Newspaper Refuses to Print Gay Couple's Wedding Announcement

[guywithashovel]

http://www.abc6onyourside.com/shared...vid_1893.shtml

I saw this on the local news this morning, and I thought I would post it to the Fratching community to see what everyone's thoughts are.

On one hand, I think it sucks that the newspaper wouldn't print their announcement, and I feel bad that this couple got second rate treatment. However, another part of me wants to say, "Well, the newspaper is a business. It can print whatever it wants."

[jackfaire]

This is just the hidden media bias being a bit more visible. Honestly it doesn't even violate journalistic integrity. It sucks but it falls in their rights as a business to not do something they don't want. Vote with your wallets people.

[Greenday]

Probably goes under Freedom of the Press. Doesn't make it any less a load of crap.

[lordlundar]

The newspaper is a private company. As such, so long as they do not accept payment, they can refuse.

Do I agree with their choice? No, but I acknowledge it.

[smileyeagle1021]

long story short, gays have been and always will be second class citizens in a christian nation, so this story doesn't surprise me... that said, if some christian bigots don't want to publish something, that is their choice to make. They may not understand freadom of choice, but I will still grant it to them.

And yes, for the record, I hate Christianity, so I have an extreme bias, take that grain of salt.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

long story short, gays have been and always will be second class citizens in a christian nation, so this story doesn't surprise me... that said, if some christian bigots don't want to publish something, that is their choice to make. They may not understand freadom of choice, but I will still grant it to them.

And yes, for the record, I hate Christianity, so I have an extreme bias, take that grain of salt.

Did I miss where anyone said it was a Christian paper or someone decided not to run the announcement on the basis of their faith?

Or are we just going to just say "fuck it" and dive right into yet more Christianty bashing for the hell of it now?

Jeeze!

Smiley, I like you. And I get why you are pissed, which is why I usually just eat it when you lash out at a group I belong to and try not to hold it against you. But if you are angry because a group YOU belong to is having to put up with bigotry, then you of all people ought to realize how wrong it is.

Ironically, I tend to gravitate towards the "gay interest" threads because I am very strongly in favor of the gay community being treated as full citizens and I fully support gay rights. Yes, Smiley, I give a damn about your rights and how you are treated. And yet, once again, here we are having to put up with Christian bashing on a thread that should have nothing to do with how much anyone thinks Christianity sucks.

You know what sucks? Bigotry. Especially when it's coming from someone who ought to know better.

I'm fucking going to bed. Ya'll have fun.

[smileyeagle1021]

Did I miss where anyone said it was a Christian paper or someone decided not to run the announcement on the basis of their faith?

Or are we just going to just say "fuck it" and dive right into yet more Christianty bashing for the hell of it now?

The article doesn't have to say anything. Almost all gay discrimination is done on religious grounds and in Ohio the odds of it being done because of someone's Muslim or Jewish or Hindu or any other none Christian faith is pretty small. Actually, I think a Muslim would be MORE likely to agree to publish it. I know Utah isn't the best of cross sections of the nation, but I know my former boss, a very devout muslim, loved hiring homosexuals, because his view was both of us had a common enemy.

There are good Christians, the religion though calls for my death, so I CANNOT ever show it even the slightest bit of respect. Sorry, I don't wish to die by having stones repeatedly thrown at me and sense that is what the Christian holy texts call to have happen, then I am at fundamental odds with the religion.

ETA- it's the Utah spiral, Christians hate gays, vandalize homosexual's property, beat homosexuals, deny even the most basic of equal protections or rights (it is still legal to fire someone for being gay in all but two cities... and guess who the strongest voices against those laws are... if you guessed anyone other than Christian groups, well you haven't been paying attention). 50 East South Temple is the headquarters for the organization who spread lies and deceit about homosexuality to get Prop 8 passed... oh yeah, that's a Christian church. Even the so-called accepting Christian churches in Utah will operate under a Don't Ask Don't Tell system. Hell, it is on record our Christian leadership saying that gays are the greatest threat to America and should be sent to Gitmo with the terrorists. In turn gays begin to hate Christians, we avoid dealing with the most of them, we will always greet them with a lack of trust and shunning. Thus reinforcing the Christians view that we can't be trusted, thus starting the cycle all over again. It's a spiral that neither side is willing to break, and right now, considering the Christians fired the first salvo, I don't see why our side should back down. Until I can see somewhere were the predominant church isn't also the predominant force in keeping me a second class citizen, I will continue to say, there are good christians but no such thing as a good church.

