Ministers threatened with arrest

[Fabistan]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Y'all like the first part, but like to forget the second part. It also does not say that the free exercise has to be within the confines of a religious service or ceremony, or that a business cannot incorporate and practice religious values and principles. While I agree that gay people should not be discriminated against, the business owners also should not be forced to violate their conscience or face a penalty. Surely the gay couple can move on and find another minister willing to perform the ceremony.

[Dyakovo]

Religion is not good

same sex marriage is not good it should be outlawed and gay men are not real men they are jokes

You know, just because same-sex marriage has been legalized, it does not mean that you have to get one...
Also, how are gay men not "real"?

[Peluzzanien]

its just some bigot or troll or whatever.

[Ifreann]

same sex marriage is not good it should be outlawed and gay men are not real men they are jokes

You know, just because same-sex marriage has been legalized, it does not mean that you have to get one...
Also, how are gay men not "real"?

Because they only exist on TV, obviously.

[Indira]

you are a joke

whatever liberals are nothing they want to give money away to people who don't deserve it

Let's bring on the strawmen!

Also, considering it was CONSERVATIVES who caused this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... wn_of_2013 by acting like a group of 2 year olds...enough said

[New Chalcedon]

theres nothing wrong with being homosexual.Regardless of what some fantasy book says.

because two people of the same sex can definitely have biological child by themselves

Because humanity really needs everyone to produce babies:



I'd also like to note that infertile men and women can marry, as can men and women who have no intention of producing children. If marriage is for procreation, then at least try to be consistent.

[Sdaeriji]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Y'all like the first part, but like to forget the second part. It also does not say that the free exercise has to be within the confines of a religious service or ceremony, or that a business cannot incorporate and practice religious values and principles. While I agree that gay people should not be discriminated against, the business owners also should not be forced to violate their conscience or face a penalty. Surely the gay couple can move on and find another minister willing to perform the ceremony.

There was no gay couple. Learn to read.

[Dyakovo]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Y'all like the first part, but like to forget the second part. It also does not say that the free exercise has to be within the confines of a religious service or ceremony, or that a business cannot incorporate and practice religious values and principles. While I agree that gay people should not be discriminated against, the business owners also should not be forced to violate their conscience or face a penalty. Surely the gay couple can move on and find another minister willing to perform the ceremony.

The applicable law does not restrict the ministers' free exercise of their religion.

[Fabistan]

There was no gay couple. Learn to read.

A man had called to inquire about a same-sex wedding ceremony. The Hitching Post declined – putting them in violation of the law.

Please learn to read before you tell me to learn to read.

[Fabistan]

The applicable law does not restrict the ministers' free exercise of their religion.

How do you figure? Their religion tells them that homosexuality is an abomination and to flee all appearance of evil. They are being forced to acquiesce to homosexuality. How is that not violating their religion?

[New Chalcedon]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Y'all like the first part, but like to forget the second part. It also does not say that the free exercise has to be within the confines of a religious service or ceremony, or that a business cannot incorporate and practice religious values and principles. While I agree that gay people should not be discriminated against, the business owners also should not be forced to violate their conscience or face a penalty. Surely the gay couple can move on and find another minister willing to perform the ceremony.

(1) No gay couple involved, at least as far as I can tell. The town is going after these people for violating the town ordinance; you don't need specific plaintiffs to come forward and show standing for that.

EDIT: Did the man you cite sue the Hitching Post? I suspect he informed the town of the situation, the town decided that the H.P. is in violation of local ordinances and started after them.

(2) As it happens, I agree with your sentiment. Both halves of the Establishment Clause are equally important for maintaining freedom.

[Sdaeriji]

There was no gay couple. Learn to read.

A man had called to inquire about a same-sex wedding ceremony. The Hitching Post declined – putting them in violation of the law.

Please learn to read before you tell me to learn to read.

So, there was no couple? Thank you.

[New Chalcedon]

Please learn to read before you tell me to learn to read.

So, there was no couple? Thank you.

That's hair-splitting, Sdaerji. Why would a gay man ask about wedding officiation without a partner involved?

[New Chalcedon]

The applicable law does not restrict the ministers' free exercise of their religion.

How do you figure? Their religion tells them that homosexuality is an abomination and to flee all appearance of evil. They are being forced to acquiesce to homosexuality. How is that not violating their religion?

(1) As I understand it, tolerating homosexuality (on their part) isn't the problem here. They're in trouble for refusing to officiate at a same-sex marriage, which their interpretation of religion informs them is a grave sin.

(2) Therefore, they are being coerced by the law (local ordinance) to undertake actions expressly against their confidence. There's no implication here, as with the baker being asked to bake cakes for a same-sex marriage - baking cakes is against no-one's religion, as far as I can tell, and once the customer takes possession of the cake, what happens with it is no longer the baker's problem. These two people, OTOH, are being pushed into performing a specific action that their faith tells them is a serious sin under any circumstances.

