RE: Ministers Threatened with Jail/Fines For Refusing to Officiate at Gay Weddings
October 22, 2014 at 10:02 am
(October 22, 2014 at 9:28 am)Esquilax Wrote:(October 22, 2014 at 9:10 am)Heywood Wrote: Freedom of Religion has been around a lot longer than anti-discrimination laws. Free exercise of religion trumps anti-discrimination laws as evidenced by the numerous ministerial exceptions the courts say exists.
The government cannot force a minister to preform a religious ceremony against his will.
Then they can stop making profit on their business, and act as ministers. What you're saying is that they should be able to play both sides of the law exclusively for their own benefit: they're a business when it comes time to pay the check, but they're ministers whenever there are convenient laws for them to hide behind there.
Besides, since when has "free exercise of religion" meant "businesses can do whatever they want, if they hang a cross on the door."? I know you like this idea, that religion gives every theist carte blanche to break any laws you disagree with, but where does that end? If it were against their religious convictions to serve black people, would you be all thumbs up there, too?
If it were any other religion looking to double dip on their legal benefits, you wouldn't be taking this stance, and you know it.
I don't like any anti-discrimination laws except those which apply to the government. If a private doctor did not want to operate on me because of the color of my skin, then he should be free to refuse.
