It Begins: Christian Wedding Vendor in Maryland Forced to Shut Down Over SSM


The ballot shown to Maryland voters used 25 words to described the redefinition of marriage but over 70 words claiming false religious exemptions for people and institutions who disagree with redefined marriage.

Sure enough, as we warned, citizens in Maryland who disagree with redefined marriage are now being forced out of the public square and are NOT protected under the redefining marriage law passed in Maryland:

An Annapolis wedding vendor plans to ask Maryland's General Assembly to give his company and others like him the right to refuse services to gay couples on religious grounds.

In November, Marylanders voted to uphold a law, passed by the General Assembly during the 2012 legislative session, that legalized same-sex marriages starting Jan. 1.

"The law exempts my minister from doing same-sex weddings, and the Knights of Columbus don’t have to rent out their hall for a gay wedding reception, but somehow my religious convictions don’t count for anything," Discover Annapolis Tours owner Matt Grubbs wrote in an email.

The email was provided to Patch by Chris Belkot on Nov. 29. He received it from Grubbs after Belkot inquired about using the company's wedding services this spring.

Grubbs confirmed the email, and said his attorney advised him to shut down the wedding part of his business immediately because he could be sued for refusing services to same-sex couples.

"We’re a Christian-owned company, and we just can't support gay marriages," Grubbs said. "We're not trying to make a statement. We're not trying to make a point. We're just trying to be faithful Christians."

The decision will cost him approximately $50,000 a year in revenue. -- Annapolis Patch


  1. Son of Adam
    Posted December 10, 2012 at 5:44 am | Permalink

    Your views harm children, MarkOH, which are based on the hedonistic notion that the wants and desires of adults outweigh the needs of the most vulnerable members of our society.

    Marriage is based on biology, not sexual desires. If it was, bigamy and polygamy would be legal too, and they aren't. Why is that? The trouble with basing the definition of marriage on sexual desires is the hypocrisy of redefining marriage only for homosexuality while all the other sexual relationships like incest and polyamory continue to be discriminated against.

    Basing the definition of marriage on biology, however, allows for more consistency since biology works the same way no matter what your sexual desires are. Two men or two women cannot procreate together no matter how gay they are. But a man and a woman can, regardless of sexual preference.

    It is all about biology, not bigotry.

  2. Zack
    Posted December 10, 2012 at 12:46 pm | Permalink

    "Zack, how, exactly, does combining two things show a child they are different?"

    Motherhood and fatherhood.

    "any child knows the difference between men and women, usually at a very young age. It doesn't take marriage to show them. "

    It's "differences". Not "difference". Yes it does take Marriage because like said before, it shows the children the differences between Motherhood and Fatherhood. Dismantling that barrier tells children that the two genders are interchangeable and have no bearing on how a child develops(studies tell a completely different story).

    "But, what, in your view, ARE the basic components of marriage?"

    It's not a point of view. It's the truth. A man and a woman who come together to establish a family. Even without children, only a woman's nature can tame a man's nature. Statistically speaking(as well as biologically), this doesn't happen among people of the same-sex.

    If you want to be irrational Mark, then please have this discussion with someone else.

  3. Zack
    Posted December 10, 2012 at 12:48 pm | Permalink

    EDIT: with someone else on a different message board*

  4. Chairm
    Posted December 10, 2012 at 8:37 pm | Permalink

    MarkOH your bigotry is on the record.

    Your SSM idea fails to justify the criteria in your list.

    You don't have the moral and intellectual courage to justify the list. You just assert it and pretend iy is a magic potion.

    Consent is not a trump card for two-sexed relationships that are ineligible to marry. That is because of the core meaning of marriage. That core is the marriage idea. You reject it outright.

    What do you have to offer in its place?

    Your SSM idea is just friendship with a gay emphasis. That emphasis is arbitrary. You have not justified it. Your list of criteria excludes it. Yet your gay emphasis is obvious. And arbitrary.

    Hey, it was you definitive list of criteria. Your words accuse you of progay bigotry.

  5. Chairm
    Posted December 10, 2012 at 9:06 pm | Permalink

    MarkOH's gay emphasis is obvious But is there a gay requirement for those who'd SSM? Nope. And it does not even make his list of definitive criteria.

    MarkOH might retort that there is not straight criterion for eligibility to marry. But that negates the basis of the pro-SSM complaint. It is not a criterion for eligibility, anyway.

    He shot the SSM idea in the face.

    But that gay emphasis is there nonetheless. It is progay bigotry -- unreasoned obstinancy is the source of bigotry and, in the SSMer's case, that is the source of progay bigotry.

    The SSM idea is about a type of friendship that is indistinguisable from the rest of the types of relationships that populate nonmarriage category. MarkOH has conceded as much in previous exchanges.

    The marital type relationships is distinguished by what M arkOH rejects: integration of the sexes and provision for responsible procreation -- combined together as a coherent whole (aka the marriage idea, the core meaning of marriage, the union of husband and wife).

    To choose the type of relationship that is denoted by the SSM idea is to exercise a liberty to form a nonmarital arrangement. That is not a right denied based on gayness. MarkOH has conceded as much in previous exchanges. If the choice is nonmarital, and it is, then the participants exclude themselves from marriage. The law does not.

    Nothing on MarkOH's list of criteria save his gay emphasis. He has conceded this in earlier exchanges.

    Is view is thus accurately represented. His contraryism does not save the SSM idea. But it is a contraryism that is unreasoned and obstinate. That is the telltale sign of bigotry. His own words accuse MarkOH.

  6. Chairm
    Posted December 10, 2012 at 9:34 pm | Permalink

    It is the comprehensivenss of the marital relationship that makes the Husband and Wife closely related. Not the law. The law acknowledges this core of marriage.

    The husband and wife become more closely related, on to the other, than each is related to others with whom they would have been too closely related to marry.

    Neceassary to this comprehensiveness is bodily union. There is no other candidate for bodily union that coital relations of man and woman. The bodily union is not all of marriage but it is necessary to complete and renew the comprehensiveness of the marital relationship.

    Here is a puzzle for the SSMer. What could make the unrelated participants in an all-male or an all-female relationship more closely related than they are to people with whom they were born too closely related to marry? Nothing.

    If the SSMer claims the law does what the participants cannot do themselves, then, the SSMer negates the pro-SSM complaint that the marriage law 's bride-groom requirement is unjust.

    Think about that. The SSMer claims the law is wrong. But how might he claim that without some clear idea of marriage's reality independent of the law? He cannot. But that means the SSMer depends on the law arbitrarily drawining lines and distinctions between marriage and non-marriage.

    If the law is master of marriage, then, how can the SSMer justly argue the law is right or wrong? He cannot.

    Marriage law acknowledges the comprehensiveness of the marital relationship. While the husband and wife are very closely related, their bodily union is not a sexual friendship of unrelated individuas. And although they are closely related, their sexual relationship is not incestuous, as such a relationship would be with those with whom they would be too closely related to marry.

    SSM does not make a family. SSM is merely a metaphor or a symbol. The law is its master.

    So the bigotry displayed by the SSMers who commented favorably on thesquelching of freedom of conscience in the aftermath of the SSM law, well, they admit that their pro-SSM complaint and remedy is based on animus against the defenders of the marriage idea.

    Each of them gave us fair warning of what they intend with the imposition of SSM on all of society.

    Other: SSM is the Specious Substitution for marriage for the sake of the supremacy of gay identity politics.

    NOM is the National Organization for Marriage for the sake of the truth, good governance, freedom of conscience, and the child's birthright to be raised by her mom and dad together..

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.