Poll Shows 28% Of Americans Want To Force A Rabbi To Preform A Same Sex "Wedding"

Poll showing majority of all Americans support forcing religious people to violate their religion by helping a same sex "Wedding

This was a poll taken last year released in JULY 2013
Granted this is a liberal poll and thus biased, and 26% is nowhere near a majority but remember same sex "marriage" has smiler poll numbers 15 years ago
the rest of the is quoted from Third Way.org highlighted portions are our additions for clairty

COMMITMENT CAMPAIGN


JULY 2013


Americans Agree: "Marriage" for Gay Couples "Doesn’t" Threaten Religious Liberty


By Sarah Trumble, Lanae Erickson Hatalsky, and David Stacy


After the Supreme Court’s historic decisions striking down the Defense of Marriage Act and restoring "marriage" for gay couples in California, a full 30% of Americans now live in a state where gay couples can make the lifetime promise of "marriage", and for the first time the federal government must respect those unions. Support for "marriage" has grown astronomically over the past few years, and a wave of leaders from both sides of the aisle has followed that progress. But the shrinking group of politicians who still oppose allowing gay couples to "marry" often argues that doing so would infringe on the religious liberty of "marriage" opponents. Third Way and the Human Rights Campaign joined with researchers at Anzalone Liszt Grove to conduct a nationwide poll to better understand how Americans believe "marriage" and non-"discrimination" laws impact religious liberty. The results are clear: voters know that our laws and the Constitution already robustly protect religious liberty, they do not "think" "marriage" or non-"discrimination" laws threaten Americans’ religious beliefs or practices, and they do not believe that allowing gay couples to "marry" requires passing new laws to allow businesses or individuals to deny services to gay people or couples.  this means that majority of Americans believe there is nothing wrong (morally or legally) with forcing a kosher Caterer to cater a same sex "Wedding"


SUPPORT FOR "MARRIAGE"

2013 will be remembered as a pivotal year in our country’s "evolution" to full "recognition" for gay and lesbian couple: the year the Defense of Marriage Act was struck down as "unconstitutional", the year California’s Proposition 8 was "permanently" invalidated, the year 30% of the country lived in one of the now 13 marriage states, and the year support for "marriage" became unquestionably the majority position among Americans nationwide. Our national poll, conducted just prior to the Supreme Court’s decisions, found 53% support for allowing gay and lesbian couples to "marry", which included 63% of non-white voters, 56% of Independents, 50% of people without a college degree, and 58% of Christians under 50 years old.

Surpassing 50% support nationwide can be at least partially attributed to the public’s "evolving" understanding of gay couples and their relationships. Twenty years ago, only 42% of Americans said they knew someone who was gay or lesbian, but today that number is 87%.  And according to our poll, a full 35% of the country now knows a gay couple who has either "married" or held a "commitment" ceremony.

  One of the main indicators of support for "marriage" in our previous research has been the belief that gay couples want to join the institution of marriage as opposed to changing it. Third Way has been asking voters this question since 2009, and the evolution of perspective has been stark: In 2009, 50% of Americans said gay couples wanted to join the institution of "marriage", compared to 41% who said gay couples wanted to change it—a margin of 9 points. Two years later, our 2011 poll found 54% believed gay couples wanted to join "marriage", and only 34% believed gay couples wanted to change the institution—a margin of 20 points. And this year, 58% of the country answered that gay couples want to join the institution of "marriage", while only 27% said gay couples want to change it—a stunning margin of 31 points. This belief that gay couples simply want to join the institution of "marriage" and wed for the same reasons as any other couple spans all demographic groups, including 55% of whites, 74% of non-whites under 50, 53% of non-whites over 50, 47% of Republicans, 57% of Independents, and 55% of Christians.


