get the racism, redneck crap out of the way

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by photon

Can they deny serving black people because if they say it's against their religious beliefs?

I find is appalling that in 2013, after everything the homosexual community has gone through to be accepted for who they are, that two members of that community decided to get their panties in a bunch and go the legal rather than simply find another venue. The only thing here sadder than the bigotry of the owners is the pettiness of the couple.

[photon]

Originally Posted by PIMking

Oh boy, lets get the racism, redneck crap out of the way

I don't understand what you mean. It's a serious question, you said that they have a right to decline business based on their religious belief, I asked about a specific scenario that is well understood to find out if there's either a) something incorrect about your statement about rights or b) something different about this scenario than declining business to a black person.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

that two members of that community decided to get their panties in a bunch and go the legal rather than simply find another venue. The only thing here sadder than the bigotry of the owners is the pettiness of the couple.

They DID find another venue after they met with the owners, they aren't suing to force them to host it. The legal thing is because that's the way (as far as I understand) the legal system in the US works isn't it? There's no "crown" to prosecute the owners for breaking the law is there?

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by photon

They DID find another venue after they met with the owners, they aren't suing to force them to host it. The legal thing is because that's the way (as far as I understand) the legal system in the US works isn't it? There's no "crown" to prosecute the owners for breaking the law is there?

They way I read it, the couple didn't have to tip-off the state about what happened but chose to do so. It's petty, and sadly comes off in a worse light that a business owner turning down work based on religion. It's also sad that there is a state law for this. It isn't as though there was absolutely nowhere for them to get married. Suppose I want to get married in a Mosque, dressed as characters from the Teletubbies, coming down the isle to ACDC's "Highway To Hell" to marry a gay Hindu? Is it my right to force that? Or really even bitch about it?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

I find is appalling that in 2013, after everything the homosexual community has gone through to be accepted for who they are, that two members of that community decided to get their panties in a bunch and go the legal rather than simply find another venue. The only thing here sadder than the bigotry of the owners is the pettiness of the couple.

Appalling for sure. I'm appalled that these gays would insist on equality.

How do these people got the right to marry in the first place? They got it by shutting up accepting discrimination, that's how!

[photon]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

They way I read it, the couple didn't have to tip-off the state about what happened but chose to do so.

If I see someone crossing against the light, that's probably something I'm not going to tip-off. I think expecting equal treatment at a public business crosses the line into significant enough to do something about. Otherwise they'll just keep doing it. Black people sitting in the whites only section of a restaurant thought so.

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

It's petty, and sadly comes off in a worse light that a business owner turning down work based on religion.

I don't think equality is petty at all. I wouldn't make the decision to pursue a legal option based on a relative public perception contest with the owners, maybe the couple didn't either.

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

It's also sad that there is a state law for this. It isn't as though there was absolutely nowhere for them to get married.

Back to the same question, would it be ok for them to deny the marriage to a black couple because there are other places for the black couple to get married?

Yes ideally a law requiring equality would be federal.

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Suppose I want to get married in a Mosque, dressed as characters from the Teletubbies, coming down the isle to ACDC's "Highway To Hell" to marry a gay Hindu? Is it my right to force that? Or really even bitch about it?

Your example isn't relevant. This isn't a church, it's a public business.

This is like denying gay people to eat in a restaurant, or selling them a can of coke at the convenience store.

[Traditional_Ale]

My bad.

I thought this was a church.

I fail at the internet.

[photon]

Lol! I blame the picture, Fox clearly framed it that way because it looks like a church.

[MarchHare]

"They did so because their religion forbids them from personally planning, facilitating or hosting wedding ceremonies not between one man and one woman," the counter-lawsuit says.

I'd like them to cite which Biblical verse forbids this.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

My bad.

I thought this was a church.

I fail at the internet.

Ok sweet, so now we just need PIMking to explain his position and then we're all cleared up all up in here.

[GGG]

Are womens only gyms legal? Because they discriminate based on gender.

I think it comes down to whether or not a business can choose who its customers are and should theybe allowed to. In my opinion you shouldnt be allowed to in any circumstance.

However, Doctors are allowed to refuse to perform abortions out of conscience even when in small centers this necessitates people traveling large distances to get a government funded service which is delivered privately.

If the percieved harm to a person who is being asked offer a service which is against his belief is high enough then they should be allowed to refuse the service.

So female only gyms and straight wedding venues do not meet this standard but a doctor refusing to perform an abortion does. I think it is a little less black and white then I would like it to be.

[moon]

Originally Posted by photon

Can they deny serving black people because if they say it's against their religious beliefs?

If they are a private business that does not receive subsidies from the government they should be able to deny anyone for whatever reason they want religious or not.

[photon]

Originally Posted by moon

If they are a private business that does not receive subsidies from the government they should be able to deny anyone for whatever reason they want religious or not.

Not according to the law, since 1964 in the US.

Why do you think allowing whites only restaurants is a good idea?