RE: Ministers Threatened with Jail/Fines For Refusing to Officiate at Gay Weddings
October 23, 2014 at 2:26 am
(This post was last modified: October 23, 2014 at 2:35 am by Anomalocaris.)
It seems to me that If the religious institution is not empowered to formalize such a marriage as would be recognized by the generally applicable law of the land, ie married in the eyes of some God but the civil law rightly could not give a fuck, then by all means the religious can practice whatever discrimination they deem necessary to pretend to make up for in the next life the respect they would lose in this one.
But if they were to offer marriage services recognized as valid under generally applicable laws, yhen they must be bound to generally applicable standards of nondiscrimination.
It seems to me what the fuckwarts want is all the benefit of secular recognition without having to meet any of the normal standards demanded for secular recognitions.
The bullshit about first amendment is utterly disingenuous. No one is abridging the right of the religious to say anything they like. What is being denied them is what they were never entitled to in the first place but were given as an ill considered courtesy, which is qualification as substitution for recognized civil secular institution.
But if they were to offer marriage services recognized as valid under generally applicable laws, yhen they must be bound to generally applicable standards of nondiscrimination.
It seems to me what the fuckwarts want is all the benefit of secular recognition without having to meet any of the normal standards demanded for secular recognitions.
The bullshit about first amendment is utterly disingenuous. No one is abridging the right of the religious to say anything they like. What is being denied them is what they were never entitled to in the first place but were given as an ill considered courtesy, which is qualification as substitution for recognized civil secular institution.
