Faster than I predicted

[babe]

Freedom and equality should be going both ways. If gay people have right to marry then pastors, priests, mohels, mulas and other religious servants should have right not to marry them. It all should be a matter of choice. Nothing can be forced IMHO.

So everybody rep AKMVP for saying in three sentences what I couldn't articulate in ten ten-paragraph novellettes.

 

[babe]

Even then, the Feds would overturn that **** in a hurry.

Probably.

But someday, I still dream, people will put some determination to make the Bill of Rights say what it said to begin with. "Congress. . . (the Fed Gov lawmakers) shall make no law" respecting any imposition of religion or any other kind of human belief some people might like, on the people, from the Federal level at least.

 

[colton]

If you are a business open to the public, you better serve the public. Otherwise, don't open your business to the public.

Say there is a small town in the middle of nowhere that has a whopping one grocery store ( Burlington Colorado comes to mind). Let's also say the nearest grocery store after that one is 30 miles away. If the owner of that store hates gays and refuses to serve maybe the 1 or 2 gay guys in town, does that mean they now have to move our drive 30 miles for groceries? I doubt public pressure is going to shut the place down, and there probably isn't a good financial incentive to open another store.

So again, when you open a business to the public, serve the public.

I see this issue as being much more akin to the question of whether medical providers should be forced to provide medical services such as abortions which violate their sincerely held religious beliefs. Should they? I don't believe they should.

A quick google search showed that most jurisdictions have addressed this issue by the passing of what are called "conscience clauses". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscience_clause_(medical). For example, the first "external link" given at the end of that Wikipedia article, https://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_RPHS.pdf, indicates that 46 states allow some health care providers to refuse to provide abortion services. A quick glance over that document seems to indicate that only in 1 of the 46 states must the health care provider be a religious entity in order for the conscience clause to be invoked.

Why can't that same thing be done for marriages? I doubt anyone could claim that not wanting to sell groceries to gays is the result of a sincerely held religious objection, but it should be obvious that the same is not true of being forced to perform a gay marriage.

 

[colton]

The same reason that county clerks or pharmacists are expected to. They are in a job serving the public. In this case, they own the business, but it is still a public business, not a religious endeavor.

Pharmacists are NOT expected to, at least in many jurisdictions. See here:
https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/pharmacist-conscience-clauses-laws-and-information.aspx

As just one of the cited examples:

Tennessee Code Ann. 68-34-104 allows physicians or any agent of such an entity to refuse to offer contraceptive services, supplies, or information if it interferes with a moral or religious belief. States that physicians or other agents may not be held liable for this refusal.

 

[Harambe]

First of all, my mom has standards. Go look in the mirror, tubbo, you're at least a 20' pole kind of guy. As for your post, should we just start calling you One HottttDikkkk? That chapel is a business, not a church. I swear.

I know you're used to blowing your top early, but follow that road a few more blocks.

Yes, it's a for profit business and not a religious non-profit organization protected under the first amendment. Doesn't that make them the same category as hobby lobby?

 

[babe]

I know you're used to blowing your top early, but follow that road a few more blocks.

Yes, it's a for profit business and not a religious non-profit organization protected under the first amendment. Doesn't that make them the same category as hobby lobby?

as for that particular point, I don't think Hobby Lobby got into trouble for refusing to sell their stuff to people who had abortions. It was more about whether they should pay for stuff their employees wanted to do by covering it in their benefits package.

I think that's more in line with the right or power for people or corporations to negotiate their own contracts in doing business.

 

[♪alt13]

Why is this place still in business? Why would anyone pay for the privilege of getting "hitched" here? This is like suing to protect you're right to dumpster dive. You may be able to make a legal argument but it's still nasty.

 

[moevillini]

It's sort of ironic that we talk about the separation of church and state and yet we really can't begin the discussion without understanding how the "state" defines a "church".

And not everything that calls itself a "church" is really a church in the eyes of the law.

It's a conundrum I guess.

 

[Dr. Jones]

It's sort of ironic that we talk about the separation of church and state and yet we really can't begin the discussion without understanding how the "state" defines a "church".

And not everything that calls itself a "church" is really a church in the eyes of the law.

It's a conundrum I guess.

keeeeeeep going... you're just getting started.. I suspect. (in a great way)

 

[babe]

keeeeeeep going... you're just getting started.. I suspect. (in a great way)

I agree.

I think it reduces to a simple "games people play" sort of level as those who wanna have their own way with the law play fast and loose with the rhetoric. . . . I keep going back to "can't we all just have our own way in our own little corner of the world, and let others have theirs?"

I don't care what a church is or isn't. I think the principle of law in our day should be to keep people free to believe and act as they want, and make the State leave them alone while they do it.

the conundrum is where what we believe and do has real impact on others and does harm to their freedom and standing in a community.

 

[PearlWatson]

It's not a church, it's a wedding chapel available for hire.

Your ignorance at the meaning of chapel is secondary to my point.

When I predicted government would force "churches" to perform homosexual "marriages" against their will I wasn't talking about brick and mortar buildings I was talking about clergy...you know the ones with the authority to perform weddings.

You worded that really oddly but I'll run with. You said the chapel is for hire, so in other words you are renting time in a building to have your wedding ceremony.

Clergy perform wedding ceremonies at many different venues, some of which are paid venues. This is all in jeopardy now.

I don't think Christians who fell for all the "equality" hogwash really considered the consequences when they caved in to peer pressure.

 

[PearlWatson]

In this case there were not acting on behalf of a church but their own personal religious beliefs.

They are ordained pastors of their church, so of course they are acting on behalf of their church. This is the reason why the state recognized their authority to perform weddings in the first place.