Is this heaven? No, it's Iowa!

[SpencerH]

One aspect of this that I find interesting is that despite that we live in a time when politicians refuse to govern without first taking an opinion poll we now appear to have an instance of government that has actually made a choice and enacted a law based upon conscience and in oppositon to the will of the majority of the people. (perhaps the majority are not opposed in Vermont, I dont know, but certainly the majority in most states are in opposition).

[MrFun]

Yeah Spencer. The courts seem to be taking a more active role in sustaining free government based on the principle of majority rule with protection of minority rights.

[MrFun]

Hey Che that sounds awesome. So other than New York what are the other states whose legislatures are going to decide?

[DinoDoc]

What is Goatse territory?

You don't want to know.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Except the act of a state isn't public policy. If it was, any state could refuse to let drivers from another state drive without getting a new license when they cross the state line.

If the act of a state isn't indictative of a public policy than what is?

And states refusing drivers from driving through wouldn't work because it isn't like they don't let their own citizens drive through. But a state that doesn't allow gay marriage in its own state definitely can be said to have a public policy against the practice (otherwise, you can try to overturn decades of Full Faith and Credit jurisprudence, but you won't get far).

[Ben Kenobi]

the tribunal ordered the Knights to pay the couple $2,000 in compensation

Lets get this straight here.

A lesbian couple goes to the Knights of Columbus hall (which has plenty of Crosses, etc) to deliberately set up a wedding reception.

They lie to the KoC about the nature of the reception booking goes ahead.

Some time later the KoC discovers the deception, and cancels the booking.

Why on earth do they have to shell out their own money? It's ridiculous. It's their facility. The lesbians lied to them about the reception. They ought to be compensated for abuse of their facilities, and for the nuisance lawsuit. The lesbians should have had to pay the 2 grand, combined with the court costs for the KoC.

[Ben Kenobi]

You're welcome, and you're right that people shouldn't react in such a manner, but you should expect it, b/c people are, well... human.

Doesn't justify their conduct.

OTOH, you know by now that homosexuality, like deafness, isn't a choice,

You expect me to believe it's exactly the same? What crap. Do you think if there were not treatment that I would take the treatment so that I could hear properly? Being gay is a choice, you never hear about hearing impaired people getting outed because, and I'm going to be very clear about it, for most of it, it is irrelevant to our concept of who we are. Gay people have chosen the other route.

BUT there isn't any systemic and institutionalized attempt to limit the rights of deaf people (the opposite in fact).

Would you like to live in my shoes for awhile? Really?

When I went to school, there was a systematic attempt to limit my access to education. The accepted notion is that I should not even be taught how to talk, just to sign. I wouldn't be here today, typing to you right now, had that crap prevailed. I had to prove every single year that I could perform just so that I could stay in the regular school. I was assigned an 'inspector' who's job was to make sure I was keeping up.

I had to deal with plenty of teachers who didn't understand, frankly didn't care to understand, and others who were actively hostile to my desire to seek a university education. You don't believe it? It's all true, every word of it.

Now, what about these gay people. Are they denied access to education? No. The entire curriculum is being revised so that the poor little gay people never have to encounter a contrary opinion. I get the privilege of being assigned to read hate literature like Darwin who says disabled people are a drain to society, and that society would be better off if they were dead. All in the name of progressive scientific inquiry.

You cannot say with any intellectual honesty that the same exists wrt homosexuals. I know you know this deep down, b/c you're really not dumb. But you'll probably deny it anyway.

I don't have any sympathy for their perceived intolerance because I was spoonfed crap for 4 years of university to the contrary. All the while I had to fight with the university administration for access to notetakers. In the end, they went unpaid, and I had to rely on their friendship if I wanted to get accurate notes and follow along with the lectures. By my last year, I decided I'd quit with the notetakers and do the best I could on my own.

You know what? That's fine. You and your ilk will be on the "dustbin of history" in only a few years. And I can live with that.

Yeah, with Darwin and his minions on the ascendancy, I can see that happening. Why do you think I want to leave Canada? If I get sick, I will be one of those disabled folks that should not have lived at all.

Your preferred method of 'disagreeing' is beyond the pale. It isn't directed at any individual: rather it's directed at all gays and their supporters in a general sense and carries such a tone of intolerance that while harrassment might be too strong a word, disagreement falls way short.

Well I'm sorry for my rather strident tone, but when you get forcefed propaganda, it changes your perceptions. I have nothing against Mr. Fun personally, but I am not going to stand by idly when he lies about the conflict between religious freedoms and gay marriage. It is real, as evidenced time and time again by the reaction of the gay rights movement to anyone who expresses the Christian faith.

