The Gay agenda

[lastcallhall]

This is an article from Jim Daly on Foxnews and it looks like what a few of us conservative christians believe is the gay agenda moving forward to get marriage passed.

I am, naturally, personally opposed to the legalization of same-sex marriage for the simple but profound reason that it violates and contradicts the sacred text of the Bible, which I believe to be true and inspired. But on what basis should I expect people who dont believe as I do to likewise oppose same-sex marriage?

On the basis of logic, reason, common sense and the fact that preservation of traditional marriage is in the best interest of the common good, as evidenced by any number of factors, including reams of social science data and thousands of years of history.

Any discussion on the definition of marriage incites strong emotional reaction. And those of us within the orthodox Christian community understand that many in the culture see this issue very differently, and hold to very passionate views on the subject. We understand that on this matter, in some circles, that never the twain shall meet. Nevertheless, this difference of opinion does not preclude us the privilege of championing a principle we hold dear, especially since its our Christian faith that motivates us to support and defend what we believe to be Gods blueprint for human relationship. In the last half-century, progressives have exercised their own rights of cultural engagement, aggressively championing sweeping cultural changes on numerous levels. Although we may disagree with them, we certainly dont begrudge them the right to engage the process. But in this pursuit to redefine marriage, wouldnt it make sense to consider the outcomes of prior social reengineering efforts?

In the late 1960s, no-fault divorce promised to simplify, streamline and decrease the contentiousness surrounding marital breakup. Instead, it only encouraged struggling spouses to throw in the towel. Fathers abandoned their families in droves. Poverty levels skyrocketed. Prison populations increased at dramatic levels, a consequence of kids now growing up without a father in the home.

A few years later, in 1973, the Supreme Court legalized abortion in all 50 states. Supporters heralded a new era of responsibility, where every child would be a wanted child. Tragically, over 48 million babies have now been aborted and the beauty of life has been cheapened as a result, while child abuse has skyrocketed.

The expansion of welfare promised to alleviate human suffering. While in some ways noble in intent, it disincentivized work, undermined the family unit and created a perpetual cycle of dependency and poverty. Fathers were no longer needed to be an integral part of the family.

Cohabitation is yet another experiment which promised to liberate couples from the burden of marriage. The number of couples living together outside of marriage has increased ten-fold between 1960 and 2000. Over 12 million unmarried partners now live together in the United States. The result? Cohabitation not only decreases a persons appetite for marriage, it also increases the risk of divorce, should the couple ever tie the knot.

Further, a home with two unmarried partners has proven to be the most dangerous place for children in the U.S. Children who live with their mother and boyfriend are 11 times more likely to be sexually, physically, or emotionally abused than children living with their married biological parents.

In each example of social reengineering Ive noted, progressives promised good things. Sadly, the exact opposite has happened. However well-meaning the motivation, reengineering what God has designed is not only unwise, but radical and dangerous, too.

Without evidence of success to which to point, supporters of these ill-fated ventures are left with but one choice: If you cant change unfavorable outcomes, you change the minds of people as to what is considered favorable and good.

Here lies the last great frontier and the last gasp for those determined to re-engineer marriage. Those committed to this form of radicalism have systematically broken down the cultural barrier to same sex marriage by desensitizing people on the issue, stigmatizing those who oppose the movement and potentially criminalizing anyone who stands in opposition to them. The irony in our cultural discussion currently, is if you support traditional marriage, you are the one perceived by the cultural elite to be the radical.

Consider the case of a New Mexico couple who own and operate a photography business. When they kindly refused to shoot a lesbian marriage ceremony, they were summarily brought up on human rights violations by the New Mexico Human Rights Commission. They were fined for not accepting the job. While on the other hand, Christian organizations are now being singled out and suppliers are threatening to no longer supply them with critical support functions like computer technology because of their stand in opposition to same-sex marriage. Those in favor of same-sex marriage do not see the contradiction in these two examples. One group must perform the services and is fined for not doing so (in the name of human rights); the other is allowed to default on their contract because of alleged bigoted behavior on the part of the religious organization (with no regard for religious expression).

If religious liberty is lost in America, we will cease to be the nation our Founders intended us to be. Our rights will no longer be derived from God but from man, and therefore, dangerously beholden to political despots. I dont think Thomas Jefferson intended that to be the outcome for our great nation when he wrote the famous Danbury Baptist Church letter which mentioned the separation of church and state. Contrary to conventional wisdom, President Jefferson was expressing a concern that the church needed to be protected from the state, not the state from the church. It appears his fears are now being realized.

