NationStates Jolt Archive

Gay rights laws facing challenge

New laws banning discrimination against gay people in the provision of goods and services face a Lords challenge.
The Sexual Orientation Regulations have been criticised by some religious groups who say people will not be allowed to act according to faith.

They are gathering outside Parliament in protest as a peer makes an attempt in the Lords to scrap the regulations.

But gay rights group Outrage's Peter Tatchell said no mainstream religious groups were supporting the protest.

The regulations came into force in Northern Ireland on 1 January and the government is planning to introduce them in England, Wales and Scotland, by April.

Critics say the regulations would mean hotels could not refuse to provide rooms for gay couples, and religious groups would be obliged to rent out halls for gay wedding receptions.

Some also argue a Christian, Jewish or Muslim printer could be legally forced to print a flyer for a gay night club, or a teacher would have to break the law to promote heterosexual marriage over homosexual civil partnership.

Democratic Unionist peer Lord Morrow has put forward a motion calling for the Northern Ireland regulations to be annulled and amended - to be discussed in an hour-long "dinner debate" in the House of Lords on Tuesday evening.

Barrister Thomas Cordrey, from the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship, which has organised the rally, denied the group was homophobic, saying the regulations did not "strike the correct balance".

He said: "Christians have no desire to discriminate unjustly on the grounds of sexual orientation, but they cannot and must not be forced to actively condone and promote sexual practices which the Bible teaches are wrong."

He is backed by Bishop Michael Reid, founder of the Christian Congress for Traditional Values, who said discrimination was wrong, but so was discrimination against Christian values.

But supporters of the regulations say they simply extend to gay people the same rights that had been granted to people of different faiths in 1998.

Labour MP and Equality Act campaigner Angela Eagle told the BBC's Today programme: "We're not curtailing religious freedom, people can argue against the practice of homosexuality if they must.

"What this law does is say it's wrong to put a sign outside a pub or a hotel saying 'no gays'...That is right, proper and moderate."

The National Secular Society accused religious groups of "gross exaggeration" to get the law annulled. President Terry Sanderson said: "Parliament must not pander to their bigotry."

And Alan Wardle, spokesman for gay rights group Stonewall, told BBC News: "Some of the things that we've come across are where schools aren't tackling homophobic bullying properly, where people have been struck off by GPs because they were gay.

"These laws will prevent that kind of discrimination - not some of the lurid things that have been said about forcing people to promote a gay lifestyle."

In a statement on Tuesday, the Board of Deputies of British Jews distanced itself from the protest, saying the regulations would "provide a further platform to combat discrimination in this country".

But it said it hoped the regulations would be "framed in such a way that allows for both the effective combating of discrimination in the provision of goods and services whilst respecting freedom of conscience and conviction".

A High Court judicial review against the regulations in Northern Ireland, brought by the Christian Institute, will be heard in March.

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6243323.stm)

The hypocrisy astounds me: religious groups recently got legislation passed which made it illegal to incite hatred against their religion and now they're complaining because they're not allowed to discriminate against homosexuals. If somebody lost their job because of their religion or if a web designer refused to design a web page for a church or mosque there'd be uproar.

How long will it be before this particular brand of institutionalised bigotry is consigned to the dustbin of history along with it's predecessors?

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6243323.stm)

The hypocrisy astounds me: religious groups recently got legislation passed which made it illegal to incite hatred against their religion and now they're complaining because they're not allowed to discriminate against homosexuals. If somebody lost their job because of their religion or if a web designer refused to design a web page for a church or mosque there'd be uproar.

How long will it be before this particular brand of institutionalised bigotry is consigned to the dustbin of history along with it's predecessors?

Longer than I like to think, sadly.

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6243323.stm)

The hypocrisy astounds me: religious groups recently got legislation passed which made it illegal to incite hatred against their religion and now they're complaining because they're not allowed to discriminate against homosexuals. If somebody lost their job because of their religion or if a web designer refused to design a web page for a church or mosque there'd be uproar.

How long will it be before this particular brand of institutionalised bigotry is consigned to the dustbin of history along with it's predecessors?

One of the reasons that religious groups in the US oppose legalizing gay marriage is this very issue.

Pastors and ministers are licensed (as are Justices of the Peace and any court Judge) to perform marriages (i.e., to sign the marriage license and administer any ceremony desired by the couple).

Technically, if gay marriage was legal, a gay couple could force a Catholic priest to perform a marriage in the church - I'm not sure that the Catholic priest would be in a position to deny the ceremony on the basis of homosexuality (on the basis of faith, protected by the First Amendment), without losing the license to perform such ceremonies.

Thus imposing external beliefs on someone else's religion.

If you believe in religious freedom, and not imposing your beliefs on others (i.e., not forcing Catholics to believe something they oppose), then you have to side with the religions.

Just to be clear here, I'm OK with gay marriage, but not in forcing a minister who is opposed to it to perform one - you can always go to the Unitarian Church or Methodist Church and get married there.

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6243323.stm)

The hypocrisy astounds me: religious groups recently got legislation passed which made it illegal to incite hatred against their religion and now they're complaining because they're not allowed to discriminate against homosexuals. If somebody lost their job because of their religion or if a web designer refused to design a web page for a church or mosque there'd be uproar.

How long will it be before this particular brand of institutionalised bigotry is consigned to the dustbin of history along with it's predecessors?

at first i thought this was in the US, but no, if i jump high enough i can see the UK. this scares me.

...or if a web designer refused to design a web page for a church or mosque there'd be uproar.

As I understand it, it would be entirely within the rights of a freelance web designer to refuse such a job, or any job for that matter.

