Robert Ariail by Robert Ariail

Robert Ariail


Comments (31) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Sportymonk

    Sportymonk GoComics PRO Member said, 10 months ago

    Marriage – The Church – The Future.
    Interesting and challenging read.

  2. Respectful Troll

    Respectful Troll said, 10 months ago


    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.

  3. masterskrain

    masterskrain GoComics PRO Member said, 10 months ago


    Yeah, and OUR Karma just ran over THEIR Dogma!

  4. masterskrain

    masterskrain GoComics PRO Member said, 10 months 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, 10 months 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. Sharuniboy

    Sharuniboy GoComics PRO Member said, 10 months ago

    The irony of that little example of supreme bigotry is, simply, the group calls itself: “The Alliance for Freedom”!

    But then again, the Swamp States fired on Fort Sumter in “defense of freedom” too – the “freedom” to own, and brutalize, other human beings – because their skin color was not “white”.

    Ah! Good old “conservatism” and “freedom”. Makes just as much sense today, as it did then.

  7. Frank

    Frank said, 10 months ago

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

  8. Zuhlamon

    Zuhlamon said, 10 months ago


    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.

  9. mshefler

    mshefler said, 10 months 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:

  10. r2varney

    r2varney said, 10 months ago

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

  11. Sharuniboy

    Sharuniboy GoComics PRO Member said, 10 months ago

    I still have to wonder how it is that so few Americans have ever read the “Full Faith and Credit” clause in the Constitution. It is so very basic and simple. If one is married in Massachusetts, one is married ANYWHERE in the United States; and is entitled to any and all benefits thereunto pertaining.

    My own greatest question is: “How in the he** did anyone of today’s Justices get to the U.S. Supreme Court, without being aware of that Clause, and its fundamental meaning?”

    As to Article IV, Section 1: A Statute is a “public Act”. And that’s that! Go on to Section 2, and the point is even made more clearly in the first sentence of the section.

    YOU, your religion/pastor/guru/Poop/whatever, are under NO OBLIGATION WHATSOEVER to participate in, or otherwise offer service to, marriage. Marriage is – and throughout history nearly always has been – a CIVIL CONTRACT, with “religion” merely offering whatever it might have to offer by way of ceremony, blessing, or – most probably in actually – nothing much at all, for whatever religion might be worth to the contracting parties.

    BUT! Under the Constitution, the Governments, both State and Federal, ARE OBLIGATED to extend to any and all CITIZENS, “all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”

    Thus, California’s “Proposition 8” was, strictly, UN-CONSTITUTIONAL from the get-go. States CANNOT over-ride, or “nullify”, those portions of the Constitution of the United States the people just don’t happen to like. And, marriage IS NOT a matter of “religious” approbation, or prohibition, in the United States!

  12. Wabbit

    Wabbit GoComics PRO Member said, 10 months ago

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

  13. dzw3030

    dzw3030 said, 10 months ago


    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.

  14. Rockngolfer

    Rockngolfer said, 10 months ago


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

  15. mdavis4183

    mdavis4183 GoComics PRO Member said, 10 months ago

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

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