RE: Ministers Threatened with Jail/Fines For Refusing to Officiate at Gay Weddings
October 23, 2014 at 3:10 pm
(This post was last modified: October 23, 2014 at 3:12 pm by Chas.)
(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.
There is no compelling need of the state to force these ministers to preform a religious ceremony they do not want to perform. If a gay couple wants to get married, they can walk to the courthouse right next door and get just as married as they can in the chapel.
Forcing these ministers to preform gay marriages doesn't help gays. Its merely the imposition of someone else's will upon another for no good reason other than a disgust in their beliefs.
Were they asked to perform a religious ceremony? They offer civil ceremonies - were they asked for that? I suspect so.
(October 23, 2014 at 2:39 pm)Jenny A 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.
It a business engaged in religious services conducted by two ministers.
No, it fucking isn't. They offer civil ceremonies, as well. They offer ceremonies for other religions not their own.
Quote: I don't see how or whether they are paid or not has much of anything to do with it except that the Idaho Anti-discrimination law takes that into account. The Idaho RFRA does not. Why should religious practice, or freedom from religious practice depend upon profit?.
See above. This is not religious practice.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
