New Hampshire Gay Dating: Photo Personals For Men

Question: Lgbt: now that new hampshire has approved gay marriage?

(Posted by: Razz on 2009-06-04 16:00:40)

The bill included a provision protecting ministers and religious groups who/ which do not wish to perform such ceremonies. Critics of the measure complain that is does not protect other persons, such as photographers and florists. I'm not speaking for or against gay marriage ( "equal marriage " as some sould have it), but my question is this: Do you feel that, in return for allowing gay marriage for those who wish it, people who do not agree should be allowed to follow *their* consciences by declining? By declining to provide their services. Phil, good point, well stated.

Posted by: Jonathan on 2009-06-04, 16:07:57

Declining what? edit: I guess it depends. One part of me says that if you provide a public service, and you're not religiously associated, then you should be held to a state's antidiscrimination laws. (You know the 60's style letting blacks into restaurants sort of laws) If I'm a doctor can I decline my patients for any reason? But personally, I would never force anyone to. And if there is going to be any legal requirements, we should all have the ability to decline for any reason.

Posted by: Betty on 2009-06-04, 16:11:12

"consciences? " really? whatever.... but sure. they can do whatever they want. if they don't want to they don't have to photograph our weddings, they can feel that. just be respectful and open. why the f*ck not? it's money they'll be getting for it, after all.

Posted by: Cody on 2009-06-04, 16:12:21

Time to rally the priests, the ministers, the fathers, the nun and the teen comformation team to go to war

Posted by: Phil L on 2009-06-04, 16:14:12

There has to be a line drawn somewhere. After all, should a racist shop owner have the legal right to deny service to an entire group of people because they are of a different race?

Posted by: Reef Mellors Rides Again on 2009-06-04, 16:15:37

Most business owners in NH are in it for the money. Most don't care who the client is, they want to be paid. The wording basically protects religous institutes from paying partner benefits to gay employees as a matter of conscience. And I imagine someplace in the state it will come into play in two or three instances.

Posted by: BASE8 on 2009-06-04, 16:25:01

"Do you feel that, in return for allowing gay marriage for those who wish it, people who do not agree should be allowed to follow *their* consciences by declining? " You act as if some special favor has been granted gay couples, rather than merely extending to them rights they should never have been denied in the first place. And if people who don't like gay people are allowed to discriminate (legally) against them, should people who don't like religious people be legally allowed to refuse them service? How about people who don't like Blacks or Jews? Where does it end? Do you see the insidious nature of these "special protections " you're demanding under the guise of "conscience "? Anybody can claim their conscience or "beliefs " are offended by anybody else, or anything else, and demand they be exempted from anti-discrimination laws as a result. How would you like to be refused service for who you are because somebody decided they didn't like you?

Posted by: Joeyboy on 2009-06-04, 16:49:23

We should probably differentiate between state-sponsored services versus private businesses and religious services. I am sure that the NH bill/ law seeks to assure gay couples that they will no longer be denied marriage. In that sense, no government official tasked with presiding over a marriage should be able to decline any gay couple wishing to do so. As far as religious "inclusion " is concerned, no religion should be forced to recognize or bless couples that they deem "immoral " or against their religious teachings. Private businesses should also not be discriminating based of their client's features (e,g, being black, or too tall, or gay)...but as I understand it (I'm not American), some states have enacted into law measures that make no sense to me under a democracy, like some states allow employers to fire employees for being gay...(?!?)...so I really think that as far as private businesses are concerned, it will depend on a state to state basis.

Posted by: RadGal on 2009-06-04, 18:00:27

First, you're an idiot. Can we have an apology for you saying just 3 days ago that the bill had failed? Eat crow dude! Next, the provisions they put in are the same that others states have. Provisions that are more or less meaningless from my point of view because who in their right mind would try to force themselves into a church? It doesn't make sense. In addition churches already have the right to say no to anybody gay or straight. Lastly, putting in any "conscience " language would really be legalizing the right to discriminate. Not to mention putting it into conflict with the states already existing non-discrimination law. AND YOU KNOW THAT. You're just being a bigot/ trouble maker Razz. edit: And it's called MARRIAGE EQUALITY. For the record I'm straight. People like you are blinded by your own prejudice. edit: A local paper today polled local churches and found many accepting of marrying same-sex couples: eagletribune.com/ punewsnh/ local_story_156025041.html?keyword= topstory

Posted by: wah hoo for freedom on 2009-06-04, 22:58:53

Technically New Hamster hasn't " approved gay marriage " The legislators have. The people were, as usual, not consulted and until a democratic " california style " vote has been taken New Hampster will not have approved gay marriage at all.