SUPPORT FOR NON-"DISCRIMINATION" LAWS AND OPPOSITION TO LAWS DENYING SERVICES


Americans are not only solid in their support for allowing gay couples to "marry", but they are strongly supportive of non-"discrimination" laws and opposed to any new legislation that would allow services to be denied to gay individuals or couples. In fact, when it comes to religious exemptions, voters are clear that they should only be limited to places like churches and synagogues and people like pastors, priests, and rabbis. not you


By and large, Americans already believe it is illegal for business owners to refuse to provide products or services to a gay customer—only 16% of respondents believed that such an act would be legal in their state. And public support for such non-"discrimination" laws can be seen both in the states that have already enacted them and in those that have not. Currently, 44% of Americans live in one of the 21 states (and the District of Columbia) with non-discrimination laws that include sexual orientation.  But even Americans who live in states without non-"discrimination" laws thought it was already illegal to deny a gay person service—more than half of those who believed it was illegal were incorrect and actually live in a place that doesn’t yet prohibit such discrimination (30% of respondents overall thought it was illegal in their state when it wasn’t).

When asked about creating new laws which would allow government employees, businesses, organizations, or individuals to refuse to serve gay people or couples based on religious objections, voters were decidedly averse. Americans "recognize" the need to both protect gay people and religious liberty but gays will define religious liberty, gays think they can pasken what is and is not allowed, but they believe that we’ve already achieved the latter in current law. They supported 28% opposed this as we will see later existing protections that ensure that clergy and churches need not perform any marriage that conflicts with their faith, but they think religious exemptions should be limited to those circumstances so they are against the first amendment for Bakers, Caterers, Photographers, Therapists etc..

As this poll demonstrates, most Americans do not think non-"discrimination" laws infringe on religious liberty because they refine the meaning of those words just like marriage, and they are opposed to passing new laws or creating exemptions or loopholes that would allow "discrimination" against gay individuals or couples. Sixty-seven percent—two-thirds of voters—said they agreed with the statement that “our laws already strike the right balance when it comes to religious liberty and small business, and we should not change that.”


Denying Services as Government Employees

The public is most adamant about this principle when it comes to government employees. By a stunning margin of 48 points, 71% to 23%, Americans say that a county clerk should not be able to refuse to issue a "marriage" license to a gay couple in a state where that "marriage" would be legal so 71% of Americans think Kiryas Yoel and New Square's town clerk should be required to give out same sex "marriage" license. By a margin of 46 points, 69% to 23%, voters say that a federal employee should not be able to refuse to review an immigration application for a "spouse" of a gay American citizen, a situation that would be possible for the first time now that the Defense of Marriage Act has been struck down. These statistics illustrate the strongly held belief that government should treat everyone but religious people equally under the law, and that the individual religious beliefs of any individual agent of the government shouldn’t stand in the way.


Denying Services as Private Actors


When it comes to non-government entities, the public is just as clear. Americans oppose allowing businesses or individuals to ignore non-"discrimination" laws because of their religious beliefs. Sixty-nine percent of Americans don’t think a business owner should be allowed to refuse to provide products or services to an individual because that person is gay or lesbian, compared to an incredibly small 15% that do. And when asked about small business owners in particular, a full 68% of Americans don’t think they should be able to refuse service to gays or lesbians, regardless of their religious beliefs. This supermajority included 55% of Republicans, 75% of Independents, 67% of people without college degrees, and 68% of Christians.

Around 70% of the country is against the first amendment

Denying Wedding-Related Services to Gay Couples


For the most part, voters feel the same way about the provision of commercial services for a gay couple’s "wedding" as they do about providing services for gay individuals in general see chart on the top: the majority of respondents said that gay and lesbian couples should be treated "equally" in all aspects of life, including when shopping for contractors for their "weddings". When asked if they would favor or oppose a law that would allow businesses or organizations to deny services to gay and lesbian couples based on religious objections, 67% of voters were opposed—52% of them strongly—compared to only 25% who would be in favor of such laws. This opposition was nearly universal, regardless of race, gender, religion, or education level. Even Republicans, who had the lowest level of opposition at 48%, were not in favor of new laws allowing businesses and organizations to deny services to gay couples—only 39% supported such laws.


