JW refuses to provide wedding stationery to Gay couple

by KateWild 176 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  Viviane

  Why is it wrong to deny a homosexual service, when a bank can deny a porn star service simply for his or her chosen profession?

  Because being born gay is not a choice. Being a porn star is.

  I am all for majority rule, but the Surpreme Court overruled state laws established by a majority vote. In some cases, a direct majority vote by the general population.

  So?

  Sorry folks. The majority may be swinging to your side (just barely and only in the last year) on this issue, but the logic fails.

  Actually, you didn't make any points, you just strung together a bunch of things. Why do you think the 14th shouldn't apply to gay people?
• 

  LisaRose

  Mr. Mustard: Think about it, you are forcing, by law, someone to serve people he/she doesn’t want to serve. How is this any different than the slavery you wish to reject?

  No business owner has to be in business, that is a choice. The government is simply saying that if you choose to run a business that serves the public, you must not discriminate on the basis or race, religion or sexual orientation. You may not like that, and yes it is limiting your freedom, but it is not slavery, far from it. A business owner could choose a different business, could choose not to be in business or choose to comply with the law, even if it is distasteful to them.

  He was gay, and the Governor was opposed to same sex marriage. As you can see in the link, Antonio was praised. Nobody ever mentioned, “Hey, you have a business that serves the public, and your beliefs don’t matter, you still have to serve the Governor.” Both the photographer in NM and the hair dresser in NM exercised their private property rights.

  You seem very knowledgeable about the law, so I am surprised that you think this is just the same as discrimination on the basis of race, religion or sexual orientation. Antonio chose not to work for someone, but it was not because of her race, religion or sexual orientation, so it does not violate the anti discrimination laws. You could say no one was criticizing him for it, but I doubt that is true, you yourself are criticizing him. If I were him I would have taken the job and used my time to find out why she believed that way and given her my viewpoint. So, he may be wrong, but it is not discrimination, at least when it come to the law. False equivalency.

  The government has discrimination laws in place for a reason, and it only applies to those particular protected classes. You may not like it, you may feel people should be able to do what they want, but I personally believe they are good laws, put in place for a reason. I don't want to go back to a world where gay people couldn't live openly and where black people could not eat in certain restaurants. I believe having these laws has helped society to move in a more positive direction. If you disagree, you should work towards getting the law changed.

  Mr. Flea: Firstly, the OP is a bit of a stirrer. Why phone the person in question up and then make plans to go to her shop? What business is it of yours?

  It's a controversial issue, if you don't like it, dont read these threads. I don't get your point, what business of whose? They wanted a wedding cake, what is wrong with that? They have been open about the fact that they are making a point, I don't see anything wrong with that. It's an important issue. If you are saying it's none of my business, well then, what business is it of yours that I choose to comment on it?

  Secondly, Mr Home is being rounded on. It appears some are offended by his comments, maybe you are gay and have suffered prejudice, also maybe some just enjoy running with the pack. I wonder sometimes if all the "outraged" people even remember what they are being outraged about

  I think Mr. Home is perfectly capable of defending himself. I don't find his comments particularly offensive, just wrong. I get his point because I believed the same at one time, as Jehovah's Witnesses we were deluged with a lot of anti gay propaganda. To quote Sienfeld, I am not gay, not there is anything wrong with that, but I am not running with the pack either. I would be saying the same if everyone disagreed with me. Having read the many stories of gay Jehovah's Witnesses, I have come to understand how truly horrible it is to be raised to believe you are wicked because you were born gay, to be shunned by family and friends, and to be discriminated against. I have gotten to know many gay people and realized how much they have suffered. Suicide is not uncommon in these cases, that is a tragedy.

  I guess you think that nobody but gay people should care, but I think we should all care when people are wronged.
• 

  cofty

  I guess you think that nobody but gay people should care, but I think we should all care when people are wronged.

  ^^^^This ^^^^

  First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
  Because I was not a Socialist.

  Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
  Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

  Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
  Because I was not a Jew.

  Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me. - Martin Niemoller
• 

  Billy the Ex-Bethelite

  mrh: "the JW aren't going around suing business, and they do not have the mainstream media spreading their propaganda."

  JWs aren't suing businesses in the USA because that battle was already fought back in the 50s. WT battled with many school districts, and with cities d2d sales laws, etc. all the way to the Supreme Court. In some cities/states JWs had their wedding plans complicated because their "JW ministers" weren't recognized. Plenty of issues about the rights of JWs to rent, use, or own halls. Even more battles were fought in Canada. Decades have passed since JWs were fighting with police and arguing in court, but it certainly did happen where WT was the weird religious fringe minority fighting against the Catholic/Protestant/Political mainstream. That was the era of my grandparents and when my parents were young, so I heard many of the first-hand accounts that now make me cringe. WT used propaganda in their fight for rights. WT sent young sisters into areas where they knew they would be arrested to make sensational press, etc.

