At the start of the Nazi regime, Joseph Goebbels encouraged Germans to boycott Jewish-owned businesses. Within a short time, Nazi thugs had painted Stars of David or written “Jude” or “Juden” across Jewish-owned storefronts throughout Germany.

We look back with horror at this today.

Professor John Culhane of Widener University School of Law is proposing a new version of this: a requirement that businesses that have a religious objection to homosexuality, and that would prefer not to offer services for gay couples that want to get married, should be required to state their objection on the outside of the business.

I reccommend Just Uniting Different External Naturals or JUDEN.

With the internet now people can mark the storefronts digitally as they are now doing.  A huge thread on a gaming forum recently told people to boycott a game that had connection to a J.U.D.E.N.

Religous Discrimination needs to stop.

You're seriously comparing the Christian right to the jews in the holocaust?

And he's comparing gays to nazi's. Which isn't far off, the two did have quite the connection. The nazi's even picked out that cute little pink triangle for the gays.

Dude, no one will take you seriously if you compare "the right to be yourself" with "the right to hate others"

actually, no one will take him seriously as long as he has that name. he can't expect people to listen to your opinion when his own user name shows he is baised. i wonder if i can get him banned by reporting his name makes me feel bad?? CommunistHater makes me feel like an unwanted minority, you know.

Hmm, am I wrong in that the majority of Americans when put to a vote have passed laws banning gay marriage?

Being that, shouldn't be the other way around? If the majority disagrees with it, why should the majority have to put up signs?

Except America isn't a mob rule anarchist state. It's a constitutional democracy, which ensures the rights of minorities, so the fact that the majority of people don't support their rights is irrelevant.

As for the sign thing. I don't think it's necessary, but maybe it's not such a bad idea. If I were going to deny service to a group of people, I sure wouldn't want them coming in to the store and have to confront them face to face.

Also, there's a couple inaccuracies in your title. It should read

"University professor suggests business that wish to deny service to same sex couples should state so with signage"

See how you A: convey the actual story in a factually correct manner and B: don't completely write yourself off with an asinine reference to the nazi's?

as far as marraiage is concerned, I would not oppose a church from abstaining from marrying a couple together on the grounds that they are homosexual.

If a homosexual couple are legally able to get married, worst case scenario they would go to a courthouse.

If not a courthouse, there are probably lots of churches that would marry the couple. If one does not do it, there are plenty of others who would be happy to do the services (and take the money). Let's not forget marriage is a big business; churches make a lot of money from ceremonies.

This is why I think marriage should be completely out of the legal system.

First off, this is never going to pass, and I am glad it won't. While I think same sex couples should have all the same legal rights everyone else, I also think it's crazy to expect a church to be for it.

It's like expecting a hindu temples to serve hambergers. it goes against what they believe.

The solution, is to make it a moot point, and to make everyone recognized as a civil union with respect to the law. Two people, for any reason, should legally be able to form this bond. I know a woman who is in her 40's, and lives wit her mother. She will until the day her mother dies and has no intentions of being in a relationship. She should be allowed to have a civil union with her mother.

Same goes for two people who are roommates, but not in a relationship.

Government needs to stay out of peoples personal lives,.

couldn't have said it any better myself. Let's just "un-legalize" marriages all together and make the government only recognize "civil unions" and then you can call it what you want, depending on your religion or whatever.

All a "marriage" is, in the eyes of the government, is a tax code, some Durable Power of Attorney stuff (i.e. end of life decisions, can your civil partner visit you while you're in critical condition in the hospital, etc. etc.), and probably some inheritance issues anyways. Whether you truly are "in love" or not is not relevant to the government.