Kalley Yanta of the Minnesota Marriage Minute explains some of the consequences for small businesses of redefining marriage:
"Small business owners who conscientiously object to same-sex marriage will face a range of potential consequences including lawsuits, administrative actions and loss of governmental benefits and contracts."
49 Comments
Another great MMM.
Nice way to let Minnesotans know the real world consequences of ssm for small business owners.
I'm glad Kalley noted the sinister nature of ssm activists who are taking to targeting business owners for the purpose of inciting legal action and creating precedent.
The "we just want services" mask has slipped; the jig is up.
I'm happy to see the good folks at Minnesota for Marriage educating the public on this disturbing trend.
There is no middle ground for marriage corruption supporters. Either sign on in support of their immorality, or risk assaults on your livelihood.
Yep, anyone who doesn't like blacks, interracial marriage, thinks a woman needs more skin covered up, doesn't want to serve people of different religions should be able to conscientously refuse to provide service. If we agree with the SSM argument we have to expand the "conscience" argument to all forms of bias.
Apples and oranges, Richard. Apples and oranges.
Nope- exactly the same thing. You just don't agree with SSM so you like the conscience idea. The conscience argument is being used not for contraceptives, medical care and, I'm sure other conscience issues will come up.
"Nope- exactly the same thing."
Then your moral clarity is severely lacking, Richard. I just hope that the American government doesn't develop the same hostile attitude against the values that support the natural family that you have.
Whoa Minnesota for Marriage, you forgot something very important to small businesses. Health care costs and insurance. Remember: These are disease ridden people who openly practice vile unhealthy human behavior. Thanks to their destructive acts they drive the costs of health up on everyone.
All of their talk about equality ignores one thing. The health costs and insurance costs are not equal. The extra costs of deplorable perverted deviant sexual habit is passed onto the rest of us. Either the small business owner has to pay more or the employees all have to pony up.
This has already happened in MA. Small businesses saw their premiums increased. In some cases the costs were passed onto the other employees in the form of higher co-pays. Why should I have to pay higher premiums to cover someone else's sexual habit? The homosexuals want rights as long as the bill is payed for by someone else. They want rights but not the fiscal responsibility that goes with that right.
Employees paying higher co-pays, having hours reduced, or losing their jobs were just some of the consequences of the repercussions in MA. So MMN do your homework. Point out to the fine citizens of your state the higher insurance and health care risks. Ask the people of Minnesota if they want higher insurance premiums. Ask the undecided voters if they would like to pay higher co pays not because of their sexual habits but because of the homsexuals sexual habits. Ever heard of the term passing the buck? When the homosexuals get equality with the rest of us this means the rest of us must subsidize them to have everything be equal. This is like making smokers and non smokers equal even though the health care aspects are not.
SoA, explain why Richard's argument is incorrect, instead of making some kind of dig at his mental faculties. You state the fact of his disagreement with your position as evidence that he's unintelligent, but you don't actually explain why his argument (not Richard) is an unintelligent one.
You may very well have valid points to refute what he says, but if you don't actually provide them, how can you convince anyone otherwise?
This lesson in basic rhetoric and logical fallacies brought to you by too much grading and not enough coffee.
The difference between family values and racism is obvious to everyone, Garrett. Those who say otherwise are lying, especially to themselves.
The family values / racism comparison made by the opposition is sometimes successful on people who are too lazy to think for themselves. The opposition throws any and all dumb ideas against the wall to see what might stick.
The rest of us already know that the people affected by anti-miscegenation laws were eligible for marriage. That is, one man and one woman. So-called same-sex "marriage" redefines marriage altogether. It replaces the current definition with a new one. No comparison is sanely possible.
Back on topic, this is another excellent MMM! The good folks of MN need to be aware of this and all the negative consequences of marriage redefinition.
Son of Adam,
Simply declaring that something is "obvious to everyone" is not an argument. You certainly have the right to use this blog to vent, if that's your wish, but, as Garrett has already pointed out, attacking Richard's character simply doesn't refute the valid claim he made.
What about Catholic business owners who don't recognize the marriages of their employees who have divorced and remarried? Is the government violating their religious freedom by requiring them to treat those marriages as real?
I'm sorry Bruce. I just cannot believe that anybody can possibly be that stupid.
What examples can you cite that back up this qualm, tam? Because the bible does allow divorce even though it discourages and frowns down upon it.
SOA- really, calling me stupid? While I certainly don't agree with your religious opinion, I don't think I have name called. Must have hit a nerve or something. Shame, shame.
Remember the SCOTUS once upheld both the ban on interracial marriage and separate but equal and then later courts reversed those decisions. As we become more knowledgeable we begin to see the harm and damage these "conscientious" decisions cause.
