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

[FatAndFaithless]

No, sorry Woody. Just because they toss in the word "religious" doesn't magically make them immune to the law. Get rid of the for-profit business model and make it a church or non-profit organization and they can refuse whatever they like. They're selling a product, they're a for-profit business, they have to follow the law just like any other business. It's very simple, no matter how huffy and indignant you might feel about following the same rules as everyone else.

[Esquilax]

Freedom of Religion has been around a lot longer than anti-discrimination laws. Free exercise of religion trumps anti-discrimination laws as evidenced by the numerous ministerial exceptions the courts say exists.

The government cannot force a minister to preform a religious ceremony against his will.

Then they can stop making profit on their business, and act as ministers. What you're saying is that they should be able to play both sides of the law exclusively for their own benefit: they're a business when it comes time to pay the check, but they're ministers whenever there are convenient laws for them to hide behind there.

Besides, since when has "free exercise of religion" meant "businesses can do whatever they want, if they hang a cross on the door."? I know you like this idea, that religion gives every theist carte blanche to break any laws you disagree with, but where does that end? If it were against their religious convictions to serve black people, would you be all thumbs up there, too?

If it were any other religion looking to double dip on their legal benefits, you wouldn't be taking this stance, and you know it.

[vorlon13]

Can the Knapps pass an even a minimal test of religious sincerity ??

(this would support their claim of actually having the religious beliefs they believe performing a gay marriage would violate)

Have they ever performed, under Christian auspices, remarriages for divorced people ??


And if they have, they are fucking hypocrites, cherry picking selective adherents to their supposed faith.

[Tonus]

Can you at least provide a link to the liberaltard ragsheet you got your talking points from? Or did you just make all those claims you listed up?

I assume that it is this one. (link may not work properly?) He doesn't seem to discuss the particulars of the case much, and at least a couple of his talking points are couched as opinions. Think Progress put up this piece, which discusses the steps the chapel has taken in anticipation of charges being brought against them at some point. Hot Air has a more conservative-oriented view of the matter.

[Heywood]

No, sorry Woody. Just because they toss in the word "religious" doesn't magically make them immune to the law. Get rid of the for-profit business model and make it a church or non-profit organization and they can refuse whatever they like. They're selling a product, they're a for-profit business, they have to follow the law just like any other business. It's very simple, no matter how huffy and indignant you might feel about following the same rules as everyone else.

The error in your thinking is you think religion and business are mutually exclusive. Sorry, but religious activities preformed by citizens don't magically disappear because they become entangled in business.....and yes I agree this is a business and not a church. A law which limits the free exercise of religion should be struck down because it is unconstitutional.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Were they performing weddings in their non-profit church, I'd absolutely agree with you. But --

But the chapel is also registered as a for-profit business – not as a church or place of worship – and city officials said that means the owners must comply with a local nondiscrimination ordinance.

Perhaps if they were truly interested in their faith, they shouldn't seek to monetize their deity.

Even their own Bible advises them to abide the laws of the government under which they live. They are free to conduct only heterosexual marriages under the auspices of their nonprofit church, should they care to found one.

[FatAndFaithless]

No, sorry Woody. Just because they toss in the word "religious" doesn't magically make them immune to the law. Get rid of the for-profit business model and make it a church or non-profit organization and they can refuse whatever they like. They're selling a product, they're a for-profit business, they have to follow the law just like any other business. It's very simple, no matter how huffy and indignant you might feel about following the same rules as everyone else.

The error in your thinking is you think religion and business are mutually exclusive. Sorry, but religious activities preformed by citizens don't magically disappear because they become entangled in business.....and yes I agree this is a business and not a church. A law which limits the free exercise of religion should be struck down because it is unconstitutional.

When it comes to the legal code that all businesses follow, yes Woody, religion stays out of it. They're running a business, not a church, they have to follow the legal codes for business, it's very simple.

Just because a bakery owner thinks interracial marriage is a sin beacuse of their faith, they still have to serve those couples. Just because an accountant thinks homosexuality is against their religion, they don't get to turn away gay people because of their faith. Renting out their space in a for profit business is no different, and these pastors have to play by the same rules as everyone else.

If you think that law should be struck down, fine, vote on it. But you don't get to break the law with impunity until then.

[Heywood]

Freedom of Religion has been around a lot longer than anti-discrimination laws. Free exercise of religion trumps anti-discrimination laws as evidenced by the numerous ministerial exceptions the courts say exists.

The government cannot force a minister to preform a religious ceremony against his will.

Then they can stop making profit on their business, and act as ministers. What you're saying is that they should be able to play both sides of the law exclusively for their own benefit: they're a business when it comes time to pay the check, but they're ministers whenever there are convenient laws for them to hide behind there.

Besides, since when has "free exercise of religion" meant "businesses can do whatever they want, if they hang a cross on the door."? I know you like this idea, that religion gives every theist carte blanche to break any laws you disagree with, but where does that end? If it were against their religious convictions to serve black people, would you be all thumbs up there, too?

If it were any other religion looking to double dip on their legal benefits, you wouldn't be taking this stance, and you know it.

I don't like any anti-discrimination laws except those which apply to the government. If a private doctor did not want to operate on me because of the color of my skin, then he should be free to refuse.

[FatAndFaithless]

Then they can stop making profit on their business, and act as ministers. What you're saying is that they should be able to play both sides of the law exclusively for their own benefit: they're a business when it comes time to pay the check, but they're ministers whenever there are convenient laws for them to hide behind there.

Besides, since when has "free exercise of religion" meant "businesses can do whatever they want, if they hang a cross on the door."? I know you like this idea, that religion gives every theist carte blanche to break any laws you disagree with, but where does that end? If it were against their religious convictions to serve black people, would you be all thumbs up there, too?

If it were any other religion looking to double dip on their legal benefits, you wouldn't be taking this stance, and you know it.

I don't like any anti-discrimination laws except those which apply to the government. If a private doctor did not want to operate on me because of the color of my skin, then he should be free to refuse.

How very easy to say. I'm going to take a wild swing in the dark and say you're...probably a white, straight, married Christian living in a western country? Easy to say that man.

[vorlon13]

No, sorry Woody. Just because they toss in the word "religious" doesn't magically make them immune to the law. Get rid of the for-profit business model and make it a church or non-profit organization and they can refuse whatever they like. They're selling a product, they're a for-profit business, they have to follow the law just like any other business. It's very simple, no matter how huffy and indignant you might feel about following the same rules as everyone else.

The error in your thinking is you think religion and business are mutually exclusive. Sorry, but religious activities preformed by citizens don't magically disappear because they become entangled in business.....and yes I agree this is a business and not a church. A law which limits the free exercise of religion should be struck down because it is unconstitutional.

How brazen can the Knapps be about selective adherence to their claimed christianity's dogma, edicts, strictures, tenets, rules, commandments, and requirements and still be considered to be practitioners of the christian faith, and not schismatics setting up their own Knappite counter church ???