RE: Ministers Threatened with Jail/Fines For Refusing to Officiate at Gay Weddings
October 23, 2014 at 12:56 pm
(This post was last modified: October 23, 2014 at 1:12 pm by Anomalocaris.)
(October 23, 2014 at 12:52 pm)Bibliofagus Wrote: The State should not empower institutions that discriminate. That's my view. It's like granting the kkk the right to marry people - and make money off that. It also elevates these people and their views to officiialness. Which is bad.
The state should incur cost to itself to further the interests of parties working against the policy interests of the state.
Everyone like to get rich by robbing others for the seed capital.
(October 23, 2014 at 12:31 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Of course we could deprive religious marriage ceremonies of all legal effect. There are countries where legal marriage requires a civil marriage first and any religious ceremony has no legal effect. In those countries the civil ceremony is a short oath followed by signing a marriage certificate. That would, I gather satisfy your objects to the Knapps' establishment as their services would have no legal effect? Yes? But I don't think it would satisfy any gay couple who wanted something other than a civil service.
The gay couple has a right to demand, but not a right to force, a church to reform itself. The church is under no oligation to accede to demands so long as the church's conduct does not effect in any way people or institutions that are not voluntarily part of the church. This is my idea of religious freedom. The gay couple can leave the church.
The society at large does not have any obligation to treat any certifications or services provided by the church that does not reform itself to meet contemprary standards for these services as if the these cerfigications or services are equal to others which do meet contemprary standards.
So religious freedom is served by the gay couple not being able to force the church to become wise. Public interest is served by the church being decertified as being wise.
