RE: Ministers Threatened with Jail/Fines For Refusing to Officiate at Gay Weddings
October 23, 2014 at 4:28 pm
(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.
I think there is some confusion here regarding what a business is. A church is a business every bit as much as this chapel is. The difference is that a church has set itself up as a specific type of non-profit enterprise whereas this chapel has set itself up as a for-profit venture. There are unique obligations and priviliges which apply to each. One of the obligations you take on when incorporating a for-profit business in a state is that you agree to abide by the laws which apply to for-profit businesses in that state, including anti-discrimination laws. Different rules apply to non-profit churches. If you don't want to abide by the rules and laws which apply to for-profit businesses, don't incorporate as a for-profit business. Nobody told them they had to play, but once they decided to play the for-profit game, they have to obey the rules just like any other for-profit business.
![[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/zf86M5L7/extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg)