Faster than I predicted

[PearlWatson]

in their officiating over a civil ceremony.

all wedding ceremonies done by clergy could be considered "civil ceremonies" because they sign the legal documents.

 

[One Brow]

How was I to know you were going to read the entire Allen West's blog.

Not his whole blog, just the article you linked to. It's OK, no one really expects that you will put some research into your posts.

 

[One Brow]

all wedding ceremonies done by clergy could be considered "civil ceremonies" because they sign the legal documents.

However, not all locations are public spaces, and in particular churches are not public spaces.

 

[PearlWatson]

However, not all locations are public spaces, and in particular churches are not public spaces.

Wedding chapels ain't "public spaces" either.

 

[PearlWatson]

However, they are claiming to serve the general public, while discriminating against members of the general public.
No one can force any clergy to officiate at any wedding in any venue, paid or otherwise.

They ain't claiming to serve the "general public" just the public that was allowed to get married by law. That is one of the biggest reasons for my resistance to redefine marriage by force of law because of the legal consequences for clergy and Christians in general to participate against their conscience and lose their livelihoods.

 

[PearlWatson]

Pretty clear you are working with a definition of "religion" that necessarily invokes organizational, legally-established status.

I think the rhetoric OB and other progressives use is pretty tightly engineered to discredit personal convictions invoking God in any way, replacing them with legal technicalities which in effect make even personal beliefs legally prosecutable. It is really intolerance of religious conscience in individuals. People who reject statist rules are the problem. They are systematically reduced by law to criminal status.

OB might not have that intent, and might actually believe he is advocating a reasoned sort of society operating on better principles, but I am looking at what the net effect long-term will be if we have governments prosecuting individuals or business owners for not performing services they may deem objectionable on the level of their own personal conscience.

We have civil alternatives. . . . publicly-paid judges of various descriptions, widely available in all legal jurisdictions, who will perform legal weddings. The government does not need to regulate individuals on their own enterprise of serving any category of clientele in this manner. Nobody should have to do things they consider wrong. We even let some men called up for military service make a statement of conscientious objection so they won't need to kill people. Or at least we should, if we don't do this anymore.

That really was an excellent all encompassing response.

I was just going to post a quote by the lawyer in this case:

"People don't abandoned their first amendment freedoms when they open a business. That's not a precondition to owning and operating a business in American and it never has been." Jeremy Tedesco,

 

[One Brow]

Wedding chapels ain't "public spaces" either.

If you serve the general public in a for-profit capacity, you are running a public space. No quotes needed.

 

[One Brow]

They ain't claiming to serve the "general public" just the public that was allowed to get married by law.

People are allowed by law to marry members of their own gender.

That is one of the biggest reasons for my resistance to redefine marriage by force of law because of the legal consequences for clergy and Christians in general to participate against their conscience and lose their livelihoods.

Yes, we are aware of your fears, which are completely unfounded and untrue.

 

[LogGrad98]

If you serve the general public in a for-profit capacity, you are running a public space. No quotes needed.

Is that clearly defined in the NDO for the city in question? This was never clarified. The ACLU did mention "religious business", but never clarified what that meant.

 

[LogGrad98]

Yes, we are aware of your fears, which are completely unfounded and untrue so far.

Fixed.

 

[One Brow]

Fixed.

You don't think 47 years is long enough to make determination?

 

[LogGrad98]

You don't think 47 years is long enough to make determination?

Gay marriage has been legal across the country for 47 years?