One of the reasons that religious groups in the US oppose legalizing gay marriage is this very issue.

Pastors and ministers are licensed (as are Justices of the Peace and any court Judge) to perform marriages (i.e., to sign the marriage license and administer any ceremony desired by the couple).

Technically, if gay marriage was legal, a gay couple could force a Catholic priest to perform a marriage in the church - I'm not sure that the Catholic priest would be in a position to deny the ceremony on the basis of homosexuality (on the basis of faith, protected by the First Amendment), without losing the license to perform such ceremonies.

Thus imposing external beliefs on someone else's religion.

If you believe in religious freedom, and not imposing your beliefs on others (i.e., not forcing Catholics to believe something they oppose), then you have to side with the religions.

Just to be clear here, I'm OK with gay marriage, but not in forcing a minister who is opposed to it to perform one - you can always go to the Unitarian Church or Methodist Church and get married there.

In my opinion the best solution would be to take marriage out of the hands of the Church. In the UK, anyone who has a church-wedding has to go to the registry office afterwards to formalise it. If the church service was changed to an informal blessing rather than a legally binding ceremony then any churches which opposed homosexual marriage would be under no obligation to bless the union.

As I understand it, it would be entirely within the rights of a freelance web designer to refuse such a job, or any job for that matter.

True. I assume the law would only come into effect if the webdesigner agrees to design a website for a new nightclub and then trys to pull out of the contract when they find out it's a homosexual nightclub. The example was produced by the protesters so don't blame me if it doesn't work. :p

The law certainly can't stop all discrimination but it can certainly reduce it and send a clear message that the government believes in equality.

In my opinion the best solution would be to take marriage out of the hands of the Church. In the UK, anyone who has a church-wedding has to go to the registry office afterwards to formalise it. If the church service was changed to an informal blessing rather than a legally binding ceremony then any churches which opposed homosexual marriage would be under no obligation to bless the union.

I think the easier thing is to take the government out of it.

If you want a contract to cover your joint property, go to a civil office.

If you want a "marriage", go to the religious institution that supports your kind of marriage (polygamy, traditional hetero, gay marriage, marrying your pet, I don't care) and get "married".

Then come back and if necessary, get a joint property contract drawn up.

In my opinion the best solution would be to take marriage out of the hands of the Church. In the UK, anyone who has a church-wedding has to go to the registry office afterwards to formalise it. If the church service was changed to an informal blessing rather than a legally binding ceremony then any churches which opposed homosexual marriage would be under no obligation to bless the union.

in my state we have to have a state issued marriage license, afaik we did the whole legal mumbo jumbo at the county clerk's office and the ceremony we had was bonus.........

at first i thought this was in the US, but no, if i jump high enough i can see the UK. this scares me.

British Christianity is becoming more Americanised by the day, it scares me too. :(

About a month ago Pentecostalism overtook Methodism in terms of church attendance; the liberal churches are losing support while the more fundamentalist ones are flourishing. A wave of new faith schools is sweeping the country, many of them teaching Creationism as science. During the Christmas holidays various Christian groups fermented paranoia waged an American style campaign against a non-existent attempt to ban Christmas. To add insult to injury, the current government gave a member of Opus Dei responsibility for promoting equality.

As I said, it scares me.

British Christianity is becoming more Americanised by the day, it scares me too. :(

About a month ago Pentecostalism overtook Methodism in terms of church attendance; the liberal churches are losing support while the more fundamentalist ones are flourishing. A wave of new faith schools is sweeping the country, many of them teaching Creationism as science. During the Christmas holidays various Christian groups fermented paranoia waged an American style campaign against a non-existent attempt to ban Christmas. To add insult to injury, the current government gave a member of Opus Dei responsibility for promoting equality.

As I said, it scares me.

An observation:

It's hard to get excited about something like "belief" if your "beliefs" are extremely malleable, and subject to change with the political wind.

Churches that are more mealymouthed and spineless about sticking up for any sort of belief at all, for fear of offending someone lose attendance because one day, the parishoner says, "hey, they told me I don't have to believe in anything at all".

Then they leave.

I think the easier thing is to take the government out of it.

If you want a contract to cover your joint property, go to a civil office.

If you want a "marriage", go to the religious institution that supports your kind of marriage (polygamy, traditional hetero, gay marriage, marrying your pet, I don't care) and get "married".

Then come back and if necessary, get a joint property contract drawn up.

I was refering to marriage in the sense of the legal contract. If two (or three, or four) people want to declare themselves to be 'married' then they're free to do so but they won't be recognised by the law unless they go to the registry office.

One of the reasons that religious groups in the US oppose legalizing gay marriage is this very issue.

Pastors and ministers are licensed (as are Justices of the Peace and any court Judge) to perform marriages (i.e., to sign the marriage license and administer any ceremony desired by the couple).

Technically, if gay marriage was legal, a gay couple could force a Catholic priest to perform a marriage in the church - I'm not sure that the Catholic priest would be in a position to deny the ceremony on the basis of homosexuality (on the basis of faith, protected by the First Amendment), without losing the license to perform such ceremonies.

Thus imposing external beliefs on someone else's religion.


That doesn't sound right to me... I'm in Canada and I believe our marriage laws are relatively similar to the US. I thing that a church has to marry anyone they don't want to. When I got married, my wife and I had the ceremony performed by a civil official rather than a religious official. I don't think that I could have gone to the local synagogue and forced a rabbi to perform my ceremony, instead we were given a list of government certified officials and A religious ceremony is just that, a religious ceremony. I don't believe that the state has any power to compel a priest to give someone the sacraments, why would they have the power to compel a priest to marry someone? Since there are secular alternatives to a religious marriage, nobody's rights are being infringed.

