Robert Ariail by Robert Ariail

Robert Ariail

Comments (27) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Sportymonk

    Sportymonk GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    Marriage – The Church – The Future.
    Interesting and challenging read.
    http://comments-life.blogspot.com

  2. Respectful Troll

    Respectful Troll said, over 1 year ago

    @Sportymonk

    Thank you for your link, Sporty. I have made some of the points made in the blogpost in past comments, and appreciated seeing another sharing my position. I am less “certain” on other aspects of this ruling.
    ^
    There are florists, bakers, and photographers who are being ‘punished’, and sued, for not wanting to provide services on behalf of gay weddings.
    A few months ago, Rand Paul took well deserved heat for saying that a store owner should have a right to decline to serve a person for whatever reason they wish. He said that such an attitude was wrong and he would not do business with such people, but that they had, in his opinion, that right.
    ^
    One florist being sued knew her client beforehand and knew he was gay. She had often sold flowers to him knowing that he intended to take them to the one he loves. It was not until he asked her to do arrangements for his actual wedding that she declined service.
    ^
    If I go into a store to buy food, gas, tools, etc that is a NEED and for a person to decline service because of my race, religion, or t shirt is wrong. A man walked into a store where I worked and asked for some water. It was a hot day and he was obviously in need of hydration. My boss told him there was no public fountain in the store, and the man’s shoulder’s slumped. I caught his eye and in a moment returned with my drink cup I had washed and rinsed and filled with cold water. He wanted to ‘tip’ me, but I refused. I’ve been thirsty on hot days.
    ^
    If a person providing wedding services is the ONLY person in town doing so, "Need’ becomes more nuanced. However, just as I would not ask a caterer who was Muslim or observant jew, or for that matter, a Seventh Day Adventist Christian to prepare pork products for my wedding, if a person told me they were uncomfortable providing ‘non-essential’ services for me because of positions of principle, I would respect that decision and keep looking.
    ^
    A baker who refused service is receiving death threats from people who support gay marriage. His business has dropped by half. He is being sued. He is willing to accept these abuses because his religious paradigm.
    He’s not refusing to serve gays on a day to day basis, but he, and others like him, do not want to show support for gay marriage.
    ^
    I support gay marriages/civil unions and was pleased with the Supreme Court’s measured response. I also support the right of a person to refuse to serve individuals non-essential services that can be easily acquired elsewhere. When my daughter married, I interviewed six caterers. She and her spouse interviewed several photographers and florists.
    ^
    Just as religious folk have no right to force their rules upon gays, gays should be willing to respect the positions of those who feel they are ‘sinning’ by condoning and enabling a gay union. Perhaps not because of law, but just because its the polite and respectful thing to do.
    Respectfully,
    C.

  3. masterskrain

    masterskrain GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    @russell5419

    Yeah, and OUR Karma just ran over THEIR Dogma!

  4. masterskrain

    masterskrain GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    @Respectful Troll

    Well, in one case, the baker who refused to bake the cake for a Gay wedding was violating his state’s equal trade rulings, so he was breaking a state law.

  5. californicated1

    californicated1 GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    The story is not quite over here in Cacophonia—

    A Zonie Group has filed a petition with the Supreme Court demanding to have their voice heard on the issue over Proposition 8 and has demanded that the resumption of marriages that is taking place nowadays in some counties be stopped until the petition is heard.

    Regardless, the county clerks in the 58 counties that make up Cacophonia are proceeding on marrying any couple with a valid marriage license with the State Attorney General’s blessings, who in turn did the ceremonies to the couple that are the named plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

    We’ll see if the Supreme Court, or even the 9th Circuit even entertains what these people want in their petition, considering that about the only good thing that California enjoys coming from Arizona is Colorado River Water.

  6. Frank

    Frank said, over 1 year ago

    it is a sad time in our country when 9 people can take and over ride the voice of the people

  7. Zuhlamon

    Zuhlamon said, over 1 year ago

    @Frank

    it is a sad time in our country when 9 people can take and over ride the voice of the people
    .
    We are a nation of law, not rule by the most current public opinion. In some nations in Africa, homosexual activity is punished with anything from 10 years to death. Is that what you would prefer? Bigotry in the name of religion or mob rule is still bigotry.

  8. mshefler

    mshefler said, over 1 year ago

    Charles Krauthammer, whom I normally detest with a passion (I sometimes abuse myself — mentally that is — by reading his column) made some very interesting points about the Supreme Court decision. Rather than reiterate it, you can read it here:

    http://www.ohio.com/editorial/charles-krauthammer-coming-sooner-gay-marriage-nationwide-1.409773

  9. r2varney

    r2varney said, over 1 year ago

    Well stated Robert: The Tide of History has changed many shorelines

  10. Wabbit

    Wabbit GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    why does it bother people what others do in their own home?

  11. dzw3030

    dzw3030 said, over 1 year ago

    @Omnius

    What purpose does your hatred serve? My niece will marry her long time partner and I’ll be there to celebrate. But hatred serves nothing.

  12. Rockngolfer

    Rockngolfer said, over 1 year ago

    @mshefler

    I often read bloggers that I detest.
    Rick Jensen and Michael Reagan come to mind.

  13. mdavis4183

    mdavis4183 GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    Shoving crap down 80% of Americans’ throats isn’t going to go well.

  14. wbr

    wbr said, over 1 year ago

    if 2 people want to live together that is their decision but in 1st case bho decided not to defend doma the dead political contributor’s{ to bho} girl friend got marital deduction on the estate costing USA gov $5.6 million . giving the break to a heterosexual couple is like an investment because a dr or mechanic or a waiter maybe produced . while it is true it does not always happen - not all investments are winners.

  15. fritzoid

    fritzoid GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    @bhinkle

    “But why insist that it be called “marriage”?
    Just to spit in some people’s faces, to grind them down?
    “Marriage” was intended to officially sanction a continuous breeding pair relationship.
    Maybe when they can jointly procreate, then revisit if it fits the definition of “marriage”. ?”


    Would you also insist upon a different name for the union of heterosexual couples who cannot or choose not to procreate?


    If a man and/or a woman brings children to a marriage from a previous relationship and raise those children together without begetting any new ones, would you deny them the word “marriage”? If a married couple adopt rather than procreate biologically, would you deny them the word “marriage”?


    All of these are scenarios which are as possible with same-sex couples as with opposite sex couples.


    With the resumption of same-sex marriage in California, there are now something like 28,000 children who are being raised by couples who, until now, had been denied the right to be married.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (12).