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

[Jackalope]

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.

Is there any contrarian position you won't defend?

[Brian37]

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.

Yes and no. You cant force them to perform gay marriages. But society can boycott that business. And if that location gets tax exempt status it should lose that tax exempt status for discriminating.

[Heywood]

Are you okay with interracial marriage?

Yes....coincidently...I'm in an interracial marriage.

[Chas]

Are you okay with interracial marriage?

Yes....coincidently...I'm in an interracial marriage.

We should believe this because ... ?

[Heywood]

Yes....coincidently...I'm in an interracial marriage.

We should believe this because ... ?

Its personal testimony. I have had skin heads call my children "mud babies". Did I like it? Did I think it was good behavior? Of course not, but I also don't want to make laws against them being able to do that.

But you don't have to believe it if you don't want too.

[Chas]

We should believe this because ... ?

Its personal testimony. I have had skin heads call my children "mud babies". Did I like it? Did I think it was good behavior? Of course not, but I also don't want to make laws against them being able to do that.

But you don't have to believe it if you don't want too.

I neither believe nor disbelieve it.

[Whateverist]

Are you okay with interracial marriage?

Yes....coincidently...I'm in an interracial marriage.

I would hope you'd come in for as much discrimination and condemnation as you deem appropriate for those in gay marriages.

[Esquilax]

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.

Couldn't handle the rest of my post, eh?

Happily, you're also skipping over the actual argument that I made, which is that you were claiming these guys were acting as religious entities, when they were not. They were acting as business entities.

[Jenny A]

You cant force them to perform gay marriages. But society can boycott that business. And if that location gets tax exempt status it should lose that tax exempt status for discriminating.

emphasis mine.

That is precisely the way this should be handled. Boycott. Protesters out front.

Tax exempt status is a broader question. Most anti-discrimination statutes have an out for three types of organizations: political groups (freedom of association and freedom of speech); political office holders and judges (freedom of association and freedom of speech); and religious organizations (free exercise of religion). Both the political organizations and religious ones often have tax exempt status, office holders are paid by the government. If the first two can have tax exempt status and a discrimination get out of jail free card, why not churches?

The real question in my mind is whether religious organizations should have tax exempt status just because they are religious organizations. I think the answer to that question is no. Only separate charitable, political, or educational arms of a church should have tax exempt status and that status should have the same requirements as those for secular organizations including anti-discriminatory laws. Granting them tax exempt status simply because they are churches is the establishment of religion.

[Dystopia]

To be honest, I'm not sure if Christianity condemns interracial marriages or not so I cannot talk about the problem - But when exercising freedom of religion aggregated with religious institutions such as churches, an individual shouldn't be forced to marry gay people... But of course, if we're talking about civil marriage, Dura Lex Sed Lex.