[gremcint]

First I want to talk about the Newspaper.
As mentioned they have a right to print (or not) what they like and they excercised that right, and actually there is nothing wrong with that. We see newspaper bias all of the time whether it is liberal or conservative or whatever. The people at the newspaper may even legitimate reasons for not wanting to print it. See they have a target audience or demographic they reach, they want to keep these people happy because them being happy means sales. This demographic could be offended by the wedding announcement for any number of reasons whether it’s antigay, antidifferent, progovernment or whatever. Progovernment? You ask, well as in the article it mentions that the state does not recognize gay marriage (part of me wants to put a “yet” here) and therefore by advertising a gay marriage it would look like they are going against the government. So basically the newspaper may have sat down and ran some numbers and realized printing this could hurt them and decided against it. The newspaper has to protect its bottom line.

That being said, the newspaper could indeed be run by homophobic assholes who may or may not be Christian.

Now in regards to what smiley said. First of all no pot you are the one who’s black.

The article doesn't have to say anything.

um yes it does. Otherwise you are assuming that just because they are antigay (a reasonable assumption) that means that they are christians. That's just like saying all white people hate black people or all black people hate white people. I'm sorry for the broad strokes but you've just automatically assumed that they are a member of a group because you assume they hold a specific viewpoint which is just as stereotyping or bigoted as anyone else.

Actually, I think a Muslim would be MORE likely to agree to publish it.

TO GOOGLE *searches “muslim stance on homosexuality” and clicks first result*
http://www.islamonline.net/english/C...icle01-1.shtml

I know my former boss, a very devout muslim, loved hiring homosexuals, because his view was both of us had a common enemy.

So because you know ONE muslim who’s ok with it therefore all muslims are ok with it? You know Christians on this board who are ok with it but we don’t get the same consideration at all that you give Muslims.

Sorry, I don't wish to die by having stones repeatedly thrown at me and sense that is what the Christian holy texts call to have happen, then I am at fundamental odds with the religion.

Not debating that the verse exists but can you point me to it, I’d like to read it myself.

You continuously talk about how horrible Utah is and yet you stay, I know you probably have reasons for this but honestly is it really worth it?

My sister and I are both Christian and were raised Christian, at either Sunday school or church we never heard anything bashing gay people or anyone at all. We never even had anything about the traditional family (man and women) for the most part, my minister was a kind and caring man and never turned anyone away. This church was full of good people and did their best to help each other and a number of charities so you know what? it IS a good church!

ETA- it's the Utah spiral

again you choose to be there and not leave, I’m not saying you should but from what I read from you over and over again you really do seem miserable there.

In turn gays begin to hate Christians, we avoid dealing with the most of them, we will always greet them with a lack of trust and shunning. Thus reinforcing the Christians view that we can't be trusted, thus starting the cycle all over again. It's a spiral that neither side is willing to break, and right now, considering the Christians fired the first salvo, I don't see why our side should back down.

Ah so because they struck first then everything you do is ok? NEW RULE: people who participate in and perpetuate a cycle are no longer aloud to bitch about it, you keep pushing the cycle to the next loop and are therefore just as much to blame as the other side. Trying to break the cycle can work. Also quite frankly prove we fired the first salvo, were you there 2000 years ago, were you there to see that the first Christians took the time out of being fed to lions to attack people for being gay? And were you there to see that the homosexuals were perfectly in the right?

Until I can see somewhere were the predominant church isn't also the predominant force inkeeping me a second class citizen

you can’t see with your eyes closed.

As a representative of your group you have three options, 1. Be neutral, don’t be involved and stay out of it. 2. Sling the mud right back and don’t worry at all about hitting civilians or 3. Be better than it, get to know these people show them you are a decent human being who’s different from them but it doesn’t matter how, that you are not doing anything to hurt them. A lot of these people are just ignorant and misinformed and rather than trying to educate them or debate with them you have just decided to insult them and then expect them to like you while you keep insulting them.