I admit I'm not an expert and could be wrong, can you point to any specific cases where anyone has been forced to perform a marriage they didn't want to?

An observation:

It's hard to get excited about something like "belief" if your "beliefs" are extremely malleable, and subject to change with the political wind.

Churches that are more mealymouthed and spineless about sticking up for any sort of belief at all, for fear of offending someone lose attendance because one day, the parishoner says, "hey, they told me I don't have to believe in anything at all".

Then they leave.

I can understand why people are doing it, but that doesn't make me any happier about the situation.

Besides, the Methodists have been fairly consistently liberal and left-wing for ages now, same with the Quakers.

I admit I'm not an expert and could be wrong, can you point to any specific cases where anyone has been forced to perform a marriage they didn't want to?

Once gay marriage becomes Federal law in the US, watch what happens...

in my state we have to have a state issued marriage license, afaik we did the whole legal mumbo jumbo at the county clerk's office and the ceremony we had was bonus.........

Sounds like a good solution to me: each individual church can choose who they're willing to marry but the state offers equal treatment to all.

Sounds like a good solution to me: each individual church can choose who they're willing to marry but the state offers equal treatment to all.

I know that when I was a premarital counselor I had a few pastors that would wait for my recommendation before they went through with the ceremony, I had one couple who the pastor refused to marry so they went to the courthouse to get it done, they married on Thursday and filed for annulment on Tuesday of the following week........they "couldn't get along"


:rolleyes:

Technically, if gay marriage was legal, a gay couple could force a Catholic priest to perform a marriage in the church - I'm not sure that the Catholic priest would be in a position to deny the ceremony on the basis of homosexuality (on the basis of faith, protected by the First Amendment), without losing the license to perform such ceremonies.


I am sure. Catholic priests regularly refuse to marry couples - because one of them isn't Catholic, because they don't plan to raise their children Catholic, and for an assortment of other reasons. Ministers, rabbis, and so forth do likewise. I chatted with a rabbi some years ago who told me that he refused to marry converts because he felt that they weren't "real" Jews. It happens. The state has never compelled representatives of a faith to marry people, and permitting gay marriage to exist would not change that.

Every time I see crap like this I come a little closer to full-on Buddhism. I don't need ANOTHER faith crisis, THANKS!

Every time I see crap like this I come a little closer to full-on Buddhism. I don't need ANOTHER faith crisis, THANKS!

Buddhism is teh win, go for it.

Buddhism is teh win, go for it.

I'm technically a Catholic, which I'm fine with for now. My problem is I disagree with many tenants of even basic Christianity. I've been meaning to post a long treatise on my beliefs on the NS forums but I haven't the gumption to do so yet. I find myself mixing Christianity with Buddhist ideals, because Buddhism appeals to me very much.

Well, many aspects of Buddhism do, anyway.

I think part of my problem is I don't think any religion is necessarily wrong or right.

I'm technically a Catholic, which I'm fine with for now. My problem is I disagree with many tenants of even basic Christianity. I've been meaning to post a long treatise on my beliefs on the NS forums but I haven't the gumption to do so yet. I find myself mixing Christianity with Buddhist ideals, because Buddhism appeals to me very much.

Well, many aspects of Buddhism do, anyway.

I think part of my problem is I don't think any religion is necessarily wrong or right.

Well, no religion is necessarily right or wrong. It's which morals appeal to you most. I think Buddhism is a very good religion-it's pacifist. I'm a Christian, though, because I had an experience which I know, deep down, was due to God. But it's all up to you.

One of the reasons that religious groups in the US oppose legalizing gay marriage is this very issue.

Pastors and ministers are licensed (as are Justices of the Peace and any court Judge) to perform marriages (i.e., to sign the marriage license and administer any ceremony desired by the couple).

Technically, if gay marriage was legal, a gay couple could force a Catholic priest to perform a marriage in the church - I'm not sure that the Catholic priest would be in a position to deny the ceremony on the basis of homosexuality (on the basis of faith, protected by the First Amendment), without losing the license to perform such ceremonies.

Thus imposing external beliefs on someone else's religion.

If you believe in religious freedom, and not imposing your beliefs on others (i.e., not forcing Catholics to believe something they oppose), then you have to side with the religions.

Just to be clear here, I'm OK with gay marriage, but not in forcing a minister who is opposed to it to perform one - you can always go to the Unitarian Church or Methodist Church and get married there.

Are you saying that legislation in the USA would force a Catholic priest to marry a couple of two divorcees?
If so, I'm surprised that this hasn't yet cost a number of Catholic priests their licence to marry people.
And if not, then how could you force them to wed homosexuals? Apparently, they still have all rights within their religion to refuse to perform the ceremony.

Well, no religion is necessarily right or wrong. It's which morals appeal to you most. I think Buddhism is a very good religion-it's pacifist. I'm a Christian, though, because I had an experience which I know, deep down, was due to God. But it's all up to you.

I like the Buddhist ideals, but I've yet to see Buddhists standing outside an abortion clinic yelling at people, or Buddhists flying planes into buildings, or doing anything to hurt people intentionally.

Ever.

Of course! OF COURSE I AM WRONG! I'm not well versed in Buddhist history per se so I know there's got to be something along those lines. I'm just saying.

But for me, it just makes more and more sense everyday. I'm not ready to decide there's no God because I feel very much there is one, but I'm starting to think Buddhism is a better route.

I think the easier thing is to take the government out of it.

If you want a contract to cover your joint property, go to a civil office.