When asking specifically about wedding-related services, like catering, flowers, or cakes, being provided by small businesses, these numbers hardly changed at all: 64% of voters were still opposed to new laws that would allow small businesses to deny wedding-related services based on their religious beliefs, compared to 31% in favor. That’s a 33-point margin of opposition. Again, not a single demographic group favored such laws more than they opposed them. Support was highest at 48% among Republicans—still a point below the 49% in opposition. This is why you can't vote straight Republican This is because most voters don’t consider wedding-related services to be unique, and they don’t think their providers need any special loopholes in the laws to allow them to avoid providing commercial services for weddings of gay or lesbian couples. A full 54% of respondents believe it is wrong for a business to deny wedding-related services to a gay couple, while only 15% agreed that “wedding-related services are different and people should be allowed to refuse for religious reasons.” Those who believe weddings are different, were torn, or said they didn’t know trended more towards Republicans, voters over the age of 50, Catholics, and people without college degrees. But still, 52% of Christians, 61% of non-Christian religious believers, and 65% of the non-religious did not think providing commercial services for a wedding was in any way deserving of special exemptions to non-discrimination laws. That’s because unlike a clergy member performing a ceremony, only 10% of respondents actually thought that when a business provides services like flowers or food for a gay couple’s wedding, that the business is telling the world it supports "marriage" for gay couples, compared to 57% who say that doing so is simply fulfilling a contract for services.

Even when we dug deeper and asked about specific services and professions, respondents still overwhelming believed that businesses should not be able to deny services to gay customers—largely regardless of whether they were purchasing services as an individual or as a couple for a "wedding":



• By a 47-point margin (69% to 22%), Americans said a doctor should not be able to refuse to treat a gay patient this can include a psychiatrist who could be required to try and "help" a homosexual couple (listen to what Rav Yoshe Ber Soloveitchik had to say on this topic), and by 41 points (66% to 25%) they said that a doctor should not be able to refuse to deliver a baby for a married lesbian couple.


• By a 32-point margin (60% to 28%), Americans thought that an accountant should not be able to refuse to file taxes for a gay person, and by 34 points (62% to 28%) they said that an accountant should not be able to refuse to file a joint tax return for a legally "married" gay couple.


• By a 27-point margin (60% to 33%), respondents said a restaurant owner should not be able to refuse to cater a gay person’s birthday party, and by 21 points (56% to 35%) they said that a restaurateur should not be able to refuse to cater a gay couple’s "wedding" . Fifty-five percent said that a waiter should not be able to refuse to work at a gay couple’s wedding if the caterer has agreed to do so, while only 36% thought he or she should be able to refuse.


• By a 32-point margin (63% to 31%), Americans said a florist should not be able to refuse to sell flowers to a gay person, and by 23 points (59% to 36%) they said that florist should not be able to refuse to sell flowers for a gay couple’s "wedding". Fifty-four percent also said that a photographer should not be able to refuse to photograph a gay couple’s wedding, while only 38% thought he or she should be able to refuse.


• By a margin of 15 points (52% to 37%), respondents said that a religious charity should not be able to refuse to provide health care benefits to the spouse of a legally "married" gay employee. 

read this paragraph carefully
The only situation in which majority of respondents felt someone should be allowed to refuse to provide a "wedding"-related service for a gay "couple" was when the provider was a church or clergy member and that service was the religious solemnization of that "marriage"—the actual performance of the "wedding" ceremony. In that case, only 61% of voters felt the clergy member or church should be able to refuse to perform the ceremony, compared to 28% who felt they should not. As it turns out, this tracks perfectly with the current liberal interpretation of law, because the First Amendment of the Constitution—and the "marriage" laws in states that have allowed gay couples to "marry"—already protect any church, clergy member, or religious leader from being forced to recognize, solemnize, or celebrate any "marriage". the fact that 28% of the country is for forcing rabbis to be a a misader kidashin (not kiddushin) is very troubling because 10 years ago it we would have had similar numbers regarding caterers and photographers, and 10 years before that in regarding to same sex "marriage" all together Americans drew a sharp line between religious services, which a person has a right to decline, and commercial services, where all customers who are able to pay should be able to purchase the service.