Jim Daly is president and host of "Focus on the Family."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/05/ ... z1NJdkc5AN


The questions I have for debate are:

1. Is what happened to the New Mexico couple proof that gay marriage will threaten christians and the church from living our faith?

2. If gay marriage is legal in the entire US would churches be forced to recognize gay couples and be forced to hire gay people to positions even if that would be against our beliefs?

[Board]

For starters.... quoting Fox News or Focus on the Family will get you no where on this topic. Find a source that is more neutral on this topic if you want anyone to give the claims made the time of day.

Now regarding the article, the first half is a lot like most debates we have here on this site on this topic. Nothing but a whole steaming pile of red herrings. The writer is not worth any level of respect as he walks down a slandering and slimy path of denigrating his opponents for things that happened 50 years ago. What a giant mess of uneducated, bigoted, stinking pile of words that were not worth reading... but I digress.

1. The New Mexico couple operate a business. They were not a private club or a religion. They are a business. A business does NOT have the right to discriminate against those seeking their services.

2. No.

Got any real evidence for your paranoia or are we going to continue to be bombarded by unfounded and illogical arguments?

[lastcallhall]

For starters.... quoting Fox News or Focus on the Family will get you no where on this topic. Find a source that is more neutral on this topic if you want anyone to give the claims made the time of day.

Why would Foxnews and Focus on the Family not credible? Do you have proof they make up facts?

Now regarding the article, the first half is a lot like most debates we have here on this site on this topic. Nothing but a whole steaming pile of red herrings. The writer is not worth any level of respect as he walks down a slandering and slimy path of denigrating his opponents for things that happened 50 years ago. What a giant mess of uneducated, bigoted, stinking pile of words that were not worth reading... but I digress.

I agree it is about a lot of the topics we cover on this site but why are all of his points invalid?

1. The New Mexico couple operate a business. They were not a private club or a religion. They are a business. A business does NOT have the right to discriminate against those seeking their services.

2. No.

Got any real evidence for your paranoia or are we going to continue to be bombarded by unfounded and illogical arguments?

Is the New Mexico couple not real proof? Have you found this story to be made up? I do not think we are being paranoid here is another quote from another source stating they don't want teachers to speak against the homosexual lifestyle.

Jim Carroll, President of Equality California, which also helped draft the bill, denied that it aims to recruit students into the LGBT movement.

And I dont believe that by teaching about the black panthers for instance, that any school teacher could be accused of recruiting for that radical organization, Carroll told FoxNews.com.

Carroll admitted that teachers would not be allowed to say things like some believe homosexuality is an unhealthy lifestyle, the same way that you couldnt talk about the civil rights movement but then say something discriminatory about African Americans.

Is this still not proof of the agenda?

[Board]

Why would Foxnews and Focus on the Family not credible? Do you have proof they make up facts?

Mountains... there is a reason Canada will not let Fox air on public airwaves in their country. They have a law against lying.

I agree it is about a lot of the topics we cover on this site but why are all of his points invalid?

they have nothing to do with the issue of gay marriage. They are slanderous dribble used to prep the stage for their ignorant break down of the case at hand.

Is the New Mexico couple not real proof? Have you found this story to be made up?

Did you not read my response? Address the points I made please.

The New Mexico couple was operating a business. A business does NOT have the same protection to be discriminatory as a private club or religion.

I do not think we are being paranoid here is another quote from another source stating they don't want teachers to speak against the homosexual lifestyle.

Jim Carroll, President of Equality California, which also helped draft the bill, denied that it aims to recruit students into the LGBT movement.

And I dont believe that by teaching about the black panthers for instance, that any school teacher could be accused of recruiting for that radical organization, Carroll told FoxNews.com.

Carroll admitted that teachers would not be allowed to say things like some believe homosexuality is an unhealthy lifestyle, the same way that you couldnt talk about the civil rights movement but then say something discriminatory about African Americans.

Is this still not proof of the agenda?

Teachers should not be teaching discrimination... against any group. How is this an agenda?

[lastcallhall]

Mountains... there is a reason Canada will not let Fox air on public airwaves in their country. They have a law against lying.