If you want a "marriage", go to the religious institution that supports your kind of marriage (polygamy, traditional hetero, gay marriage, marrying your pet, I don't care) and get "married".

Then come back and if necessary, get a joint property contract drawn up.

That would essentially be the same.
You get your religious marriage in the church, but it won't have any legal significance with the government.
To get that, you go to the registry office and get the official and legal marriage registered.

That would essentially be the same.
You get your religious marriage in the church, but it won't have any legal significance with the government.
To get that, you go to the registry office and get the official and legal marriage registered.
It seems really petty to me that there are people who aren't satisfied with this system. They want THEIR religion's version of marriage to be the only one that is legally recognized, instead of being willing to accept that *gasp* not everybody shares their religious beliefs.

Are you saying that legislation in the USA would force a Catholic priest to marry a couple of two divorcees?
If so, I'm surprised that this hasn't yet cost a number of Catholic priests their licence to marry people.
And if not, then how could you force them to wed homosexuals? Apparently, they still have all rights within their religion to refuse to perform the ceremony.

divorced people are not a protected class, homosexuals are (or should be)

Of course! OF COURSE I AM WRONG! I'm not well versed in Buddhist history per se so I know there's got to be something along those lines. I'm just saying.



There isn't, I don't think.


CYBERFRUIT MERCHANT NOW!

I like the Buddhist ideals, but I've yet to see Buddhists standing outside an abortion clinic yelling at people, or Buddhists flying planes into buildings, or doing anything to hurt people intentionally.

Ever.

Of course! OF COURSE I AM WRONG! I'm not well versed in Buddhist history per se so I know there's got to be something along those lines. I'm just saying.

But for me, it just makes more and more sense everyday. I'm not ready to decide there's no God because I feel very much there is one, but I'm starting to think Buddhism is a better route.

If you read into Japanese medieval history and even into WW2, you'll see that Buddhists can be full of homicidal nutcases just like any other religion.

The argument of bigots: "Tolerate our intolerance!"

divorced people are not a protected class, homosexuals are (or should be)

But it would be really nice if homosexuals didn't have to be a protected class.

If you read into Japanese medieval history and even into WW2, you'll see that Buddhists can be full of homicidal nutcases just like any other religion.

Well, that's what I had in mind, but I think what I meant to say is I don't see any Buddhists doing radical stuff, nowadays anyway. Their history is full of crazies who were Buddhists, but not necessarily Buddhists who were crazy and doing crazy shit in the name of Buddhism, you know?

divorced people are not a protected class, homosexuals are (or should be)
A Catholic priest can refuse to marry non-Catholics, though, right?

A Catholic priest can refuse to marry non-Catholics, though, right?

Yep.

divorced people are not a protected class, homosexuals are (or should be)

If a priest can refuse to perform a marriage because it contradicts the religion he represents, there would be no difference between a couple of divorcees and a gay couple. Or, as someone pointed out, a couple where one of the partners isn't Catholic.

If you read into Japanese medieval history and even into WW2, you'll see that Buddhists can be full of homicidal nutcases just like any other religion.

Actually, the largest religion in Japan is a combination of Shinto and Buddhism. You're bordering on outright falsehood with that statement. Besides. the leaders of Japan at those times were almost assuredly Shinto.

Yep.
So if a Catholic priest can refuse to marry non-Catholics, then why shouldn't they be allowed to refuse to marry homosexuals (or divorcees, or whomever)?

A Catholic priest can refuse to marry non-Catholics, though, right?

I don't know........I am unsure as to why non-Catholics would be going to a Catholic priest for anything.


although I was just thinking about how the Catholic church doesn't accept people with Celiac as priests and that is a protected class under the Americans with Disabilities act so, I guess it's a non-issue?:confused:

If a priest can refuse to perform a marriage because it contradicts the religion he represents, there would be no difference between a couple of divorcees and a gay couple. Or, as someone pointed out, a couple where one of the partners isn't Catholic.
Okay, I'm trying to think through something, so see if you can bear with me on this:

My initial reaction was to say, "A private organization (such as a church) should be able to decline to perform marriage services whenever they choose, whether it be on the basis of religion, sexuality, or whathaveyou."

However, then I started wondering if a non-religious organization can refuse to marry a given couple for any reason. For instance, can the Elvis Wedding Parlor in Vegas refuse to marry a Catholic couple? Can they refuse to marry people who have been divorced before? What about inter-racial couples?

Private, secular businesses are not allowed to discriminate on such grounds, as far as I know. A privately-owned restaurant can't just refuse to provide desert for Catholics, or refuse to let black people order the steak. So I'm assuming that a privately-owned wedding chappel also can't refuse service for such reasons.

If that is the case, then why SHOULD religious organizations be permitted to discriminate? Why should religious organizations have special rights compared to non-religious organizations? Religious beliefs aren't automatically stronger, wiser, or better than secular beliefs, so why should religious belief entitle people to discriminate if secular beliefs do not?

Please remember, I'm still thinking through this, so I'm actually asking these questions...I'm not posing them rhetorically to be an ass or anything.

Okay, I'm trying to think through something, so see if you can bear with me on this:

My initial reaction was to say, "A private organization (such as a church) should be able to decline to perform marriage services whenever they choose, whether it be on the basis of religion, sexuality, or whathaveyou."

However, then I started wondering if a non-religious organization can refuse to marry a given couple for any reason. For instance, can the Elvis Wedding Parlor in Vegas refuse to marry a Catholic couple? Can they refuse to marry people who have been divorced before? What about inter-racial couples?