CONCLUSION


The lessons learned from this poll will only become more important as our country continues to move "forward" toward the day when all gay couples can make a lifetime commitment to each other in a fake "marriage". Ours wais a nation built on the principle of equal protection under the law, and the public believes that current laws provide appropriate protections according to atheists for those with religious objections to "marriage" without creating an untenable situation in which people can simply ignore existing non-"discrimination" laws. evil Americans don’t believe that religious liberty is infringed by allowing gay couples to "marry", because they "know" that the First Amendment protects only clergy and churches from being forced to recognize or celebrate any "marriage" to which they object and currently Liberals believe that the first amendment only applies to clergy and houses of worship. And there is widespread opposition to the creation of new laws, exemptions, or loopholes that would allow government employees, large or small businesses, or organizations to refuse to provide commercial services to gay individuals or couples, regardless of whether those services are directly related a wedding and forces them to violate their religion. Above all, Americans believe everyone but religious people should be treated equally under the law.

Andrew Cuomo Wants To Make New York Orthodox-Judenrein

Andrew Cuomo's New York

• You have a schism within the Republican Party. … They’re searching to define their soul, that’s what’s going on. Is the Republican party in this state a moderate party or is it an extreme conservative party? That’s what they’re trying to figure out. It’s a mirror of what’s going on in Washington. The gridlock in Washington is less about Democrats and Republicans. It’s more about extreme Republicans versus moderate Republicans.
  … You’re seeing that play out in New York. … The Republican Party candidates are running against the SAFE Act — it was voted for by moderate Republicans who run the Senate! Their problem is not me and the Democrats; their problem is themselves. Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and they’re the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.
  If they’re moderate Republicans like in the Senate right now, who control the Senate — moderate Republicans have a place in their state. George Pataki was governor of this state as a moderate Republican; but not what you’re hearing from them on the far right.”

  Andrew Cuomo's statement

Cuomo wants to add NY to this list

Knesset Passes First Vote On Homosexual "Couple" Tax Law:Satmar/Aguda Still Protesting The Draft

The Knesset plenum approved in a 44-20 vote on Wednesday a preliminary bill offering tax breaks for same-sex "parents".

A compromise between Yesh Atid and Habayit Hayehudi parties paved the way for the bill's passage. The written deal between the two coalition partners has been kept under wraps but it is expected the bill will be shelved and that equal tax credits will be implemented through Finance Ministry regulations rather than legislation. 

Storming out of the building, members of left-wing opposition party Meretz refused to participate in the vote and demanded to make public the Yesh Atid-Habayit Hayehudi agreement. They were joined in criticizing the secret dealings by MK Eitan Cabel (Labor). He voted against the bill in order to be allowed address the plenum and speak out against the lack of transparency.

Religious Services Minister Naftali Bennett was the only representative of Habayit Hayehudi present to vote in favor of the law. MK Ayelet Shaked notified the Knesset that she was unable to reach the plenum in time for the vote and asked that her name be added to the bill’s supporters.

The faction chairs of the two parties, Ofer Shelah for Yesh Atid and Ayelet Shaked for Habayit Hayehudi, led the attempts to reach a compromise in recent weeks. On Tuesday, they reached a final agreement at the forum of faction chairmen of the coalition parties. In addition, the forum resolved to convene for regular weekly sessions in order to reach agreements on disputed bills before they are submitted for Knesset votes.

The compromise should allow both parties to demonstrate an achievement.

Yesh Atid can say gay "parents" have been included the tax law, and in addition claim a "moral" triumph with the passing of the bill on Wednesday that for the first time recognizes same-sex "couples", even if this step does not result in legislation in the end.

A senior party member said Tuesday that “Habayit Hayehudi cannot threaten to veto a law after the government has decided to support it. We broke that principle through this compromise. The bill will be voted on exactly the way the government approved it, and Habayit Hayehudi won’t prevent that."