  And now? JWs aren't going around suing businesses because nobody is discriminating against them. The mainstream media isn't spreading their propaganda because nobody really cares that much about WT, and there are plenty of fundy religions that spread media propaganda very similar to the JW message. WT would love the attention that would come with persecuation of JWs. But when they don't salute the flag or celebrate holidays, nobody cares much. Personally, I actually had customers say to me, "I'm sorry I said 'Merry Christmas' to you yesterday. I just forgot that you're a JW and didn't mean to be insensitive to your beliefs." As far as their right to preach, if JWs come knocking, most peeps just don't answer. Others have their "no soliciting" signs because they don't realize its "no trespassing" signs that JWs have to legally avoid. If a town is so blatant to say, "JWs can't preach here" the city can be sued. Most cities/communities have legal counsel that advises security protocol such that JWs can't get in.

  On the flip side, I've known of plenty of cases where JWs are directed to deny service to others. Personally, I was removed as an elder because I didn't turn down a good and reasonable business deal that shouldn't have been an issue. A friend of the family was nearly dfd because he sold his wares to everyone in town... including the local churches. It had never been an issue before, but a CO that had never been gainfully employed carried out a crazed witch-hunt on dozens of responsible small business owners in the circuit.

  Going back to your original statement: "Yes, the LGBT community is worse than the JW. The JW may shun you, but once you deal with that, they leave you alone to live your life. There is no getting away from the LGBT community. If you disagree with them, they will go after you with a passion."

  LGBT is one of many groups that want to establish their civil rights. To say that they are "worse" than the JWs doesn't make sense because JWs have their civil rights. The need for protests and progress didn't end once JWs won the right to not salute the flag and sell litteratrash from door-to-door on Sundays.
• 

  KateWild

  Well said Billy.

  Fabulous quote Cofty

  Me and my kids would not exist today if it was not for the non-Jew that helped my mum escape the concentration camps. They let her family over the boarder to Russia. We have all heard of Shcindler, but there were so many that helped the Jews like him, and some even lost their lives hiding the Jews, but I went to an exhibition and more than 70 years later these hero's are remembered for their bravery and internal sense of justice.

  It's wonderful to see through history that humans help one another and stand up for what is right even if it's for a group they are not a part of because they are all part of the human race. That's why this article got me so infuriated. I am not gay and I have no gay family.

  Kate xx
• 

  BluesBrother

  Whatever one's personal view of the rights or wrongs of this, I knew it was only a matter of time before such an issue arose for the dubs.

  Recently they have bent over backwards to avoid saying anything in print that would be discrimination to gays, bar quoting scripture. They have said that all sex outside of marriage is forbidden to J W's so gay acts are caught by the same rule. Now that Gay people marry, what are they going to say when a gay married couple wish to join? and continue their marriage ?

  They will have no choice but to refuse. They may have an exclusion from the law as a church? perhaps.. but a company providing a service is breaking the law if they refuse to serve them on account of their orientation. A year or two back a "Christian " couple let rooms in their house on a b & b basis for holidays. When they refused two gay men a double room, they were in Court..The Witness here must decide whether to follow the law or follow her conscience.
• 

  Quendi

  As usual, mrhhome, you don't know what you're talking about when you take on personal beliefs of others. You say you haven't brought up controversial subjects with some in your circle because these discussions would be paingul. Well and good. But in the same breath you say that you're sure they would agree with you. You cite your conservative black friend as an example. I also have known many black conservatives in my day and none, even the most right-wing, would agree that any business has the right to deny them service. I would be interested in learning their reaction to your belief that they should. As for not knowing anything about family and friends and how to have a healthy relationship with them, you're full of it. But it is part and parcel of your way of thinking. Confronted with your own ignorance and bigotry, you project them upon others. Small wonder that your views about these matters are held by a shrinking minority of thinking people.

  I see that you are at last engaging others in direct responses to some of their assertions while silently passing over others. You have your reasons for doing so, of course. Some of the answers you've given have been direct and forthcoming. Others are specious and riddled with thinking (gay promiscuity being one example) that have little or no basis in fact. I've seen that as typical of people with your mindset. When facts are not available, anecdotes are put in their place. Your lack of exposure to the thinking of many black and gay people has been amply reflected in your answers to the challengers you've engaged here.

  Quendi
• 

  Quendi

  I find the belief in the right of the majority to impose injustice upon others which mrhhomes and others like him have supported to be astonishing. State and even federal laws which have established and/or reinforced discriminatory practices against minorities should not be challenged according to their thinking because the majority has the right to impose them. They should not be challenged in courts either because the only proper arena for redress is through legislative action. If that means the countenancing and support of evil, so be it. Those who suffer under such injustice must wiat for a change in times and morals before expecting any relief.

