| stof said: uh... sqrl... This has nothing to do with legislating thoughts. Denying service to someone based on prejudice isn't a thought, it's an action. And governments do have an obligation to regulate actions that infringe on human rights. The idea isn't to treat gays differently at all. It's to treat them the same as everybody else. you do realize its illegal in the U.S. (and I'm assuming any other advanced nation) to deny service to people based on skin colour, sex or religion. |
there are exceptions to that most notably in the service industry. Also in Hollywood. if you're a screenwriter and you're doing a sequel to Roots (for example), obviously, you're going to look to hire black actors. Or if you're doing a history of China, then you're going to look for Chinese actors, etc. etc. If we had affirmative action on hollywood movies, I'm not quite sure how movies would look.
Another example would be stuff like doing massages. Some women will only massage other women, etc. etc.
By the letter of the law, that is race and sex discrimination.
Likewise, If I wanted to do a traditional Hasidic wedding or whatnot, a rabbi probably wouldn't let me unless I was really a Hasidic Jew. Is that religious discrimation? I guess by the letter of the law yes, but I'm not going to make a big fuss about it.
Like Mafoo said earlier, we should just recognize only civil unions, and then each group/church/whatever can call it what they want and no one gets hurt.
If Church A doesn't want to marry Gays, then fine. A gay couple can probably shop around and find another church that will.