While freedom-of-religion vs. nondiscrimination is often a complicated area, this case seems fairly open-and-shut in nature. They'll win the suit, either under RFRA or (less likely) under the First Amendment. And they should.

[Sdaeriji]

So, there was no couple? Thank you.

That's hair-splitting, Sdaerji. Why would a gay man ask about wedding officiation without a partner involved?

I didn't mean it in the sense that it was a single person therefore I was right. Fabistan said the gay couple could move on and find another minister willing to perform the ceremony. By all accounts, that's what the anonymous caller did. The city is pursuing the matter, not any gay couple.

[Dyakovo]

The applicable law does not restrict the ministers' free exercise of their religion.

How do you figure? Their religion tells them that homosexuality is an abomination and to flee all appearance of evil. They are being forced to acquiesce to homosexuality. How is that not violating their religion?

Because the law only effects the way they run their business.

[New Chalcedon]

That's hair-splitting, Sdaerji. Why would a gay man ask about wedding officiation without a partner involved?

I didn't mean it in the sense that it was a single person therefore I was right. Fabistan said the gay couple could move on and find another minister willing to perform the ceremony. By all accounts, that's what the anonymous caller did. The city is pursuing the matter, not any gay couple.

Ah. Distinction noted - and appreciated. Yes, the gay man apparently decided not to push the point, and instead find somewhere more inclined to fulfil his request.

[New Chalcedon]

How do you figure? Their religion tells them that homosexuality is an abomination and to flee all appearance of evil. They are being forced to acquiesce to homosexuality. How is that not violating their religion?

Because the law only effects the way they run their business.

Business or not, the general prohibitions on government forcing of speech (in this case, the marriage ceremony to which they object on religious grounds) still apply.

[Ashmoria]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Y'all like the first part, but like to forget the second part. It also does not say that the free exercise has to be within the confines of a religious service or ceremony, or that a business cannot incorporate and practice religious values and principles. While I agree that gay people should not be discriminated against, the business owners also should not be forced to violate their conscience or face a penalty. Surely the gay couple can move on and find another minister willing to perform the ceremony.

theres the question eh? is this place a business or a church. businesses that serve the public are not allowed to discriminate. churches are allowed to discriminate. the mere fact of a person being a minister is not enough to have the law fall on the side of religious freedom.

[The 502nd SS]

because two people of the same sex can definitely have biological child by themselves

Because humanity really needs everyone to produce babies:

I'd also like to note that infertile men and women can marry, as can men and women who have no intention of producing children. If marriage is for procreation, then at least try to be consistent.

I never said the sole purpose of marriage was reproduction.... also we will need another generation of babies or we'll die out

[Dyakovo]

Because the law only effects the way they run their business.

Business or not, the general prohibitions on government forcing of speech (in this case, the marriage ceremony to which they object on religious grounds) still apply.

Not really. It is a public accommodation, and thus must be open to the entire public. If the ministers do not want to have to abide by the rules of a public accommodation, they can stop running a public accommodation.

[Cuatro]

That's the point of a religious institution, isn't it?

But it's not the point of a business. Hence my confusion. Those two shouldn't mix.

Very good point. I agree that they should be able to refuse on religious grounds (with which I couldn't disagree more) but then be forbidden to economically benefit from "regular" weddings as a sort of sanction. Maybe benefit at all, after all it should be a non-profit organization as I suposse they don't even pay taxes.

[Dyakovo]

Because humanity really needs everyone to produce babies:

I'd also like to note that infertile men and women can marry, as can men and women who have no intention of producing children. If marriage is for procreation, then at least try to be consistent.

I never said the sole purpose of marriage was reproduction.... also we will need another generation of babies or we'll die out

Allowing same-sec marriage in no way puts humanity in danger of dying out.

[New Chalcedon]

Because humanity really needs everyone to produce babies:

I'd also like to note that infertile men and women can marry, as can men and women who have no intention of producing children. If marriage is for procreation, then at least try to be consistent.

I never said the sole purpose of marriage was reproduction.... also we will need another generation of babies or we'll die out

Allowing same-sex marriage won't turn everyone (or anyone!) gay who isn't already.

Since the figures of people who identify as gay or bisexual top out at ~20% of the population, I'd say humanity's future is assured on that front.

[Celritannia]

Your "new regime" already exists in current law. Any business may operate as a private club, with restrictions on whom may be served based on their own internally defined membership criteria. The issue is, they have to openly operate in that fashion.

Precisely. An establishment advertising itself as "open to the public" is indeed open to the public, on the basis of ability to pay. Not to bits and pieces of the public, dependent upon their skin colour/religious beliefs/whatever.

I mentioned that to I.M. several times.