In parallel, Habayit Hayehudi should be able to boast of derailing legislation that recognizes same-sex "couples".

Sources close to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu clarified last week that he supports the law in the version introduced by MK Adi Kol (Yesh Atid), which is the one passed Wednesday.

With sources from the two sides giving contradictory information, and no document publically available, the exact nature of the agreement between Yesh Atid and Habayit Hayehudi remains unclear.

Habayit Hayehudi said the regulations Finance Minister Yair Lapid would set will be subject to approval by the Finance Committee, which is headed by their representative, MK Nissan Slomiansky. Yesh Atid, by contrast, said that no such agreement had been reached and that the authority to formulate the regulations would be entirely in the hands of party chairman Yair Lapid. The regulations are expected to include the phrase “partners of the same sex.”

Yesh Atid, however, was hesitated to play up the importance of the deal.

“This bill wasn’t "supposed" to become the flagship of gay-"couple" recognition, but to ease the distress of a few dozen couples discriminated against by the state." A source in Yesh Atid said Tuesday. "We conduct "major battles "on major issues. Yesh Atid is advancing the "civil union" law that would recognize gay couples for the first time, and we’ll be bringing that through the front gate, not the back door."

Kol’s bill was approved three weeks ago by the ministerial Committee for Legislation, but since then was not brought to the Knesset for a vote due to the conflict between Yesh Atid and Habayit Hayehudi. Members of Habayit Hayehudi, particularly MK Shaked, were subjected in recent weeks to pressure and public criticism, especially on Facebook, after trying to thwart the law and threatening to veto it. Lapid harshly attacked the intention to veto the law and clarified that it provides social assistance to children and is not concerned with issues of religion and state.

“I’ll take this to the government,” Lapid told Army Radio. “I’ll ask them to explain what it has to do with religion and state, because if this is religion and state then we can veto any issue in the world because of religion and state. I don’t see how someone can raise their hand and say, ‘I support children getting punished because their "parents" are gay.'"
Under the current law, in the case of married couples, each child under the age of 18 garners only the woman one tax credit point.This means that two men raising children together are not eligible for the tax break. The value of a full credit point in 2013 was 2,616 shekels over the year.
(haaretz)

However, Meretz party MKs stormed out of the hall before the vote in protest against confusion over exactly what deal was struck between the Yesh Atid and Jewish Home parties over the future of the bill, and in particular, whether any references to “same-sex” were to be removed.

Coalition partners Yesh Atid and Jewish Home agreed on Tuesday to bring the bill to the Knesset for a preliminary reading although the two parties gave different versions of just what it was that they agreed on.

The national-religious Jewish Home party, which strongly opposed the law at first because it correctly saw the references to gay "couples" as a step toward legalizing civil "marriage" in Israel, claimed that after passing the preliminary reading the law was to be changed. The updated version, from which of all mention of same-sex "couples" was to be expunged, would instead only empower the interior minister to apply regulations giving gay "couples" tax benefits equal to those of heterosexual couples. and is still a step towards Toevah "marriage" and worse. 

By contrast, Yesh Atid asserted that the law would continue as originally intended.

“This law will not go away and it will be promoted in the standard process of passing laws,” Lapid said. “Because it comes from the "sacred" principle that says every person has a right to live in sin.”

Nonetheless, Lapid appeared to be evasive when challenged by opposition MKs to give his assurances that the law would be advanced in its current format and responded only that it would necessarily be reworked in the coalition committee, over which he does not have control.

During the vote, the only Jewish Home MKs to give their approval were party leader Economy and Trade Minister Naftali Bennett and MK Ayelet Shaked who's not Orthodox. Other Jewish Home MKs abstained in protest against Lapid not mentioning the proposed future changes in the wording and scope of the law. Or they're against the whole thing altogether

The legislation aims to alter current Israeli law, which grants higher tax breaks for mothers than for fathers and thus puts male gay "couples" at a "disadvantage" and changing it is promoting homosexuality. The benefits for each child can reach over NIS 2,600 ($740) a year.

