Comments on: A Iowan Mennonite couple that owns an art gallery has filed suit against the state’s Civil Rights Commission after being threatened with punishment for refusing to host a same-sex wedding on their property.

By: Pzatchok

Pzatchok — Fri, 11 Oct 2013 21:49:39 +0000

They will lose this only because they are willing to offer homosexuals other services. Like access to the gallery and sales of art.

Willing to do one service makes them “willing” to do all of their services.

I do understand their point though.
Selling art to a gay person is not the same as promoting and providing services for their union. A union against all aspects of your beliefs.

I’m willing to sell food and clothing to a murderer. But that does not mean I would have to sell them fire arms?

I might be willing to rent an apartment to a child molester but does that mean I have to rent the one next to the household of 5 kids?
(I’m not saying gays are like child molesters just asking were my choice ends and theirs takes over)

By: R. Cotour

R. Cotour — Thu, 10 Oct 2013 18:05:31 +0000

This will be an interesting decision, I think it will hinge on whether the couple represents themselves and their associated facility with their religion. Can the state mandate that this couple participate in making their facility available to people with whom they are at religious odds with? Could a couple that worships Satin or people that are members of NAMBLA force them to provide their facility?

Is there a difference between services and products offered for sale to the public and access to a particular facility, which can also be considered a service?

Where is the parting line between discrimination and individuals rights, even if the individuals are in business open to the public?