[Ben Kenobi]

There may have been instances of vandalism of a couple Mormon temples but there were no riots. Get a grip on your use of words, Ben. And, organizing non-violent protests in front of Mormon temples does not constitute as riots either. Non-violent protestors who went to Mormon temples used the same kind of confrontational tactics that Martin Luther King Jr. and his followers used.

Did Dr. Martin Luther King Junior find vandalism an acceptable outlet for direct action? No.

I can't believe you have the arrogance to cite him, while at the same time defending violent protests. Dr. King went to jail for peaceful protests. The gay activists were not arrested for violent actions. The difference in the respect for the rule of law is like night and day.

The correct analogy is:

Christian protestors = Dr. King

Gay protestors = Malcolm X.

Very different philosophies.

[Ramo]

Lets get this straight here.

A lesbian couple goes to the Knights of Columbus hall (which has plenty of Crosses, etc) to deliberately set up a wedding reception.

They lie to the KoC about the nature of the reception booking goes ahead.

Some time later the KoC discovers the deception, and cancels the booking.

Why on earth do they have to shell out their own money? It's ridiculous. It's their facility. The lesbians lied to them about the reception. They ought to be compensated for abuse of their facilities, and for the nuisance lawsuit. The lesbians should have had to pay the 2 grand, combined with the court costs for the KoC.

The only liar related to this conversation is you. The booker never claimed that the couple lied.

Sandra Hauser, who booked the hall for the couple, testified that it didn't occur to her that they were marrying each other, saying she believed they could have been friends or mother and daughter, their lawyer barbara findlay (who requests that her name is spelled in lowercase letters) told CTV.ca.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051129/tribunal_lesbiancouple_051129/20051129?hub=Canada

And for your edification, lesbians are not the same thing as vampires.

[MrFun]

Did Dr. Martin Luther King Junior find vandalism an acceptable outlet for direct action? No.

I can't believe you have the arrogance to cite him, while at the same time defending violent protests. Dr. King went to jail for peaceful protests. The gay activists were not arrested for violent actions. The difference in the respect for the rule of law is like night and day.

The correct analogy is:

Christian protestors = Dr. King

Gay protestors = Malcolm X.

Very different philosophies.

You're an idiot. While I was talking about violent forms of protest such as vandalism, I was also talking about non-violent forms of protests that Martin Luther King Jr. had used. They're two different things; I was not saying anywhere that King would have supported vandalism or other forms of violent protests.

[Ben Kenobi]

And for your edification, lesbians are not the same thing as vampires.

How on earth does that justify the Lesbians in seeking out a Catholic hall for their reception. I mean please.

Why did they not disclose the truth prior to the event? Lying by omission is still lying.

[Ben Kenobi]

You're an idiot. While I was talking about violent forms of protest such as vandalism, I was also talking about non-violent forms of protests that Martin Luther King Jr. had used. They're two different things; I was not saying anywhere that King would have supported vandalism or other forms of violent protests.

Then you ought to be condemning the violent protests which the gay rights movement employed in California. All I see is that you really don't believe it either happened, or that it was very serious. That is the tone I get from what you wrote.

As I said I have nothing against peaceful protests, but please, when you are happy with violent protests, do not mention how Dr. King would support your movement.

[Ramo]

No. Lying involves saying something that's not true. What you do frequently, for example.

[Ramo]

How on earth does that justify the Lesbians in seeking out a Catholic hall for their reception. I mean please.

Unless the contract they had with the KoC said "no homoqueers," the justification is called "capitalism."

[Rufus T. Firefly]

How on earth does that justify the Lesbians in seeking out a Catholic hall for their reception. I mean please.

Why did they not disclose the truth prior to the event? Lying by omission is still lying.

Ben, you dolt:

They didn't lie. They showed up together and said that they wanted to book the hall for a wedding reception. The KoC booker admitted that much. The fact that the KoC booker jumped to conclusions is her own fault.

Why did they book that particular hall? Who knows? Maybe it was the nicest hall in town. Maybe one or the other women come from a family that has a tradition of getting married in that hall. Heck, maybe one or both is actually a believing Catholic; God knows North American Catholics tend to treat the Vatican's doctrine like a salad bar.

The salient points are:

1) The right of the KoC to deny the hall on religious grounds was uphelp;
2) The fine was related to the late cancellation -- a business practice -- and not anything religious;
3) You remain a liar, an idiot, or both