Fair enough if you think both Fox and Focus on the Family lies. I have found Dr. Dobson to be a very credible person.

they have nothing to do with the issue of gay marriage. They are slanderous dribble used to prep the stage for their ignorant break down of the case at hand.

So I can't use any of the arguments brought up with this article to defend my position on keeping the marriage laws the same as they are now?

Did you not read my response? Address the points I made please.

The New Mexico couple was operating a business. A business does NOT have the same protection to be discriminatory as a private club or religion.

So a christian business does not have the right to refuse business? I have seen many signs in stores that say we have the right to refuse business but apparently a christian business does not get that protection? Why did the people not go to another business? My guess is to financially ruin these people.

Teachers should not be teaching discrimination... against any group. How is this an agenda?

Because a christian school would be forced to recognize and teach that the homosexual lifestyle is acceptable and normal. That in my opinion is an agenda.

[Board]

So I can't use any of the arguments brought up with this article to defend my position on keeping the marriage laws the same as they are now?

They are all red herrings. They are all slanderous unfounded propaganda. The writer of this article provides zero references. He provides a lot of fear mongering and then points a finger at the left and tries to get you to believe that they are the problem with society. It is ignorant dribble...

Now, if you wish to use one of his points and provide some credible evidence as to why it relates then by all means go ahead and try. This authors arguments are weak... please try and do better than him.

So a christian business does not have the right to refuse business? I have seen many signs in stores that say we have the right to refuse business but apparently a christian business does not get that protection? Why did the people not go to another business? My guess is to financially ruin these people.

Of course any business has the right to refuse service. They do NOT have the right to discriminate in that refusal of service. See, the couple was simply dumb in explaining why they refused. That was the issue. If they had simply turned down the offer and not said something offensive then nothing would have come of this.

Because a christian school would be forced to recognize and teach that the homosexual lifestyle is acceptable and normal. That in my opinion is an agenda.

Stop the paranoia please... Is there a class now in school on sexual preferences? When is this topic going to come up? What subject has a chapter on this? All the teacher has to do is keep their trap shut. Refer the kids to their parents as it likely has nothing to do with any subjects being taught in schools.

Also... Christian schools accepting government funding still need to follow the rules. If they do not take the funding then they can do what they want.

[Meow Mix]

The questions I have for debate are:

1. Is what happened to the New Mexico couple proof that gay marriage will threaten christians and the church from living our faith?

2. If gay marriage is legal in the entire US would churches be forced to recognize gay couples and be forced to hire gay people to positions even if that would be against our beliefs?

As a lesbian who's planning on getting married to the love of my life when I get to grad school in Ontario (where it will be legal) I feel obliged to preface this response by thanking the Americans who value equality and protecting my rights from those who are less inclined to protect the liberties and the equality of their neighbors like Mr. Daly. I can only hope that he never has to face the same sort of persecution, slander/libel, scorn, and outright hatred that the people he attempts to deny their equality from them face on a daily basis thanks to his intolerant diatribes.

In any case:

(1) I don't think anyone would be foolish enough to require Christians or their churches to perform any actions that go against their beliefs. A private business should be able to decide for themselves who to serve and who not to serve -- with some exceptions, such as in health and mental health occupations. I for one would fight against any attempt by anybody to force religious folks or their organizations to perform services they don't want to perform based on their beliefs -- again, unless funded publicly or in a field where such isn't viable such as in health fields.

(2) Absolutely not, and I'm pretty sure nearly everyone would be against that -- including us gays. No one wants to force people to do things they don't want to do or to limit anyone else's rights. I want to have equal rights, I don't want to strip away someone else's rights (in this case, religious rights) in order to accomplish that.

Again, if someone works in something like the medical field then they can't refuse to give services. I remember a case at some point where a mental health professional refused to counsel an LGBT teenager based on their sexual orientation. That's simply unacceptable, especially if there are no alternative people to do the counseling.

However, with something like a wedding photographer... yeah, it's that company's right to say "No, we won't do it" if that's their prerogative. It's ridiculous for anyone to say to them "no, you MUST take the job."

In any case, in terms of hiring -- it depends on what you're hiring for. It's illegal to discriminate in the hiring process for sexual orientation already. No one is telling churches that they have to fill ranks with homosexuals, but anyone who is hiring for a job is obligated to follow nondiscrimination laws.

[lastcallhall]

Of course any business has the right to refuse service. They do NOT have the right to discriminate in that refusal of service. See, the couple was simply dumb in explaining why they refused. That was the issue. If they had simply turned down the offer and not said something offensive then nothing would have come of this.

