Chick-fil-A PR goes Rogue

LOL ... yes, I am aware of the polygamy angle. But you'll have to grant me the man/woman angle. Even a polygamous household is a collection of man-woman unions.

 

Look, personally I have no problem with same-sex unions. I might quibble over calling such a union a marriage, but I am only dealing with semantics. On the other hand, I know that there are plenty of people out there who don't share my openness. Because of the way things go legally 'round these parts (here in the U.S.), they might be forced to do some things that are dramatically at odds with their fundamental beliefs. And that I have a huge problem with.

 

Curious as to why you would quibble with calling it a "marriage"?

 

So, really, this is all just about semantics and homophobic Christians being offended by the fact they don't get to dictate how the word marriage is defined in our evolving culture?

 

For whatever little bit of light it might shine onto the idea that this is complicated for some of us:

http://rachelheldevans.com/chick-fil-a#disqus_thread

 

^^^^ IRONY ALERT ^^^^

 

How many churches objected when marriage was sanctioned by government in the form of marriage licenses?

 

You don't have to get a government-issued marriage license to be married in a church (at least I'm not aware of that being the case). But if you want your church-held wedding to be recognized as a legal marriage, you gotta have that license.

 

Churches don't want to give up the ability to be officiators in legal marriage ceremonies. I don't see that power taken away any time soon.

 

No, this is about a wedding photographer in New Mexico being forced, under penalty of law, to photograph a wedding that she finds gravely at odds with her beliefs.

 

Can the state make it illegal for a business to discriminate against blacks because they find it at odds with their beliefs?

As for the matter at hand, the photographer can choose not to be a wedding photographer. The moment the owners wanted to run a business, they should know they can't discriminate.

 

As I said before, there is absolutely no chance that a church will be forced to marry anyone it doesn't want to. None. At all. Whatsoever. The case in Mississippi proves that.

If I get a friend of mine to walk into a church with me and say we want to get married, the pastor will, as is his right and obligation, say no. He's under no obligation to do that. He can exclude us from being married there because we're not members, or until we go through counseling with him, or because we don't have the money to pay to rent the sanctuary.

But if that friend and I go to City Hall, we can be married before the day's out.

This notion that changing how the government recognizes marriage is somehow an imposition on people who go to church would be ridiculous even if it were true. And here's the other thing: If your church doesn't want to conduct gay marriages, what the hell makes you think anyone's going to want to have a gay marriage there?