Have a nice day.
Richard, he specifically said he couldn't believe you were that stupid. Calling you stupid, that's just more direct.
That's Catholic doctrine on divorce, SoA. Just google the three words: catholic divorce remarriage. This is not a secret.
In the meantime, anyone willing to answer my question?
"really, calling me stupid?."
I didn't say you were stupid, I said I couldn't believe that you were that stupid. Big difference. But feel free to prove me wrong on that point.
"Remember the SCOTUS once upheld both the ban on interracial marriage and separate but equal and then later courts reversed those decisions. As we become more knowledgeable we begin to see the harm and damage these "conscientious" decisions cause."
Both of which have nothing to do with the relationship between males and females - only racism. Another big difference.
True, according to the Bible, marriage is a lifetime commitment. “So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate” (Matthew 19:6).
God realizes, though, that since marriages involve two sinful human beings, divorces are going to occur. In the Old Testament, He laid down some laws in order to protect the rights of divorcees, especially women.
"When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and ehe writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house, (Deuteronomy 24:1-4).
Jesus pointed out that these laws were given because of the hardness of people’s hearts, not because they were God’s desire.
He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. (Matthew 19:8).
I absolutely support every single one of those consequences happening to small businesses that discriminate against anyone based on their sexuality.
If those same businesses were to refuse services to couples because they were Christians, you people would scream your bloody heads off.
Discrimination is wrong, and illegal in the examples listed in the video. And as such, legal ramifications are to be expected, whether you sincerely, religiously homophobic or not.
In this country, we do allow churches to be bigots, but not bakeries or inns or car dealerships. Honestly, it is time for you to get over it and understand that.
Those who support the consequences of ssm for businesses will get their vote; those who oppose the consequences will get their vote, too. We’ll see which side has enough votes at the end of the day.
I’m just glad SSMers are now admitting that ssm affects other people. They’ve “evolved” past the lie that it changes nothing for anyone apart from those who decide to enter into a same-sex marriage, and have taken up the “I agree that dot dot dot will result, and I want that to happen.”
Newfound truthfulness in that regard should be commended
The ravings of AnoyGrl help confirm that the "tolerance" SS"M" supporters preach about is a one way street and that the redefinition of marriage will be used to penalize anyone who does not embrace their dogmatic fanaticism.
The sooner Minnesota votes through the marriage amendment, the better it is for our civil rights.
Hypothetical: A gay business (does not matter what kind) refuses service to a Christian (or Christian couple) because they believe that the Christian teaching on homosexuality is wrong.
How would you NOMer's react to that, given you are okay with a role reversal of my hypo?
SoA, I'm not aking about YOUR opinion on divorce. I'm aking whether NOM's supporters think a Catholic business owner's rights are violated when the government requires him to treat a divorced and remarried employee's marriage as real, even though it's contrary to his official Catholic doctrine (which it is).
Does anyone have the guts to tackle this question directly? Anyone?
Son of Adam,
If you want to respond to our challenges of your personal attacks with more personal attacks, go right ahead, but it won't change anyone's mind.
Well, Austin, that Christian should take his or her business elsewhere. There are plenty of other businesses who will cater to him or her while hoping that that gay business owner will eventually come around. That is the Christian way.
And tam, I did not give you my opinion on divorce. That was straight from the bible. And if you could cite a single example in which your scenario has ever existed in the real world, it might be considered a credible analogy.
Okay, everybody. SoA has no answer to my question (and apparently no understanding of the Catholic doctrine on divorce).
Anybody else? Anybody?
@SOA,
Marriage corruption supporters want you to address their queries on the same emotional plain on which they reside. Confusing the situation with facts will not be tolerated in the upside-down 'Alice Wonderland' world that these miscreants live in.
Emotions cannot be explained, nor quantified; which explains why these heathen insist on fighting this war - they started - on a purely emotional level.
From ‘As Good As It Gets’:
Secretary: How do you write a woman so well; how do you know what is going on in here…?
Author: I start with a man and I take away reason and accountability.
I have answered your question, tam. You just won't listen. Like most SS"M" supporters, you prefer sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA!"
Lol SoA you did not answer her question. Try again, haha.
Catholic doctrine recognizes marriage as being between a man and a woman. Being a faith based on forgiveness, Catholics are able to make allowances for divorce and remarriage without official condemnation from the Catholic Church. And practically all Catholics do. This is a case of bending the rules, far different from breaking them all together as in the case of SS"M".
@ Bryce K.
Case in point.
"What about Catholic business owners who don't recognize the marriages of their employees who have divorced and remarried? Is the government violating their religious freedom by requiring them to treat those marriages as real?"
