Ministers Threatened with Jail/Fines For Refusing to Officiate at Gay Weddings

[FatAndFaithless]

So, Woodie, if some Hawaiian guy wanted to throw a virgin to a volcano would you be okay with that because it is his fucking "religion?"


Or are you just a hypocrite who thinks your jesus shit is somehow more important than it really is?

Depends, does the Hawaiian guy offer a nice sacrifice package including flowers, grass skirts, two drink tickets for the bar, and a dinner coupon?~

[Heywood]

There is no such free market. But even if - discriminating against not so large segments is then to be accepted?

Sure.

Casino's discriminate against card counters.

---

So, Woodie, if some Hawaiian guy wanted to throw a virgin to a volcano would you be okay with that because it is his fucking "religion?"


Or are you just a hypocrite who thinks your jesus shit is somehow more important than it really is?

Minimalist, you're just a troll trying to tard up the nice discussion we are having.

Please just go away.

[Jenny A]

The religious ceremony isn't the point, and never was. You'll notice I emphasized that a few posts back. If this business has a venue that sells marriage licenses (a document that directly enters into the US government), they have to follow the non-discrimination laws that any other purveyor of these documents does.

Sorry, but you really misunderstand how marriage licenses work. States issue marriage licenses, which do not cause you to be married. To be legally married you need some one legally authorized to preform the marriage ceremony to do so. Traditionally clergy, judges, and county clerks are all authorized to perform the ceremony. After the service, the couple, witnesses and official performing the wedding sign a marriage certificate which is filed with the state.

The Knapps don't sell marriage licenses, they preform marriage services for couples who have obtained a marriage license. They advertise a variety of denominational services and a "civil service" which I assume uses the official script used by the County Clerk's office.

But it is the State of Idaho, which sell licenses through their County Clerk's Offices. http://www.idaho.gov/family_records/marriage.html They are not sold by private companies.

I don't know what you mean by "a document that directly enters into the US government." With the exception of the District of Columbia, and possibly for military personal overseas (but I don't know about that for sure), the federal government does not issue marriage licenses. Nor are marriage licenses recorded with the U.S. government.

The U.S. government does treat people differently with regard to taxes and Social Security depending on whether they married or single. But whether and how people are married is a state matter. The USSC shot down the Defense of Marriage Act for that very reason.

If their advertised product/service was just "traditional weddings that follow X, Y, Z", then that would be the product/service they sell, and people who wanted one of those would purchase it (and I don't even know if I'm comfortable with that, but it would be legal). But dealing in government documents is not something that allows for discrimination, especially based on religion.

That's what they do. They don't "deal in government documents."

[FatAndFaithless]

The religious ceremony isn't the point, and never was. You'll notice I emphasized that a few posts back. If this business has a venue that sells marriage licenses (a document that directly enters into the US government), they have to follow the non-discrimination laws that any other purveyor of these documents does.

Sorry, but you really misunderstand how marriage licenses work. States issue marriage licenses, which do not cause you to be married. To be legally married you need some one legally authorized to preform the marriage ceremony to do so. Traditionally clergy, judges, and county clerks are all authorized to perform the ceremony. After the service, the couple, witnesses and official performing the wedding sign a marriage certificate which is filed with the state.

The Knapps don't sell marriage licenses, they preform marriage services for couples who have obtained a marriage license. They advertise a variety of denominational services and a "civil service" which I assume uses the official script used by the County Clerk's office.

But it is the State of Idaho, which sell licenses through their County Clerk's Offices. http://www.idaho.gov/family_records/marriage.html They are not sold by private companies.

I don't know what you mean by "a document that directly enters into the US government." With the exception of the District of Columbia, and possibly for military personal overseas (but I don't know about that for sure), the federal government does not issue marriage licenses. Nor are marriage licenses recorded with the U.S. government.

The U.S. government does treat people differently with regard to taxes and Social Security depending on whether they married or single. But whether and how people are married is a state matter. The USSC shot down the Defense of Marriage Act for that very reason.

If their advertised product/service was just "traditional weddings that follow X, Y, Z", then that would be the product/service they sell, and people who wanted one of those would purchase it (and I don't even know if I'm comfortable with that, but it would be legal). But dealing in government documents is not something that allows for discrimination, especially based on religion.

That's what they do. They don't "deal in government documents."

Fair enough. But if these people are running this marriage service as a private business and not as a non-profit, they should follow the anti-discrimination business rules that everyone else has to follow. If they're a non-profit church, then of course they can't be forced to perform same-sex marriage.

