Ministers Threatened with Jail/Fines For Refusing to Officiate at Gay Weddings

[Heywood]

Haven't you been paying attention? We're talking about minority groups here; small segments of the population. For all the shrill panic mongering we sometimes here, it's actually much easier for large segments to oppress smaller ones, than it is to do the reverse.

Which also ignores the fact that we're talking about people here, regardless of how small a segment of the population it is: do you endorse blanket denial of service for minorities based on religious discrimination?

Additionally, though Min phrased his question in the traditionally Minnish way, it is relevant: where do you draw the line? If a religious business had, as a belief, the commandment that if a person of another religion walks onto their premises they should be immediately murdered, would you be arguing for their right to do that? It's the same basic situation: secular laws are rubbing up against this hypothetical business owner's right to free practice of his religion. Do you draw a line there?

And if you do, how are you differentiating the situations such that one is enfolded in your idea of religious protection, where the other isn't?

In responding to your post, I am also going to make some responses to points other people made

First amendment rights do not go away because a person engages in business. The claim that since these ministers are in the marriage business they are no longer protected under by the First Amendment is just wishful thinking up a justification to deny someone's whose behavior you do not like....their First Amendment rights. Jenny A did an awesome job of explaining that the First Amendment has no clause which excludes people from being protected if they are engaged in for profit business. If this argument is brought up again, just expect me to ignore it. I have examined it thoroughly and reject it. You're just going to have to accept that.

Second, the reason the First Amendment does not protect a person from murdering another on religious grounds is that the First Amendment does not protect you from violating laws that apply to everyone. Nobody or no group is exempted from being prosecuted for murder. However ministers preforming church weddings are exempted from the law that prohibits everyone else from discriminating. The anti discrimination law does not apply to everyone so it doesn't necessarily trump the First amendment.

Last, there must be a compelling government interest. A compelling government interest is not forcing people to behave in a way you think they should behave. You can argue that is a government interest make sure gay couples are not disenfranchised. However the Hitching Post policy of not preforming gay weddings is not substantially disenfranchising gay couples since they can walk a mere 400' and have the county clerk or judge marry them.