Private, secular businesses are not allowed to discriminate on such grounds, as far as I know. A privately-owned restaurant can't just refuse to provide desert for Catholics, or refuse to let black people order the steak. So I'm assuming that a privately-owned wedding chappel also can't refuse service for such reasons.

If that is the case, then why SHOULD religious organizations be permitted to discriminate? Why should religious organizations have special rights compared to non-religious organizations? Religious beliefs aren't automatically stronger, wiser, or better than secular beliefs, so why should religious belief entitle people to discriminate?

Please remember, I'm still thinking through this, so I'm actually asking these questions...I'm not posing them rhetorically to be an ass or anything.

I believe, but am likely to be wrong, that it would fall under the establishment clause type of deal. I mean, if the government can't arrest you for letting your kids die from flu because you don't believe in medicine, then I don't think refusing marriages is that far off.

Plus, they're not taxed at all, so the government doesn't have financial say in their matters, which I'm sure has something to do with the way churches are handled.

Also, are churches considered a private business?

Okay, I'm trying to think through something, so see if you can bear with me on this:

My initial reaction was to say, "A private organization (such as a church) should be able to decline to perform marriage services whenever they choose, whether it be on the basis of religion, sexuality, or whathaveyou."

However, then I started wondering if a non-religious organization can refuse to marry a given couple for any reason. For instance, can the Elvis Wedding Parlor in Vegas refuse to marry a Catholic couple? Can they refuse to marry people who have been divorced before? What about inter-racial couples?

Private, secular businesses are not allowed to discriminate on such grounds, as far as I know. A privately-owned restaurant can't just refuse to provide desert for Catholics, or refuse to let black people order the steak. So I'm assuming that a privately-owned wedding chappel also can't refuse service for such reasons.

If that is the case, then why SHOULD religious organizations be permitted to discriminate? Why should religious organizations have special rights compared to non-religious organizations? Religious beliefs aren't automatically stronger, wiser, or better than secular beliefs, so why should religious belief entitle people to discriminate?

Please remember, I'm still thinking through this, so I'm actually asking these questions...I'm not posing them rhetorically to be an ass or anything.

I understand what you mean. That issue of fairness is part of why I advocate allowing both private businesses and religious organizations to discriminate. That and I think anti-discrimination laws aren't the answer to the problem of unfair discrimination anyway.

Okay, I'm trying to think through something, so see if you can bear with me on this:

My initial reaction was to say, "A private organization (such as a church) should be able to decline to perform marriage services whenever they choose, whether it be on the basis of religion, sexuality, or whathaveyou."

However, then I started wondering if a non-religious organization can refuse to marry a given couple for any reason. For instance, can the Elvis Wedding Parlor in Vegas refuse to marry a Catholic couple? Can they refuse to marry people who have been divorced before? What about inter-racial couples?

Private, secular businesses are not allowed to discriminate on such grounds, as far as I know. A privately-owned restaurant can't just refuse to provide desert for Catholics, or refuse to let black people order the steak. So I'm assuming that a privately-owned wedding chappel also can't refuse service for such reasons.

If that is the case, then why SHOULD religious organizations be permitted to discriminate? Why should religious organizations have special rights compared to non-religious organizations? Religious beliefs aren't automatically stronger, wiser, or better than secular beliefs, so why should religious belief entitle people to discriminate if secular beliefs do not?

Please remember, I'm still thinking through this, so I'm actually asking these questions...I'm not posing them rhetorically to be an ass or anything.

I think the you shouldn't think of religious organisations as service providers, more as clubs.
A service provider cannot refuse service to one group of society, such as homosexuals or blacks or Catholics or people with big noses.
A club, however, can refuse admission on whatever grounds they choose. As such, a church can refuse it's services to anyone it chooses.

I believe, but am likely to be wrong, that it would fall under the establishment clause type of deal. I mean, if the government can't arrest you for letting your kids die from flu because you don't believe in medicine, then I don't think refusing marriages is that far off.

I may be wrong on this, but isn't it legal for parents to refuse medical treatment for their children for non-religious reasons?


Plus, they're not taxed at all, so the government doesn't have financial say in their matters, which I'm sure has something to do with the way churches are handled.

Some are taxed, and some religious organizations have to pay tax on some of their space or activities. It depends on whether or not they happen to qualify according to the rules for a non-profit organization, I think.

But that then leads me to ask: can a non-profit organization discriminate for the same reasons? Could, for instance, a non-profit group refuse to provide service or employment for blacks, or Jews, or women?

I'm kind of embarassed that I'm not clear about the laws here. I generally chalk discrimination up to general jackassery and just leave it at that.


Also, are churches considered a private business?
Some definitely should be, if they aren't already, like those mega churches where the pastors buy their own Lear jets using profits from their "ministry."

Some churches also have sub-organizations within the larger church organization that I think should qualify as small businesses. My lover's family attends a very nice Methodist church which also runs a daycare center and a laundromat. Those businesses, though run by the church, are treated as private businesses in terms of taxes and such. (I know this because his little sister got a job at the laundromat a while back, so we found out about some of the tax stuff.)

I think the you shouldn't think of religious organisations as service providers, more as clubs.
A service provider cannot refuse service to one group of society, such as homosexuals or blacks or Catholics or people with big noses.
A club, however, can refuse admission on whatever grounds they choose. As such, a church can refuse it's services to anyone it chooses.
Is that still true, though? I thought there was all this bitching about how all the good old clubs have been forced to admit blacks and Jews and women and stuff.