Yes, I suppose they are. Fortunately, Catholics one the whole are a tolerant and forgiving lot. So they never made an issue of it.
Sam, thanks for acknowledging the contradiction: Catholics are tolerant and forgiving when out comes to remarriage but not to same sex marriages, even though neither are recognized by the Church, and both represent the same "violation" of religious freedom.
This pick-and-choose approach to religious freedom demonstrates the issue is not about religious freedom at all.
Tam,
Like I said, there is a difference between bending the rules and breaking them. Marriage has always been about uniting men and women in order to propogate and continue the species. Redefining it altogether to include same sex couples completely disrupts its natural God-intended purpose.
Catholics are tolerant and forgiving by nature and are prepared to make allowances. But even they can only go so far.
Sam, I'm afraid you're mistaken. According to Catholic doctrine, divorce and remarriage is a major breaking of the rules, not a bending of them. For the Church, it means living in a state of continual, unrepentant adultery. That makes it a have and mortal sin. Any other interpretation of Catholic doctrine is pure fantasy.
"This pick-and-choose approach to religious freedom demonstrates the issue is not about religious freedom at all."
Then why do you endorse the redefinition of marriage for gays in the interest of equality and fairness, yet deny it to polyamorous groups? And what about incestuous couples? Whatever happened to the spirit of inclusion and non discrimination?
This pick-and-choose approach to "civil rights" shows that the issue is not about civil rights at all.
Nice diversion, SoA. I'm happy to have that other conversation at some other time, but right now I'm still waiting for someone to reconcile this contradiction for me.
Sam at least had the guts to admit it exists. Do you?
Tam, the fact that Catholics are willing to make allowances in order to avoid costly court battles does not give the government the right to push people of faith past a point where they do not want to go.
According to the Constitution, Catholics have the right to resist the government when the state requires that they tolerate divorces and remarriages. Fortunately, most of them are not as hard line and as restrictive as you would have them be.
You're the one who's dodging, Tam. Where do you get off calling these allowances, as Sam puts it, "contradictions", when your version of "civil rights" revolves exclusively around homosexuals while denying the same considerations for all these other sexual preferences? It seems to me that you are being even more inconsistent than you accuse Catholics of being.
"And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me remove the speck from your eye'; and look, a plank is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye" -Matthew 7:1-5
Back to posts 3 4, 5 & 6. I've read all the posts following to see if anyone would resolve the muddle. It is a clear illustration of a point Archbishop Chas. Chaput made in an address not long ago. Wish I could tell you exactly where to find it. Anyway, he outlines the threat to religious freedom as a series of attacks against belief in God. People who believe are viewed with suspicion. There is a push to redefine freedom of religion to mean 'freedom of worship'. Followed by discrediting the authority of the Church. Next, the concept of conscience is dismissed (especially the idea that you have to form one and unless you do, it isn't infallible) particularly if it is guided by a religion/belief in God. Ending with an unbelieving society which sees 'deeply held religious convictions' as nothing more than personal bias. It seems Richard has already traveled this road. ~ Pray, Hope and Don't Worry.
“Yep, anyone who doesn't like blacks, interracial marriage, thinks a woman needs more skin covered up, doesn't want to serve people of different religions should be able to conscientously refuse to provide service. If we agree with the SSM argument we have to expand the "conscience" argument to all forms of bias.”
Nope. Not everyone lacks the moral imagination to recognize differences you seem incapable of appreciating. We cannot (and do not) treat every other perceived or real discrimination as if it were identical to racism. And your hypothetical about women needing to “cover up” is ridiculous. Most jobs have a dress code. Is that bad, in your opinion? Or only when it is religiously motivated?
There is such thing as religious liberty. It’s in our Constitution. Really. It's a fact. Your animus does not make it go away. Religious people have rights you are bound to respect.
Does this mean that religious liberty is a trump to competing values in every instance? No, but our 1st amendment rights should at least get the benefit of the doubt.
Great point Jasco and the post #7 had superb and thruthfull aspects of what has happened to small businesses. They cannot refute so they play the race card over and over again.
In particular look at post #20 to see all you need to see about these SSM supportors.
"The ravings of AnoyGrl help confirm that the "tolerance" SS"M" supporters preach about is a one way street and that the redefinition of marriage will be used to penalize anyone who does not embrace their dogmatic fanaticism."
Dear, dear SoA,
If you think my post was raving, I fear you are in for some unpleasant shocks in the future... however...