I am not sure why, as a christian, I can't refuse service and be honest why I am not taking the business. I do not feel that this should be a crime and is starting down the slippery slope.

Also... Christian schools accepting government funding still need to follow the rules. If they do not take the funding then they can do what they want.

So you are ok with the christian school teaching what they want as long as they are privately funded? If so we agree.

[Darias]

This is an article from Jim Daly on Foxnews and it looks like what a few of us conservative christians believe is the gay agenda moving forward to get marriage passed.

I am, naturally, personally opposed to the legalization of same-sex marriage for the simple but profound reason that it violates and contradicts the sacred text of the Bible, which I believe to be true and inspired. But on what basis should I expect people who dont believe as I do to likewise oppose same-sex marriage?

On the basis of logic, reason, common sense and the fact that preservation of traditional marriage is in the best interest of the common good, as evidenced by any number of factors, including reams of social science data and thousands of years of history.

Any discussion on the definition of marriage incites strong emotional reaction. And those of us within the orthodox Christian community understand that many in the culture see this issue very differently, and hold to very passionate views on the subject. We understand that on this matter, in some circles, that never the twain shall meet. Nevertheless, this difference of opinion does not preclude us the privilege of championing a principle we hold dear, especially since its our Christian faith that motivates us to support and defend what we believe to be Gods blueprint for human relationship. In the last half-century, progressives have exercised their own rights of cultural engagement, aggressively championing sweeping cultural changes on numerous levels. Although we may disagree with them, we certainly dont begrudge them the right to engage the process. But in this pursuit to redefine marriage, wouldnt it make sense to consider the outcomes of prior social reengineering efforts?

In the late 1960s, no-fault divorce promised to simplify, streamline and decrease the contentiousness surrounding marital breakup. Instead, it only encouraged struggling spouses to throw in the towel. Fathers abandoned their families in droves. Poverty levels skyrocketed. Prison populations increased at dramatic levels, a consequence of kids now growing up without a father in the home.

A few years later, in 1973, the Supreme Court legalized abortion in all 50 states. Supporters heralded a new era of responsibility, where every child would be a wanted child. Tragically, over 48 million babies have now been aborted and the beauty of life has been cheapened as a result, while child abuse has skyrocketed.

The expansion of welfare promised to alleviate human suffering. While in some ways noble in intent, it disincentivized work, undermined the family unit and created a perpetual cycle of dependency and poverty. Fathers were no longer needed to be an integral part of the family.

Cohabitation is yet another experiment which promised to liberate couples from the burden of marriage. The number of couples living together outside of marriage has increased ten-fold between 1960 and 2000. Over 12 million unmarried partners now live together in the United States. The result? Cohabitation not only decreases a persons appetite for marriage, it also increases the risk of divorce, should the couple ever tie the knot.

Further, a home with two unmarried partners has proven to be the most dangerous place for children in the U.S. Children who live with their mother and boyfriend are 11 times more likely to be sexually, physically, or emotionally abused than children living with their married biological parents.

In each example of social reengineering Ive noted, progressives promised good things. Sadly, the exact opposite has happened. However well-meaning the motivation, reengineering what God has designed is not only unwise, but radical and dangerous, too.

Without evidence of success to which to point, supporters of these ill-fated ventures are left with but one choice: If you cant change unfavorable outcomes, you change the minds of people as to what is considered favorable and good.

Here lies the last great frontier and the last gasp for those determined to re-engineer marriage. Those committed to this form of radicalism have systematically broken down the cultural barrier to same sex marriage by desensitizing people on the issue, stigmatizing those who oppose the movement and potentially criminalizing anyone who stands in opposition to them. The irony in our cultural discussion currently, is if you support traditional marriage, you are the one perceived by the cultural elite to be the radical.

Consider the case of a New Mexico couple who own and operate a photography business. When they kindly refused to shoot a lesbian marriage ceremony, they were summarily brought up on human rights violations by the New Mexico Human Rights Commission. They were fined for not accepting the job. While on the other hand, Christian organizations are now being singled out and suppliers are threatening to no longer supply them with critical support functions like computer technology because of their stand in opposition to same-sex marriage. Those in favor of same-sex marriage do not see the contradiction in these two examples. One group must perform the services and is fined for not doing so (in the name of human rights); the other is allowed to default on their contract because of alleged bigoted behavior on the part of the religious organization (with no regard for religious expression).

