(October 23, 2014 at 2:34 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(October 23, 2014 at 1:20 pm)Chas Wrote: Everyone seems to have lost sight of the fact that this wasn't a church, it was a business open to the public.
And it was a business that offered civil (non-religious) ceremonies.

The point of law that is being invoked is that a business cannot discriminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation.

No one is suggesting that churches must allow anyone to marry in their churches. They are not businesses and not subject to the same regulation.

There is more than one point of law being invoked. The other point being people are protected from being forced by the state to preform a religious ceremony they don't want to preform. This protection doesn't go away simply because you are in business.

I think there is some confusion here regarding what a business is. A church is a business every bit as much as this chapel is. The difference is that a church has set itself up as a specific type of non-profit enterprise whereas this chapel has set itself up as a for-profit venture. There are unique obligations and priviliges which apply to each. One of the obligations you take on when incorporating a for-profit business in a state is that you agree to abide by the laws which apply to for-profit businesses in that state, including anti-discrimination laws. Different rules apply to non-profit churches. If you don't want to abide by the rules and laws which apply to for-profit businesses, don't incorporate as a for-profit business. Nobody told them they had to play, but once they decided to play the for-profit game, they have to obey the rules just like any other for-profit business.

(October 23, 2014 at 4:28 pm)rasetsu Wrote: I think there is some confusion here regarding what a business is. A church is a business every bit as much as this chapel is. The difference is that a church has set itself up as a specific type of non-profit enterprise whereas this chapel has set itself up as a for-profit venture. There are unique obligations and priviliges which apply to each. One of the obligations you take on when incorporating a for-profit business in a state is that you agree to abide by the laws which apply to for-profit businesses in that state, including anti-discrimination laws. Different rules apply to non-profit churches. If you don't want to abide by the rules and laws which apply to for-profit businesses, don't incorporate as a for-profit business. Nobody told them they had to play, but once they decided to play the for-profit game, they have to obey the rules just like any other for-profit business.

First amendments rights don't cease to exist when you incorporate. You are just plain wrong if you think they do. However, laws do trump first amendment rights when they apply to everyone(this law does not as it exempts church ministers selling the same product) and when they serve a compelling government interest(gays are not being disenfranchised as there is a courthouse 400' away). The fact that a law can trump the First Amendemnt in limited situations is why you can't use the First Amendment as cover for killing someone.

I'm with the theist on this one.

The service this chapel (even if it's legally registered as a for-profit business)provides is clearly not only about filling out paperwork: it is providing an EXPERIENCE or THEME-- the experience of being married in an environment compatible with the believers of a particular religion. You can't go to an amusement park which advertises the experience of riding roller coasters, and demand that they provide the experience of water slides; you don't get to say that they are discriminating against those looking for the experence of waterslides, because they never intended to build their business on that theme.

If you are talking about officially eliminating religion in the US, okay-- have that talk. But enforcing civil liberties by legislating the behavior of religious businesses surely has to be seen as self-contradictroy. Since there are plenty of non-religious institutions capable of performing a legal marriage, there's really no good reason to force religious institutions to perform that role for any particular couple.

(October 23, 2014 at 1:20 pm)Chas Wrote: They are not businesses and not subject to the same regulation.

I know what you're meaning here ... but golly, this could be a thread in itself.

(October 22, 2014 at 9:58 am)Heywood Wrote: A law which limits the free exercise of religion should be struck down because it is unconstitutional.

Sorry Heywood, the Rastafarians lost this fight a long time before you started whining about it.

---

(October 22, 2014 at 11:57 am)Heywood Wrote:

(October 22, 2014 at 11:44 am)Alex K Wrote: There is no such free market. But even if - discriminating against not so large segments is then to be accepted?

Sure.

Casino's discriminate against card counters.

Now show me where card counters are a protected class. Go ahead, I'm waiting.

(October 23, 2014 at 12:20 am)Heywood Wrote: 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.

Actually, your first amendment rights are substantially modulated when you are employing them in a business context. For example, false advertising laws technically curtail your first amendment right to free speech, but they still exist for the purpose that all laws do; to correct the behavior of people for the good of society. If you're going to say something, at least be accurate about it.

Additionally, can you tell me what, exactly, in the first amendment is being violated here? Where is the religious commandment, in any branch of christianity, that denies gay people the right to marry? I'll answer for you: there isn't any. The bible is rather more... violent, in what it says one should do with gays, but never once does it forbid them to marry. The only way you can possibly suggest that non discrimination laws actually violate the first amendment, in this case, is to suggest that religious beliefs extend beyond the bounds of what the actual religion in question teaches, which renders that entire segment of the amendment meaningless. At that point, you're just talking about beliefs in general.

Quote: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.

They are not acting as a church, so they are not exempted from laws that apply to churches. Again, all this is is you trying to ensure that your own religion gets to decide when the laws apply to it, and when they don't.

Quote: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.

Since when have laws ever had to be that specific? Are you seriously expecting the government to qualify it that harshly? "You can't discriminate against gays, unless there is another outlet of an identical service or product that won't, within X distance"?

The whole point of discrimination laws is to make it so people can't use exceptions to make things more difficult for others.

(October 24, 2014 at 2:22 pm)Esquilax Wrote: They are not acting as a church, so they are not exempted from laws that apply to churches. Again, all this is is you trying to ensure that your own religion gets to decide when the laws apply to it, and when they don't.

First Amendment rights apply to people.....not churches.

(October 23, 2014 at 4:44 pm)Heywood Wrote: First amendments rights don't cease to exist when you incorporate. You are just plain wrong if you think they do. However, laws do trump first amendment rights when they apply to everyone(this law does not as it exempts church ministers selling the same product) and when they serve a compelling government interest(gays are not being disenfranchised as there is a courthouse 400' away). The fact that a law can trump the First Amendemnt in limited situations is why you can't use the First Amendment as cover for killing someone.

Quick question: if these ministers were refusing to officiate at an interracial wedding instead of a gay wedding, would you still defend them?

I ask this because people can easily deny the same services to interracial couples for the same exact reasons they give for gay marriages. Bear in mind that, until recently, Bob Jones University refused to allow interracial dating, and cited their religious convictions as defense.

(October 24, 2014 at 7:14 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote:

(October 23, 2014 at 4:44 pm)Heywood Wrote: First amendments rights don't cease to exist when you incorporate. You are just plain wrong if you think they do. However, laws do trump first amendment rights when they apply to everyone(this law does not as it exempts church ministers selling the same product) and when they serve a compelling government interest(gays are not being disenfranchised as there is a courthouse 400' away). The fact that a law can trump the First Amendemnt in limited situations is why you can't use the First Amendment as cover for killing someone.

Quick question: if these ministers were refusing to officiate at an interracial wedding instead of a gay wedding, would you still defend them?

I ask this because people can easily deny the same services to interracial couples for the same exact reasons they give for gay marriages. Bear in mind that, until recently, Bob Jones University refused to allow interracial dating, and cited their religious convictions as defense.

Yes.

Are you okay with interracial marriage?