R-74 assurances were just rhetoric


In the run-up to the vote last November, all were assured that only goodness and niceness would result if Referendum 74 were approved.

Some did not believe that rhetoric. As it turns out, things are not goodness and niceness for some who act on conscience.

That’s the case for the Richland florist who is being sued by the state Attorney General’s Office for not helping a homosexual couple get married.

The florist may soon be out of business. Depriving men and women of their way of making a living can’t be good.

Terry L Schoen

Walla Walla


PearlY 2 years, 1 month ago

This is precisely why I voted against R-74 even though I have no objection to gay marriage in itself. It does the institution of marriage no good, but that institution lost its footings with no-fault divorce, so what the hey. (And I DO support no-fault divorce, but that doesn't mean I have to ignore the consequences.)

R-74 clearly did not provide adequate protections for people who object to gay marriage for reasons of religion. People should not be compelled to act against their consciences just to placate political correctness.


campbell_rd 2 years ago

Homosexual (gay) marriage is not possible. They may call it marriage but it isn't marriage! Also the law passed without a vote, and the vote was worded specifically to mislead the voters. It should have been a simple question do you support homosexual marriage, Yes or NO.

I bet it would have failed had it been worded correctly.


fatherof5 2 years ago

Gay marriage isn't possible? Huh? Is the only thing that makes a marriage a marriage if the male part goes into the female part? What about heterosexual spouses who no longer have sex? They are not "married"? What about heterosexual couples who can't conceive children? Not married?

(You don't know many gay people, do you...)

As for the wording of R-74, here is how it appeared (see below). How is this misleading? It summarizes the main points of the bill that is being challenged:

"This bill would allow same-sex couples to marry, preserve domestic partnerships only for seniors, and preserve the right of clergy or religious organizations to refuse to perform, recognize, or accommodate any marriage ceremony.

Should this bill be:

Approved [ ]

Rejected [ ]"


namvet60 2 years ago

I'm not stalking you (well maybe) but the last part of the sentence - and preserve the right of clergy or religious organizations to refuse to perform, recognize or accomodate any marriage ceremony. That same floral store that is being harassed could refuse a heterosexual couple as well- would heterosexual couple then be discrimated against or only same sex couples. There's an awful lot of two-stepping going on that really is not necessary - don't ya think? People need to weigh there priorities and consideration of other people rather than constantly blaming racist and prejudices just because they believe one way and expect everyone else to fall in line with them.


fatherof5 2 years ago

I don't think we have to worry about heterosexual couples being denied services, but I do think the religious angle is complicated. On the one hand, the South did use the Bible to justify their pro-slavery beliefs...and there are passages in the Bible that seem to support that point of view. On the other hand, while the Bible doesn't spend a whole lot of time on homosexuality - and says nothing about lifelong, monogamous gay relationships or gay marriage - what it does say about homosexuality is not positive.

So, religious freedom allows churches to decide their own positions on gay marriage. That is as it should be. The challenge comes in the public sphere when someone runs a business open to the public or a non-church (like a Catholic hospital) hires employees and then wants to deny service and jobs to a whole group of people based on personal religious convictions.

Unless a win-win can be discovered - like having Catholic hospitals supply the basic insurance and then the insurance companies add the contraceptive coverage separately - someone is going to lose out.


namvet60 2 years ago

Your stating with hypotheticals that are unequivocally bias. You state that an entity of a non-church as a catholic hospital must fall in line with the government even though that entity is run under the guidelines of the catholic religion. I'm not comprending that theory. Given a hypothetical, if I happen to end up in an atheist hospital and demand a religious cross in my room, can I sue for discrimination if I don't get it? Freedom of Speech and Expression and the ability to stand by your beliefs are being drug right into the feces of the immoral and inconsideration of the upcoming generations.


PearlY 2 years ago

The idea that a business "serves the public" is the problem. Most businesses serve their customers, a SUB-SET of the public who choose to seek out that particular business. Just as that sub-set can choose which business to patronize, the business should be free to choose which customers to serve. Customers don't have to justify their decision to refuse to patronize a particular business, and businesses shouldn't have to justify their decisions to refuse to serve particular customers.

The idea now seems to be that the only people who should be allowed to own and operate businesses (or even non-profits) are those who conform to whatever is politically correct at the moment. This is not going to make the world a better place.

You claim that this will "deny service and jobs to a whole group of people." Not true. The gay couple who wanted flowers for their wedding were not being denied the opportunity to have flowers. There were surely numerous other florists who could have provided that service for them. They were being denied the opportunity to require that ONE PARTICULAR FLORIST to enable and facilitate something she believed was wrong. In other words, they were being denied the right to force someone else to conform to their beliefs.

If the Catholic church wants to hire only people who conform to its beliefs to staff its hospitals, how does that hurt anyone? The job wouldn't be there if the Catholic hospital didn't exist. If it exists and limits jobs to adherents, nobody is worse off than if it didn't exist. What you want is for the Catholic hospital to exist, since it clearly has value, but yet be subservient to your will. That is the opposite of tolerance.


kowjak 2 years ago

Sorry folks, you don't get to choose the color, religion, origin, or love life of your customers in this country. They were perfectly good customers until someone decided to impose their own beliefs upon them. I assure you I don't subscribe to your religion, but that's my business --


lgbfishing 2 years ago

You can paint it any way you like but men were meant to be with a woman, it was Adam and Eve not Adam and Adam or Eve and Eve, sorry I don't buy into all of you excuses that it is because of this reason or that reason, hog wash it wasn't meant to be that way and I wouldn't serve them either, I would shut my business down the re-open it under another name in a different state that doesn't recognize same sex marriage. go ahead and call me what ever you want for saying that but you know what I don't care what you think about my view point.


namvet60 2 years ago

Other than harassing fatherof5 I totally agree with you!


Sign in to comment

Click here to sign in