(I'm more than willing to believe that said bitching is baseless, and that the people doing the bitching are wrong about the laws. :P)

But that then leads me to ask: can a non-profit organization discriminate for the same reasons? Could, for instance, a non-profit group refuse to provide service or employment for blacks, or Jews, or women?

I'm kind of embarassed that I'm not clear about the laws here. I generally chalk discrimination up to general jackassery and just leave it at that.


my non-profit can't discriminate on basis of race, gender, creed, sexual orientation, or family status, we are able to refuse service to certain people though who are "protected" under other laws because they do not fit the profile we require.

I don't know the exact law though, and I probably should.

Okay, I'm trying to think through something, so see if you can bear with me on this:

My initial reaction was to say, "A private organization (such as a church) should be able to decline to perform marriage services whenever they choose, whether it be on the basis of religion, sexuality, or whathaveyou."

However, then I started wondering if a non-religious organization can refuse to marry a given couple for any reason. For instance, can the Elvis Wedding Parlor in Vegas refuse to marry a Catholic couple? Can they refuse to marry people who have been divorced before? What about inter-racial couples?

Private, secular businesses are not allowed to discriminate on such grounds, as far as I know. A privately-owned restaurant can't just refuse to provide desert for Catholics, or refuse to let black people order the steak. So I'm assuming that a privately-owned wedding chappel also can't refuse service for such reasons.

If that is the case, then why SHOULD religious organizations be permitted to discriminate? Why should religious organizations have special rights compared to non-religious organizations? Religious beliefs aren't automatically stronger, wiser, or better than secular beliefs, so why should religious belief entitle people to discriminate if secular beliefs do not?

Please remember, I'm still thinking through this, so I'm actually asking these questions...I'm not posing them rhetorically to be an ass or anything.

Well, because a priest's job (or a rabbi's job, or a minister's job, etc.) isn't "to perform marriages" in the same sense that a waiter's job is "to bring people steaks when they order them." When a Catholic priest marries a couple, he marries them within the Catholic tradition, and considers what he's doing a sacrament. He doesn't just hand them a marriage certificate. The government can't exactly mandate that Catholics allow whomever the government chooses to partake in sacraments without egregiously violating the First Amendment.

Now, one could make a case for requiring anyone licensed to perform marriages to do the purely secular, non-ceremonial, certificate-signing bits, but honestly, I don't see the point. Since there exist secular authorities who are happy to take care of that regardless of one's religious beliefs, why would anyone want or need to make an unhappy priest or rabbi do the job?

The hypocrisy astounds me: religious groups recently got legislation passed which made it illegal to incite hatred against their religion and now they're complaining because they're not allowed to discriminate against homosexuals. If somebody lost their job because of their religion or if a web designer refused to design a web page for a church or mosque there'd be uproar.

How long will it be before this particular brand of institutionalised bigotry is consigned to the dustbin of history along with it's predecessors?
You know what? I saw that article in the complete opposite way. It is ridiculous to, by law, bind religious leaders' hands and force them to perform marriage ceremonies that go completely against their faith's beliefs. In a religious (well, Christian from my experience) sense, marriage is supposed to be a sacred thing. It actually astounds me why somebody would want to be married under a faith that doesn't accept them. That would be completely hypocritical to rely on a certain religion for your marriage ceremony, but at the same time blatantly conflicting with it's beliefs. The only reason I can why people would want this law, would be to have the option of a religious marriage.

Refusing to marry two people of the same sex, when it goes against your religion's long-founded teachings, is discrimination? So, is having separate male and female public bathrooms discrimination? Marriage is meant to be a man and a woman; if it's two men or two women then it can't be defined as marriage. That's what I think, anyway.

Back to the main issue. To give anybody the undisputed right to be married by anybody with the authority to do so is a little bit extreme. That would be like letting anybody into a shop, even if they have a track record of shoplifting there. And to give religious leaders no choice in the matter; that would be completely disregarding their rights. It's as ridiculous as passing a law that all heads of any major society/group of activists have to wear mink coats and to force animal rights activists to do the same. Or to enforce the rule that after every religious get together pork must be served; regardless of whether your religion sees pork as an unclean meat. Or even something as simple as forcing a college to accept you, despite the fact that you didn't make the grades. I know that homosexuals want rights just as everybody else, but forcing marriage ceremonies is not the answer. The religious leaders (in general) don't force homosexuals to do anything they don't want to; they just exclude them from something that, to them, would be wrong to let homosexuals be part of. Forcing somebody to do something by law, and denying somebody something that isn't a basic right are two different things.

Well, because a priest's job (or a rabbi's job, or a minister's job, etc.) isn't "to perform marriages" in the same sense that a waiter's job is "to bring people steaks when they order them."

Bringing steaks to the table is only one of a waiter's duties, much like performing marriage ceremonies is only one of the many duties that may be performed by a religious official.


When a Catholic priest marries a couple, he marries them within the Catholic tradition, and considers what he's doing a sacrament.

So if a waiter considers what he is doing to be a sacrament, he should be permitted to refuse to serve certain people?

Why do the individual's feelings determine their right to discriminate? If I really, deeply, strongly believe that people with brown hair are alien replicons from beyond the moon, should that entitle me to refuse to serve brunettes at my restaurant?


He doesn't just hand them a marriage certificate. The government can't exactly mandate that Catholics allow whomever the government chooses to partake in sacraments without egregiously violating the First Amendment.

Believe me, I still personally think that private organizations should be allowed to marry or not marry as they see fit.

However, it seems like US law treats secular organizations different than religious organizations in this area, so I'm trying to figure out why. Why should a religious organization have the right to discriminate, if secular organizations do not?