[Esquilax]

A free market would not allow for a large segment of the population to not be served. It takes government interference to make that happen.

Haven't you been paying attention? We're talking about minority groups here; small segments of the population. For all the shrill panic mongering we sometimes here, it's actually much easier for large segments to oppress smaller ones, than it is to do the reverse.

Which also ignores the fact that we're talking about people here, regardless of how small a segment of the population it is: do you endorse blanket denial of service for minorities based on religious discrimination?

Additionally, though Min phrased his question in the traditionally Minnish way, it is relevant: where do you draw the line? If a religious business had, as a belief, the commandment that if a person of another religion walks onto their premises they should be immediately murdered, would you be arguing for their right to do that? It's the same basic situation: secular laws are rubbing up against this hypothetical business owner's right to free practice of his religion. Do you draw a line there?

And if you do, how are you differentiating the situations such that one is enfolded in your idea of religious protection, where the other isn't?

[Jenny A]

Fair enough. But if these people are running this marriage service as a private business and not as a non-profit, they should follow the anti-discrimination business rules that everyone else has to follow. If they're a non-profit church, then of course they can't be forced to perform same-sex marriage.

I can't say I much like the Knapps' belief system. It's abhorrent (many religious beliefs are). And they are in violation of Idaho's anti-discrimination laws. The question is whether the the First Amendment, the RFRA, or other law gives them an out because of their religious beliefs.

This not like baking a cake for a wedding, or renting an apartment. The Knapps would actually be preforming a ceremony that they consider blasphemy. I think they have a case. I don't see that whether they are for profit or not matters to the RFFA or First Amendment.

[FatAndFaithless]

Fair enough. But if these people are running this marriage service as a private business and not as a non-profit, they should follow the anti-discrimination business rules that everyone else has to follow. If they're a non-profit church, then of course they can't be forced to perform same-sex marriage.

I can't say I much like the Knapps' belief system. It's abhorrent (many religious beliefs are). And they are in violation of Idaho's anti-discrimination laws. The question is whether the the First Amendment, the RFRA, or other law gives them an out because of their religious beliefs.

This not like baking a cake for a wedding, or renting an apartment. The Knapps would actually be preforming a ceremony that they consider blasphemy. I think they have a case. I don't see that whether they are for profit or not matters to the RFFA or First Amendment.

Well, again I never brought up RFRA or the first amendment, just anti-discrimination laws. This idea isn't novel to this case though, there have been plenty of cases (like the wedding cakes and apartments that you mentioned) in which people have been forced to do something against their religion. I'm not sure what's so special about this ceremony, because I can guarantee the wedding cake people were just as vehement about their faith as this wedding ceremony business. They'd have a case about as powerful as the wedding cake people, because they're selling a product. Could they worm their way into an exception? Maybe.

[downbeatplumb]

When did discrimination become an integral part of Christianity?

[Jenny A]

When did discrimination become an integral part of Christianity?

Since the very very beginning my son when god chose a special people and chose a special tribe within that people to be priests. Not to mention the god's laws about women, those of other religions, bastards, etc. Gays are just the tip of the Christianity discrimination iceberg.

---

Well, again I never brought up RFRA or the first amendment, just anti-discrimination laws. This idea isn't novel to this case though, there have been plenty of cases (like the wedding cakes and apartments that you mentioned) in which people have been forced to do something against their religion. I'm not sure what's so special about this ceremony, because I can guarantee the wedding cake people were just as vehement about their faith as this wedding ceremony business. They'd have a case about as powerful as the wedding cake people, because they're selling a product. Could they worm their way into an exception? Maybe.

I know you didn't bring up the RFRA, but that is what the Knapps are suing under. Worked for Hobby Lobby much to my disgust.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I could see where they might be required to facilitate non religious aspect of the marriage....i.e. the license...the flowers...perhaps even the venue. I just can't see how a court could credibly compel them to preform a religious wedding ceremony if they don't want too.

If they wish to make their wedding services nonreligious, then they can hardly appeal to religious beliefs in denying same-sex couples their services, no?

---

A free market would not allow for a large segment of the population to not be served. It takes government interference to make that happen.

Although I suspect that you have me on ignore given your refusal to engage any points I have made, allow me to laugh my ass off at your ignorance of history.

---

There is no such free market. But even if - discriminating against not so large segments is then to be accepted?

Sure.

Casino's discriminate against card counters.

So, do you understand the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic qualities?

Because card counters aren't born, but gay folk are.