You are corect, it is not a church, http://www.ogcma.org/pages/aboutus
It is, however, a non-profit organization that serves a specific audience. To me, this organization denying a gay couple from using their property for a wedding woudl be no diffeerent than the NAACP denying use of any of its facilities for a Klan wedding. On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 11:49 PM, Jim Davis <[email protected]>wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Scott Stroz [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Monday, December 29, 2008 7:58 PM > > To: cf-community > > Subject: I am all for gay marriage... > > > > but I think this is bullshit... > > > > http://tinyurl.com/756u4c > > > > Can the state also tell churhces that they need to allow same sex > > couples > > use of their buildings so they can get married?* *Where does it stop? > > I'm not sure about this one... this is NOT a "church building" (i.e. > consecrated ground) - this is a generally rentable, non-religious location. > In other words it's a public business. They are not asking for a religious > service on holy ground. So this isn't really (as far as I see it) the > state > forcing a Church to do anything - it's the state forcing a business owner > to > do something. > > Now - that said - I'm libertarian enough to believe that anybody should be > able to refuse service to anybody they want - for any asshole reason they > want. But then again Churches should also be paying taxes - any > organization that demands that much say in politics should pay the entry > fee. We're not living in that kind of world. > > Personally I do think that this is definitely to make a point: otherwise > why > specifically pick someplace you're not wanted? So personally I'm not > inclined to side with these women. But then again if a group of people > that > are being discriminated against by law can bend the law to piss on the hats > of those doing the discriminating... well, that deserves at least a little > respect. > > In the end it seems pretty cut-and-dried to me: the law is clear and this > property owner isn't allowed to discriminate (the couple is, after all, > willing to pay and doing something completely legal in the state). > Personally I'm not a big fan of those kind of laws... but it's hard to > argue > that some kind of protection against discrimination isn't needed when the > very act being proposed (a commitment ceremony) is itself a clearly > discriminatory compromise. > > Jim Davis > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:283491 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