I am extremely tolerant of your rights. I will stand up in court and argue for your right to say anything you like in public, believe anything you like anywhere that it makes you happy to do so, and, in fact, DO anything you like in YOUR CHURCH. I will not, however, support discrimination, which is what I was discussing. Small businesses do not have the right to discriminate. That is the law. They can't discriminate against me, they can't discriminate against you. That is all. The only thing I am intolerant of, in this instance, is the small businesses who would break the law by refusing to serve people based on their sexuality. Just as I would be if they refused service based on race, or religion. This is not "dogmatic fanaticism", it is the law of the land.
So the fact of the matter is, tolerance wise, I am a great deal more tolerant than you are, as you would insist that they be allowed to discriminate. Makes me sort of a patriot here, and you kind of the terrorist.
@AnonyGrl
"Makes me sort of a patriot here, and you kind of the terrorist."
You are a patriot in the same sense that Benedict Arnold was a patriot...
@AnonyGrl
Your version of "tolerance" and "non-discrimination" ostracizes and oppresses people of faith for their religious beliefs and runs them out of their businesses and jobs. That is the kind of persecution the founding fathers hoped to avoid when they wrote the 1st amendment.
Since the legalization of SS"M" criminalizes the adherence to values that support the natural family and officially recongnizes them as a civil and human rights violation, then that is all the more reason to oppose it.
At least you've dropped the lie that SS"M" won't affect anyone.
AnonyGrl, your frankness is commendable.
Your comments serve as a forewarning to society that the SSM campaign seeks to undermine the principles of good governance and to set government against social peace.
You said:
AnonyGrl
"I absolutely support every single one of those consequences happening to small businesses that discriminate against anyone based on their sexuality."
If by, sexuality, you intended to refer to homosexuality, then, you are missing the point. However, if SSM is defined by homosexuality, then, would you please point out the legal requirement for homosexuality anyplace where SSM has been entrenched in the law?
If you cannot, then, sexuality is not the basis for SSM law.
However, marriage is the basis for marriage law. The marriage idea is the basis for societal discrimination between marriage and other stuff. There is a wide range of types of relationships and living arrangements that populate the nonmarriage category.
Marriage integrates the sexes. SSM does not. Marriage provides for responsible procreation. SSM does not. Marriage combines 1) sex integration and 2) provision for responsible procreation: it does so as a coherent whole -- as a foundational social institution of civil society. SSM does not combine these core aspects of marriage; SSM is not foundatiional; SSM does not merit the special status of marriage but is merely a subset of the wider nonmarriage category.
So when a small business discriminates between marriage and nonmarriage, there can be no complaint from you.
Certainly, given the lack of sexuality requirement for SSM where SSM has been entrenched in law, you have no basis for complaining that this just discrimination between marriage and nonmarriage is somehow based on sexuality.
Your own SSM rhetoric and argumentation have undermined your comments here.
AnonyGrl also said:
"The only thing I am intolerant of, in this instance, is the small businesses who would break the law by refusing to serve people based on their sexuality. Just as I would be if they refused service based on race, or religion. This is not "dogmatic fanaticism", it is the law of the land."
Actually, you are barking up the wrong tree.
Businesses may discriminate between marriage and nonmarriage. You just want to make a big government-enforced exception for a gay subset of nonmarriage.
Also, businesses do serve both married people and unmarried people. They may do so by treating the married differently.
Now, the SSM idea is a real loser when it comes to justifying the special status of marriage -- and yet it is promoted as requiring that all of society extend that special status to SSM for the sake of elevating homosexuality or gay identity politics.
So for SSMers, the key is the claimed legal primacy of progay favoritism (or in extreme versions, progay bigotry) rather than the legitimate basis for marriage law in the first place.
As for the law of the land, well, sometimes the law gets stuff wrong. You might agree with that observation. Yet you imagine that merging SSM with marriage would be justified by sexuality -- without homosexuality becoming a legal requirement for SSM -- even as you stand against the two-sexed sexual basis for the law that recognizes the union of husband and wife as meriting special status in our society.
That sexual basis is the law of the land: see the sexual basis for consummation, annulment, adultery, and of course for the marital presumption that the husband will be the father of the children born to he and his wife during their marriage. That sexual basis is foreign to the one-sexed scenario -- sexualized or not -- and thus your talk of sexuality is irrelevant to the SSM law even if that became law of the land.
This is why it's important for business owners, etc., to differentiate between the issues: how marriage is defined is the issue, not the sexual orientaions of individual citizens, or their political identity machinations. Clearly, anyone who objects to SSM would object as strongy to two "straight" individuals seeking a public marriage, as they would to two citizens who happen to be sexually attracted to the same sex. The distinction between issues is important. Educating the public is critical, and NOM and others are doing a great job laying out the facts.