If religious liberty is lost in America, we will cease to be the nation our Founders intended us to be. Our rights will no longer be derived from God but from man, and therefore, dangerously beholden to political despots. I dont think Thomas Jefferson intended that to be the outcome for our great nation when he wrote the famous Danbury Baptist Church letter which mentioned the separation of church and state. Contrary to conventional wisdom, President Jefferson was expressing a concern that the church needed to be protected from the state, not the state from the church. It appears his fears are now being realized.

Jim Daly is president and host of "Focus on the Family."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/05/ ... z1NJdkc5AN

The questions I have for debate are:

1. Is what happened to the New Mexico couple proof that gay marriage will threaten christians and the church from living our faith?

2. If gay marriage is legal in the entire US would churches be forced to recognize gay couples and be forced to hire gay people to positions even if that would be against our beliefs?

Okay, firstly I would like to address your questions:

1. No.

2. No.

Secondly I would like to address the article, paragraph by paragraph.


Par. 1: The concept of monogamous homosexual relationships -- including marriage and civil unions (apart from some interpretations regarding the friendship between David and Jonathan, etc) -- is absent from the Bible.

However, the Bible does seem to forbid homosexual sex, but the same applies for anything outside of marriage (despite the fact that incest and polygamy are allowed outside the traditional modern sense of legal marriage.)

Even if the Bible was inerrant and infallible, a notion which I strongly reject, this does not mean that a literal, contemporary, fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible is inerrant and infallible.

Yet, if Mr. Daly wants to believe that gay marriage is forbidden in the Bible, and that His understanding of the Bible is indistinguishable from God's words themselves -- more power to him.

He doesn't have to attend a gay wedding. He doesn't have to be forced to marry a gay couple.



Par. 2: I'm not sure what kind of logic and reasoning he is referring to but it's certainly not mine.

What is "Common good"? This is a democracy where all sorts of religions and beliefs are protected under the law. If I decided that it was for the common good that Lady Gaga's music be banned, I might have a lot of people agree with me, but that would be unconstitutional as it would violate her rights to free speech, or in this case, "music."

Who says a monogamous homosexual couple couldn't participate in a "traditional" marriage?

Why base American freedoms upon ancient ethical precepts? Slavery is also an ancient institution that seemed quite logical a few hundred years ago. But it is just about as morally sound as making gays second class citizens.



Par. 3: This is just a rant about the "ungodly" Left. It has nothing to do with gay marriage.



Par. 4: Divorce, Single-Parenting, Prison population numbers, and Poverty have nothing to do with gay marriage.



Par. 5: Abortion has nothing to do with gay marriage, and not everyone who supports LGBT rights is necessarily pro-abortion.



Par. 6: Welfare has nothing to do with gay marriage. Try telling our seniors that it's un-Christian for welfare to exist and see if they don't beat you with a cane. lol.



Par. 7: Co-habitation wouldn't be as much of an "issue" if same-sex marriage was legalized.



Par. 8: ? evidence? reference please?




Par. 9: What God designed??? Um... God didn't design democracy either; I guess that means we better push for a theocracy too, as this democracy stuff is too scary, "dangerous," and anti-Jesus.



Par. 10: "Changing society's views on what's favorable and good?" Oh, you mean like what Paul and Peter did? If not for them, all us uncircumcised, bacon-eating Christians would be going to hell right now.

Or do you mean like teaching Americans that slavery was immoral? Or that segregation was wrong?



Par. 11: Guess society should never have been "re-engineered" like that. Silly humans! Always messing with God's order of things!

Here's a hint: "Supporting traditional marriage" = gays can't have the same legal rights as I can; they can't have the same relationships as I can; they can't adopt children like I can; etc. etc. --- because "The Bible tells me so" -- also because they're gross! Ewww the thought! :s

If "Supporting traditional marriage" actually meant what it says, then even gays would be in favor of it. I'm in favor of straights getting married in a traditional manner; it's just that I'm also in favor of gays being allowed the same rights to such a marriage as well. It's not like traditional marriage is gonna go out of style. It's not like everyone in the world will suddenly become gay. It's not like pastors are gonna be thrown in jail for refusing to marry gay couples; this has never happened and never will.