All you are doing Smiley is pushing those of us who might be on your side further and further to the opposition. I’m sorry but you outright insulted me a number of times in those 2 posts as you bash Christians and while I wasn’t exactly nice I never made a generalizing statements about homosexuals let alone insulting ones.

Now if you don’t mind I have to go talk to my CHRISTIAN sister about how she is the best man at her exBOYFRIEND’S GAY WEDDING in a few months.

[Greenday]

You have to admit though, the most predominant gay-hating people in the country are the hardcore Christians. No one voices their opinion like the church and its followers on this subject. Smiley isn't saying that all Christians are gay-bashers, but it certainly seems like most gay-bashers seem to be Christians.

[Slytovhand]

Sorry Smiley, but I have to agree with the others here...

Almost all gay discrimination is done on religious grounds...

Perhaps, perhaps not. Perhaps they're just a focus. I suspect it's just that people choose to be ignorant, and some choose that funnel through which to express it. They ally with what they think and believe, rather than they choose something after which they then change their attitudes to conform to.

I went for a little search, and so far - no mention of blatant religious bias (well, ok, currently there's a story on a baby JC being stolen.. but that could be any paper... (sigh!)

MY first thought, as I was reading the link, was mention of gay-marriage being illegal in Ohio.. so I wasn't overly surprised (but then, later I did read that a couple of other papers had published it! Ok, political differences!)

As Gremcint said, you can either get people on your side, or you can turn them against you.... you're doing the latter on this board. (and you'll recall some of my posts that have gone against RK and others on here in the Religion section )

Greenday - percentages! Christianity has about 76% Christian, 15% Agnositc/Atheist, Jewish 3.9% .. and everyone elsae in the remaining 5% or so.. so yes, your stateme makes perfect sense... just not for the more obvious reasons. Some religions are alienated enough that they choose to be more encompassing or 'liberal' (in comparison to some attitudes), so they wouldn't stir the pot to lose potential followers. Some are just open anyway....


What I do find as interesting (and surprising that there isn't a law against it for discrimination) is that at first the paper chose to print, but only once they found out it was a same sex marriage did they refuse... I know in Australia that could be a civil suit, and funded by the Anti-Discrimination lot!

[crashhelmet]

... the religion though calls for my death...

I'd like proof of this please. Yes, there are bigoted Christians that do think homosexuality is an abomination, but no where in the Holy Bible does it call for the death of homosexuals.

CH

[Nyoibo]

I'd like proof of this please. Yes, there are bigoted Christians that do think homosexuality is an abomination, but no where in the Holy Bible does it call for the death of homosexuals.

CH

Leviticus 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them"

[smileyeagle1021]

Leviticus 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them"

Thank you, and now I think it's time to start a new thread before this one gets even further off the original topic.

[Ghel]

As to the original topic, I agree that it's the newspaper's right to print or not print whatever they choose (though I also think it was a stupid decision). I also think that it's the couple's right to go another media outlet and complain.

As for Smiley's response, I agree that nearly all, if not all, objections to same-sex marriage are religious. But I have a bigger bone to pick with your first post on this thread, Smiley. The US is not a Christian nation. Never was. Hopefully never will be. It is the responsibility of our government to protect minorities from being opressed. Therefore, when the rest of the states change their laws to give homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexual couples, newspapers such as this one will have to treat all marriages equally or close their doors due to lack of readership.

[Rapscallion]

There's another possibility. The newspaper knows its readership's demographics. It may have worked out that it would lose more readers than it would gain if it posted that announcement. It's not necessarily their moral stance, but that of their readers, that forced the move.

We lost a customer who was fundamentally christian when we published in our catalogue about the civil partnership ceremony partaken of by two of our male workers. We don't miss them, since they were a very small customer at the best of times (twice a year, minimum order sort). However, some of the larger customers of ours are christian-based organisations. We'd have felt it if they'd taken their trade elsewhere.

We also service quite a number of buddhist organisations, and some of the buddhist sects are quite mysoginistic and homophobic, as far as I'm told. Can vary from group to group.

Rapscallion