Setting aside the issues of religion and personal values, if a service provider does not hold a monopoly on that service and wishes to decline his service to a potential customer then he should be legally free to do so. If we wishes to restrict his services to specific list of limited options he should feel equally free.
How absurd would it be for the government to imprison a restaurant owner for offering Coke but not Pepsi? How absurd would it be for a would-be Pepsi drinker to file a legal complaint when he can go to endless other venues to purchase what he wants?
Same sex marriage is now legal pretty much everywhere in the USA. A prospective couple can enter any courthouse and become legally married. So why the fuss over some ministers and private wedding services choosing to decline their services? Well, that’s just it.
The couples don’t just want to be married, they want a wedding.
Understandable. However, just because you want to celebrate your legal Union doesn’t mean we should be coerced into participating (“we” being private citizens, organizations and businesses who do not wish to take part in same sex marriages or weddings).
The those homosexual couples-and by the way, for those of you at home keeping score, “homosexual” is the scientific term for it. It’s not nor has it ever been a derogatory term akin to a certain “n” word. Anyone who says differently should point out for me the period in history when people ran plantations full of gay and lesbian slave labor, when only 3/5ths of a their votes were recognized assuming they were allowed to register and enter voting booths unmolested, etc, etc, etc- So let’s just nip the angry emails in the bud here.
Anyway, those homosexual couples who loudly condemn the private groups who refuse their services, and demand legal action be taken against them seem very strange to me.
A baker won’t bake you a cake because they don’t want to? Too bad. Find another baker, there’s millions. A priest won’t marry you? He doesn’t have to, there’s a courthouse across the street that will do it at the drop of a hat, and there are other priests out there who would happily marry you in the name of acceptance.
But you want THAT baker, or you want THAT priest, you say. Too bad. That’s not how life works. Your wants are no more important than theirs and since you’re not being universally denied your legal rights you don’t have a leg to stand on.
The right to be legally married doesn’t give you the right to have the ceremony performed by anyone you want with the goods/services of any business you want. To try and force an unwilling group when there are endless other groups to choose from is childish and unnecessary.
You have money you would pay them like anyone else, but they choose to decline you any way. The reason they decline doesn’t matter. Don’t most restaurants still have that small but legible sign posted on their entrances which clearly states that they retain the right to deny service at any time? Sure it’s usually only used on belligerent drunks and half naked hobos, but that doesn’t mean the owner couldn’t choose to deny services to everyone who wears the color red if he wanted to.
“That’s outrageous!” you say. Then go somewhere else less outrageous. It’s their business and they can do that if they want. It’ll just cost them your money, and likely much more would-be customers’ money in the future. They’re only hurting themselves. But that’s no concern of yours. Just go somewhere else, or comply with their requirements.
Similarly if a priest requires your proposed marriage be between a man and a woman, or else no deal, you can comply or go somewhere else. It’s not as if there’s a gun to your head to use that particular establishment or anything. Other places offer different things, including that Pepsi you think all restaurants ought to be required by law to serve.
* Update: The businesses in question are assumably not discriminating against the customers themselves. They are discriminating against the types of services the customers are requesting. Sorry if that was unclear.