Par. 12: It's a business, not a church. Businesses do not have the right to refuse service if it the reason is based upon discrimination. In some states, business discrimination based on orientation is against the law.

But churches are not businesses and they can be just as bigoted and ignorant as they want (see Westboro Baptist Church)



Par. 13: The U.S. Constitution was not taken down from Mt. Sinai by Moses. It was written by men; it was not divinely inspired. It is a document by the people for the people.

Religious freedom and religious rights are inherent human rights as outlined by our man-made U.S. Constitution as well as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Supporters of equal rights do not want despots to control the nation.


----



In sum, I believe that the supporters of "Traditional Marriage" seem to have the oppressed/oppressor and rights/no-rights concept backwards.

Never, in human history has granting freedoms and rights to a minority -- rights already enjoyed by a majority -- ever resulted in the loss of rights by the majority.

Legalizing same-sex marriage will not be the end of opposite-sex marriage, nor will it infringe upon the right of religious authorities to preach against, or deny services to gay couples.


However, supporters of "Traditional Marriage" already possess rights. They can have spouses, children, the right to visit each other in a hospital no matter what state they are in, etc.

Traditionalists will not lose any of their rights -- all 1,400 of them.


However, equal rights for gays is at stake. They won't have any if fundamentalist Christians get to dictate their standards upon a non-fundamentalist society while disregarding the Constitutional rights of others.


Christians already disagree with the lifestyles and beliefs of so many other groups, yet all of them get to have the same rights and privileges as any Christian would -- except for LGBT persons -- who are today's second class citizens bar none.

[lastcallhall]

As a lesbian who's planning on getting married to the love of my life when I get to grad school in Ontario (where it will be legal) I feel obliged to preface this response by thanking the Americans who value equality and protecting my rights from those who are less inclined to protect the liberties and the equality of their neighbors like Mr. Daly. I can only hope that he never has to face the same sort of persecution, slander/libel, scorn, and outright hatred that the people he attempts to deny their equality from them face on a daily basis thanks to his intolerant diatribes.

This is where I get lost with this argument, I don't hate anyone. I know there are people out there that do (the nuts at westboro) but the christians I know love on people. What we are accused of by you and others is hating or slandering you when we are speaking our point of view. It is not hatred, I have known many gay people and don't hate any of them but I will not lie and say that the lifestyle is acceptable. It is no different when I talk to one of my high school friends that is single and still sleeps with random woman, I tell him that it is sin and he needs to change course. I love him like a brother but his lifestyle is not acceptable to God and I would not back down from that. So we as christians are no picking on you but speaking the truth of the Bible, I am sorry if some people speak hatred.

(1) I don't think anyone would be foolish enough to require Christians or their churches to perform any actions that go against their beliefs. A private business should be able to decide for themselves who to serve and who not to serve -- with some exceptions, such as in health and mental health occupations. I for one would fight against any attempt by anybody to force religious folks or their organizations to perform services they don't want to perform based on their beliefs -- again, unless funded publicly or in a field where such isn't viable such as in health fields.

I just gave proof where a couple got in trouble for turning down the business and they may loose suppliers. Why should a doctor who considers abortion murder be required to perform an abortion?

(2) Absolutely not, and I'm pretty sure nearly everyone would be against that -- including us gays. No one wants to force people to do things they don't want to do or to limit anyone else's rights. I want to have equal rights, I don't want to strip away someone else's rights (in this case, religious rights) in order to accomplish that.

I am glad you feel that way about the church but others don't. The one thing I disagree with is you have no less rights than me, I can't marry a man. I think this is a big lie that is told, we have the same rights.

Again, if someone works in something like the medical field then they can't refuse to give services. I remember a case at some point where a mental health professional refused to counsel an LGBT teenager based on their sexual orientation. That's simply unacceptable, especially if there are no alternative people to do the counseling.

However, with something like a wedding photographer... yeah, it's that company's right to say "No, we won't do it" if that's their prerogative. It's ridiculous for anyone to say to them "no, you MUST take the job."

In any case, in terms of hiring -- it depends on what you're hiring for. It's illegal to discriminate in the hiring process for sexual orientation already. No one is telling churches that they have to fill ranks with homosexuals, but anyone who is hiring for a job is obligated to follow nondiscrimination laws.

You seem very reasonable but there is a pastor in sweden that got in trouble for preaching against homosexuality (he faced jail time) and with the current bill in the UN those laws may be in the US soon.