Now, one could make a case for requiring anyone licensed to perform marriages to do the purely secular, non-ceremonial, certificate-signing bits, but honestly, I don't see the point. Since there exist secular authorities who are happy to take care of that regardless of one's religious beliefs, why would anyone want or need to make an unhappy priest or rabbi do the job?
That's easy: for the same reason that we have laws requiring that restaurants all have to abide by anti-discrimination laws. John's Big BBQ Hut can't say, "Hey, the steak joint across the street already provides service to blacks, so why don't they just go on over there for their food? Why should they come in here and make us all unhappy?"

You know what? I saw that article in the complete opposite way. It is ridiculous to, by law, bind religious leaders' hands and force them to perform marriage ceremonies that go completely against their faith's beliefs.

Wait, which article were you reading? I didn't see anything in there about religious leaders being forced to perform marriage ceremonies against their faith. Sure, we're talking about that in the thread now, but the article only talked about how "religious groups would be obliged to rent out halls for "gay wedding" receptions.""


In a religious (well, Christian from my experience) sense, marriage is supposed to be a sacred thing. It actually astounds me why somebody would want to be married under a faith that doesn't accept them.

Maybe for reasons similar to why black people wanted to eat in "white" restaurants, even though they were made to feel extremely unwelcome in such establishments. Though I personally don't understand why anybody wants any religious wedding ceremony. :P


That would be completely hypocritical to rely on a certain religion for your marriage ceremony, but at the same time blatantly conflicting with it's beliefs.

As far as I know, hypocricy isn't illegal in the US.


Refusing to marry two people of the same sex, when it goes against your religion's long-founded teachings, is discrimination? So, is having separate male and female public bathrooms discrimination? Marriage is meant to be a man and a woman; if it's two men or two women then it can't be defined as marriage. That's what I think, anyway.

"Refusing to marry two people of different races, when it goes against your religion's long-founded teachings, is discrimination? So, is having separate black and white public bathrooms discrimination? Marriage is meant to be a white man and a white woman; if it's a black and a white or a white and a black then it can't be defined as marriage. That's what I think, anyway."

I dunno about your logic, here.


Back to the main issue. To give anybody the undisputed right to be married by anybody with the authority to do so is a little bit extreme. That would be like letting anybody into a shop, even if they have a track record of shoplifting there.

Given that heterosexual marriages have a 50% divorce rate in their track record, it sounds like you are arguing that we should stop people from performing hetero weddings.


And to give religious leaders no choice in the matter; that would be completely disregarding their rights.

Not necessarily. Our system of law holds that discrimination under many circumstances is not a right.


It's as ridiculous as passing a law that all heads of any major society/group of activists have to wear mink coats and to force animal rights activists to do the same. Or to enforce the rule that after every religious get together pork must be served; regardless of whether your religion sees pork as an unclean meat. Or even something as simple as forcing a college to accept you, despite the fact that you didn't make the grades. I know that homosexuals want rights just as everybody else, but forcing marriage ceremonies is not the answer. The religious leaders (in general) don't force homosexuals to do anything they don't want to; they just exclude them from something that, to them, would be wrong to let homosexuals be part of. Forcing somebody to do something by law, and denying somebody something that isn't a basic right are two different things.
(Bolds mine)

According to the Supreme Court of the United States:

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. (Skinner v. Oklahoma) ...To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

Why should this be true for persons of different races, but not true for persons of the same gender?

According to the Supreme Court of the United States:

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. (Skinner v. Oklahoma) ...To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

Why should this be true for persons of different races, but not true for persons of the same gender?

what does Skinner V. Oklahoma have to do with this discussion? it wasn't about marriage it was about sterilizing criminals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinner_v._Oklahoma

what does Skinner V. Oklahoma have to do with this discussion? it wasn't about marriage it was about sterilizing criminals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinner_v._Oklahoma
Sorry, there should have been an additional citation in there...the passage I quoted was taken from the Loving v. Virginia decision. The passage itself contains that reference to Skinner, though I couldn't tell you specifically why they cited that particular case there.

The basic idea behind the ruling, as I understand it, is that the right to marry is covered under the Fourteenth Amendment even though it isn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution. This is because the decision to marry, and the decision about who will be one's spouse, are considered fundamental to our survival and our consciences and must therefore be viewed as residing with the individual and not with the state.

Bringing steaks to the table is only one of a waiter's duties, much like performing marriage ceremonies is only one of the many duties that may be performed by a religious official.

Well, sure. I'm mostly just pointing out that it's not exactly a direct exchange of cash for services or anything like that. You have every right to expect that, if you pay a restaurant ten dollars, they will bring you ten dollars' worth of food. However, you can't exactly walk into a church and demand to get ten dollars' worth of God (entertaining as that might be).


So if a waiter considers what he is going to be a sacrament, he should be permitted to refuse to serve certain people?

Heh. I suppose if a waiter really believes that the Holy Steak should only be served to suitable persons, it would be hard to force him to serve it to infidels. I see no problem, however, in mandating that he either serves the freaking steaks or gets a new job. (This is also my position on idiot pharmacists who won't hand out birth control. It's against your religion? Fine. Go get a job that doesn't require you to do so.)

Believe me, I still personally think that private organizations should be allowed to marry or not marry as they see fit.

I figured you did. :)

However, it seems like US law treats secular organizations different than religious organizations in this area, so I'm trying to figure out why. Why should a religious organization have the right to discriminate, if secular organizations do not?