(timesofisrael) highlights ours

Meanwhile the "charadiem" are doing nothing, If every Single Orthodox Jew In Israel and America would have fought this Habayit Hayehudi might have fought stronger, and we possibly could have gotten Likud To fight it also

But of course the draft is more important 

Moshe Indig at yesterday's Aroni Protest of the draft (a toevah supporter both in America and apparently EY)

For the draft the Aroniem staged another protest,  Zlamin Attacks Aguda, and the Moetzes of Agudas Yisrael (from EY) is staging an insane protest in NY, but not as single person protested the Mishkav Zachar Bill who's fight was going on for that past month which is infinitely more important.  Maybe if the "Charadim" would have fought it Bayit Yehudi would even have vetoed it.

New Poll Shows Majority Of Country Is In Favor Of Religious Persecution In The Name Of Gay "Rights"

The poll was taken by the First Amendment Center.

Philadelphia Passes Gay "Rights" Bill That Would Force Kosher Restaurants To Allow Transgerneder Workers

Philadelphia Mayor signing bill that would allow men in womans bathrooms

some selected parts of the anti basic decency bill

 

 

It shall be an unlawful public accommodations practice to 

                (.4)      Refuse, withhold from, or deny any person access to any separate-gender bathroom where the person's gender identity is consistent with the gender for which such bathroom is reserved.

 ____

§ 16-104.  Gender-Neutral Bathrooms.

 

      (1)      Definitions.

 

            (a)      Gender Identity.  Shall have the meaning given in § 9-1102(1).

 

            (b)      Gender-Neutral Bathroom.  A bathroom that is designated for use by any person or persons, regardless of Gender Identity.

 

      (2)      Gender-Neutral Bathrooms.

 

            (a)      Any new building constructed by the City shall include Gender-Neutral Bathrooms in number and location appropriate to the building's use.

 

            (b)      Whenever the City renovates a building that it owns or occupies, or any portion of a building that it owns or occupies, and such renovation includes renovation of bathrooms, Gender-Neutral Bathrooms in number and location appropriate to the use of the building or portion thereof so renovated shall be established.

 

Also like the department of education no more mother or father

      (1)      Effective one year after the effective date of this Ordinance, all new forms issued by any City department, board, or commission shall not include requests for gender-specific identification. Such forms shall include, for example, the term “Parent/Legal Guardian” instead of “Mother” or “Father.” Where it is necessary to request the gender of a person, an option shall be provided for that person to select the option “self-identify” for the person's gender in addition to the options of “male” and “female.”

(text of the bill)


if you live in Philadelphia this bill would also pay out millions in new "benefits" to gays out of your hard earned tax payer money.

article on the law from a gay rights blog
Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter today signed into law the most extensive civil rights protections and benefits for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in the nation.“Mayor Michael Nutter and gay rights advocates say it makes Philadelphia the first big city in the U.S. to offer tax credits to companies that extend the same health care coverage to LGBT employees’ life partners and their children as they already provide to heterosexual spouses and their children,” the Greenwich Time reports:

Councilman James Kenney sponsored the bill. He says it also makes Philadelphia the first city to give businesses tax credits for offering transgender-specific health benefits. Among other things, the measure also requires gender-neutral bathrooms in city-owned buildings and revises Philadelphia’s anti-discrimination law to include transgender people.

The bill revamps “the city’s health-care plan to ban discrimination against non-union transgender city employees, and would instate a Transgender Health Tax Credit that would encourage companies to offer transgender-specific health-insurance coverage to the transgender community,” South Florida Gay News reported last month:

City buildings would also be required to provide gender-neutral bathrooms, and the measure would clarify what constitutes employment discrimination in the city’s nondiscrimination law.
The bill won with a near-sweeping victory, with Councilman-at-Large Bill Green being the only Democrat to vote against it. Republican Councilmen-at-Large David Oh and Brian O’Neill voted against the bill.

Nutter is also the President of the U.S. Conference of Mayors
"thenewcivilrightsmovement"