  Such was the reasoning of Chief Justice Roger Taney in 1857 when he wrote the Dred Scott decision. He went on to say that not even Congress had the power to abolish slavery since the Constitution did not grant black slaves any rights which a white man was bound to respect. What was most ironic about this was that Taney himself was personally opposed to slavery, but felt that legally there was nothing he or the courts should do about it. It was a cowardly decision that perpetuated misery for four million people until a war which killed hundreds of thousands finally settled the question. I am left to conclude that mrhhomes and other hardened libertarians like him are cut from the same bolt of cloth as Roger Taney. They would do nothing to oppose discrimination against others, especially since they are part of a group who would not face it. Those facing injustice should depend on the goodwill of legislatures rather than other organs of government for redress.

  The founders of the American republic set up three branches of government--not one--to secure liberty for the population. They were wise enough to know that dependence on one group or branch of government for justice and freedom would not be the optimum case. If the power of government has grown over the decades it is due to the refusal of the majority to do the right thing in the first place. We have a Department of Labor because employers refused to pay fair wages, denied workers safe and sanitary workplaces, and would not institute a decent working week. They had no qualms about employing children in their sweat-shop factories even if that meant denying them the education they needed and deserved. We have a Department of Education because state governments refused to end poor standards in their schools, refused to end segregation based on race and ethnicity, refused to provide adequate school buildings and learning materials for all students. Other federal departments and bureaucracies were established primarily to correct injustices that a majority had no intention of doing so.

  So when mrhholmes and other libertarians rant and rave against big government, they can take a good long look in the mirror for the reasons it arose. It was the refusal of a majority to listen to and make corrections for the minorities who first turned to them for justice that facilitated the development and growth of "big government." State governors and legislatures turned blind eyes and deaf ears to those suffering injustice, leaving these people with only the courts as an avenue for securing civil rights. Some courts took the Taney view while others decided that state and federal constitutions could be interpreted in such a way as to give relief. So when mrhholmes and others give the age old excuse that the will of the majority must not be gainsaid except by some kind of legislative action, they willfully side with tyranny and dictatorship.

  The preamble of the American Constitution says that one of the reasons for establishing the federal government was to promote the general welfare. It is clear to me that libertarians like mrhholmes do not really believe the general welfare should be a concern of the government. Rather, that should arise from the goodwill of the people themselves. The founders took an opposite view. As James Madison, one of the chief writers of the Constitution noted, "If men were angels, there would be no need for government at all." Human imperfection is the reason we need government, and the glaring apathy toward injustice and hostility toward protecting minorities that some posters here have is reason enough to remain vigilant in the fight against evil.

  Quendi
• 

  DJS

  Quendi,

  Beautifully spoken. Everything you stated was used - in a plea sometimes - to reach Holmes. You summed it all up wonderfully. Thanks.
• 

  Quendi

  Addressing MrBluesBrother's point about same-sex marriage and Jehovah's Witnesses, no self-respecting same-sex couple would even remotely consider studying with, let alone joining Jehovah's Witnesses. I have a partner who has gently but firmly told me that he does not want to see me have anything to do with Witnesses again. He has not had to repeat this as I am of the same mind. I know other gay ex-JWs who have adamantly adopted the same position. We were considered subhuman when we were in the organization. There is no way we will ever submit ourselves to that kind of abuse again, and we have spread the word in our respective gay communities to do the same.

  I have a friend who is still "inside" and lives in California. When same-sex marriage became legal for the first time there, I asked him what would be the response of a door-knocker to the presence of a same-sex couple in the home. After all, in the eyes of "Caesar", this couple was legally married. He said that the question had never come up in any Service Meeting part that dealt with suggested presentations. When Proposition 8 banned such marriages in the state, Witnesses had a reprieve of sorts; but now that the ban has been voided by SCOTUS, the issue is a present concern as it is in eighteen other states and the District of Columbia. It won't be long before Witnesses engaged in their canvassing work will have to face this question in every state in the Union because I'm convinced that even the conservative majority now ensconced in SCOTUS will (reluctantly) conclude that bans against same-sex marriages violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

  I've also noticed the deafening silence the WTS has adopted over same-sex marriage of late. Condemning homosexuality itself is one thing and this the Society will continue to do. But denying the legality of duly sanctioned marriages is quite another. Will Witnesses, upon meeting a same-sex couple at the door, politely excuse themselves or will they try to engahge them in a discussion anyway? What is happening in other countries where same-sex marriage is legal? Has the WTS given instructions to its followers about handling these situations at the door? I'm sure they have received more than a few inquiries about this. It will be interesting to see what directions will be given.

  Quendi