Someone (Cabra?) suggested that churches are more like clubs than businesses, which I think is true. (Although, come to think of it, even businesses are allowed to set certain rules for their clientele. A restaurant may refuse to let me in because I'm not wearing shoes; a synagogue may refuse to let me in because I'm not covering my head. Not much different, really.) I think a lot of it, though, in this country at least, does just come down to First Amendment rights. The government simply cannot tell someone "You're not allowed to consider divorce a sin which would prevent someone from receiving the sacrament of marriage," or "You're not allowed to believe that someone whose mother was Presbyterian isn't a 'real' Jew, and thus ineligible for Jewish marriage."

That's easy: for the same reason that we have laws requiring that restaurants all have to abide by anti-discrimination laws. John's Big BBQ Hut can't say, "Hey, the steak joint across the street already provides service to blacks, so why don't they just go on over there for their food? Why should they come in here and make us all unhappy?"

While I understand your point, that's actually not quite the same thing, as presumably the BBQ Hut and the steak joint across the street are not owned and controlled by the same entity and do not provide identical services. As far as the purely secular aspects of marriage go, they are identical, because they're all provided by the same organization by means of different agents. It's a bit more like John's Big BBQ Hut explaining apologetically that this particular branch recently hired some crazy waiter who thinks serving steak is a sacrament, and so, for your own convenience, you might prefer to go to the John's Big BBQ Hut across the street. :)

Screw all of this.
http://eatliver.com/img/2005/167.jpg

Sorry, there should have been an additional citation in there...the passage I quoted was taken from the Loving v. Virginia decision. The passage itself contains that reference to Skinner, though I couldn't tell you specifically why they cited that particular case there.

The basic idea behind the ruling, as I understand it, is that the right to marry is covered under the Fourteenth Amendment even though it isn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution. This is because the decision to marry, and the decision about who will be one's spouse, are considered fundamental to our survival and our consciences and must therefore be viewed as residing with the individual and not with the state.

meh, I wouldn't have caught it at all except during highschool I ended up on the wrong side of a mock supreme court case involving that particular case. ;)

Once gay marriage becomes Federal law in the US, watch what happens...

Ah, so no evidence, just fearmongering. Gotcha.

The additional posts in this thread seem to make it pretty clear that legalizing gay marriage will not lead to priests being compelled to perform a ceremony since religious figures already do that and are not forced by law to perform any rites or ceremonies they don't want to. We have legalized gay marriage in Canada and it hasn't been an issue. I can't imagine why a gay couple would want to be married in church that comdemns them as sinners bound to burn in hell.

I can see an official in a state church could be compelled to perform the ceremony, but since in North America we have a separation of church and state, no problems with that here.

Actually, the largest religion in Japan is a combination of Shinto and Buddhism. You're bordering on outright falsehood with that statement. Besides. the leaders of Japan at those times were almost assuredly Shinto.
Not at all. Many Japanese MIX Shinto and Buddhist beliefs, they haven't created a religion that incorperates both (Though Buddhism in Japan has managed to borrow many Shinto customs and some Buddhist saints were orgininally kami). It is also false to say that the Emperor of Japan (Whom I am assuming you mean by leader) was always Shinto. The Imperial court did a lot of switching around depending on a number of things. It was only during the 30's and 40's that State Shintoism was really going on.

So the orginal point stands pretty firm.

Smunkee: IIRC marriage licence in the US is just permission to marry, it's not vaild until an actual ceremony is performed by someone elligble to perform it and the licence is signed off by that person and witnesses. Japan's system however is one where the couple gets married when they do the paperwork and the ceremony is for show only.

However, it seems like US law treats secular organizations different than religious organizations in this area, so I'm trying to figure out why. Why should a religious organization have the right to discriminate, if secular organizations do not?
Well, first amendment rights and all that. I think it's a mixture of two parts. On one hand, you have the tradition of the Church (in this case being used to emcompass all faiths) as being seperate and not quite subject to following the laws of Men due to being subjected to the laws of god(s). This is also part and parcel of the establishment clause, the Church cannot interfear in the State, but the State cannot interfear in the Church as well. This allows the Church to resist the politics of the time (stop laughing) and to remain unspoiled by wordly events (I mean it, stop that giggling). Considering that most people do have some sort of faith they call their own, and that faith can be something intense and private, it doesn't seem right that the State should start telling people what to believe or think, it would be akin to forcing pacifists to fight in a war, or forcing an atheist to go to church in the first place.

The second reason of course is that any attempt to change this would cause howls of protest and get the polticians voted out or impeached.

Well, because a priest's job (or a rabbi's job, or a minister's job, etc.) isn't "to perform marriages" in the same sense that a waiter's job is "to bring people steaks when they order them." When a Catholic priest marries a couple, he marries them within the Catholic tradition, and considers what he's doing a sacrament. He doesn't just hand them a marriage certificate. The government can't exactly mandate that Catholics allow whomever the government chooses to partake in sacraments without egregiously violating the First Amendment.

Now, one could make a case for requiring anyone licensed to perform marriages to do the purely secular, non-ceremonial, certificate-signing bits, but honestly, I don't see the point. Since there exist secular authorities who are happy to take care of that regardless of one's religious beliefs, why would anyone want or need to make an unhappy priest or rabbi do the job?

I think the priest just does the ceremony anyway. When my sister got married she still had to do the legal signing stuff with the registrar, not the priest. The ceremony is purely symbolic.

While Im all for laws allowing gay people the right to marry, or do anything else straight people can do, I oppose forcing people to provide goods and services. If someone doesnt want to serve gays or black people or midgets thats up to them.

A lot of the opposition to gay marriage comes from the idea that priests could be forced to marry gay couples, and until now this was an untrue argument.

What about those little signs saying we reserve the right to refuse service? what will happen to them?