Ministers threatened with arrest

[Imperializt Russia]

still seems like the government is picking and choosing whose rights they value more.

They do.
Though not on this particular issue.

[Lleu llaw Gyffes]

Yes, that's pretty much what I've been saying for the entire thread.

Hmm, I wonder how many pages that took.

Though I agree with you, How about accommodation for regular churches?(Most likely Yes since this is most likely a stupid question )

It ain't a church, it don't have an actual Congregation etc.
If it were a real church, then Freedom of Worship MIGHT apply.

Two priests set up a business, a phoney-baloney wedding chapel. So far, so good. Then they get greedy, they want these phoney-baloney weddings to be legally valid. They het legally registered. Surprise, surprise, to get registered as a business, you got to comply with laws about business.

PENNY: It was a fake wedding, it was conducted by an Elvis impersonater,
ZACK: Of course it was a fake Elvis, honey. Do you know how much a real Elvis costs

[The New Sea Territory]

....so you sourced....Fox News...and expected this to be taken seriously?

[Fortunagen]

Well this has been a wholehearty debate.

[Augarundus]

I'm actually more than a little shocked at NS's response to this. I thought that liberal, cosmopolitan NS would be defending the religious freedom of these ministers, but I guess that's not in vogue anymore. So atheist, anti-religious, pro-gay me has to do it instead.

A few points:

1) I guess I don't understand whose rights they are supposed to be violating? Same-sex marriage is legal in the state, meaning gays can get married. Only the ministers refuse to service them. The ministers aren't preventing them from getting married any more than a Catholic OBGYN who refuses to perform an abortion (but refers a patient to the appropriate services where she can acquire one) is violating the rights of the patient.

2) I don't understand why a religious institution is obligated to provide this service? The service provided by this organization is quite clear: marriages that are viewed as legitimate according to its established religious criteria. The mere fact that this criteria is "discriminatory" doesn't seem like sufficient justification for forcing them to violate their stated principles and offer a service they morally disagree with. Catholics aren't permitted to re-marry after a divorce (because divorce is not recognized as legitimate amongst Catholics) - should the state threaten Catholic priests with imprisonment unless they oversee marriages of divorced participants?

3) This logic ("I like X - therefore you should be forced to provide it") justifies the end of any religious freedom. If 'non-discrimination' is a basis for forcing people to provide services, Catholic OBGYNs would be forced to perform abortions, priests would be forced to allow same-sex, polygamous, or post-divorce marriages (all of which are viewed as illegitimate). Restaurants should be forced to keep kosher options available, the Catholic Church would be forced to permit female entrance to the priesthood (hell, the Catholic Church should be forced to permit non-Catholic entrance to the priesthood - I'm an atheist, but "discrimination on the basis of religious belief" is unjustified, so I should be able to threaten my local bishop with imprisonment in a cage if he doesn't ordain me), etc. etc.

By extension, this violates all freedom of association. No group of individuals could possibly establish a mutual compact with its own rules, or seek to exclude others from their organization. This establishes the legal precedent that nobody can possibly freely establish associations on their own - if someone wants to be part of your association or wants to change your practices, they will throw you in a cage unless you give into their demands. If a woman wants entrance to an all-male section of a Synagogue, she can sue them and throw the Rabbi in prison if she is refused.

This is one of the most absurd, psychotic precedents I've ever heard, and I'm horrified that nobody else on NS takes issue with it. "Yeah, well, that's the law, bitch" is not a sufficient response when:
A) As per point 1, I'm pretty sure that's not the law. The law only institutes the legal institution of same-sex marriage; it doesn't mandate extra-legal religious services for that marriage
B) What is in question is the moral justification for this legal practice ("That's the law" is not an answer to "what should the law be?").

[The Floating Island of the Sleeping God]

I'm actually more than a little shocked at NS's response to this. I thought that liberal, cosmopolitan NS would be defending the religious freedom of these ministers, but I guess that's not in vogue anymore. So atheist, anti-religious, pro-gay me has to do it instead.

A few points:

1) I guess I don't understand whose rights they are supposed to be violating? Same-sex marriage is legal in the state, meaning gays can get married. Only the ministers refuse to service them. The ministers aren't preventing them from getting married any more than a Catholic OBGYN who refuses to perform an abortion (but refers a patient to the appropriate services where she can acquire one) is violating the rights of the patient.

2) I don't understand why a religious institution is obligated to provide this service? The service provided by this organization is quite clear: marriages that are viewed as legitimate according to its established religious criteria. The mere fact that this criteria is "discriminatory" doesn't seem like sufficient justification for forcing them to violate their stated principles and offer a service they morally disagree with. Catholics aren't permitted to re-marry after a divorce (because divorce is not recognized as legitimate amongst Catholics) - should the state threaten Catholic priests with imprisonment unless they oversee marriages of divorced participants?

3) This logic ("I like X - therefore you should be forced to provide it") justifies the end of any religious freedom. If 'non-discrimination' is a basis for forcing people to provide services, Catholic OBGYNs would be forced to perform abortions, priests would be forced to allow same-sex, polygamous, or post-divorce marriages (all of which are viewed as illegitimate). Restaurants should be forced to keep kosher options available, the Catholic Church would be forced to permit female entrance to the priesthood (hell, the Catholic Church should be forced to permit non-Catholic entrance to the priesthood - I'm an atheist, but "discrimination on the basis of religious belief" is unjustified, so I should be able to threaten my local bishop with imprisonment in a cage if he doesn't ordain me), etc. etc.

By extension, this violates all freedom of association. No group of individuals could possibly establish a mutual compact with its own rules, or seek to exclude others from their organization. This establishes the legal precedent that nobody can possibly freely establish associations on their own - if someone wants to be part of your association or wants to change your practices, they will throw you in a cage unless you give into their demands. If a woman wants entrance to an all-male section of a Synagogue, she can sue them and throw the Rabbi in prison if she is refused.

This is one of the most absurd, psychotic precedents I've ever heard, and I'm horrified that nobody else on NS takes issue with it. "Yeah, well, that's the law, bitch" is not a sufficient response when:
A) As per point 1, I'm pretty sure that's not the law. The law only institutes the legal institution of same-sex marriage; it doesn't mandate extra-legal religious services for that marriage
B) What is in question is the moral justification for this legal practice ("That's the law" is not an answer to "what should the law be?").

It's not a religious institution. It's a business and is therefore subject to anti-discrimination laws that apply to all businesses. If it were a church, it wouldn't be subject to the laws that apply to businesses. Additionally, they weren't actually thrown in jail or fined, the law just said they could be. The sentence for discrimination includes jail time as a maximum sentence, not a minimum.

[Coreyea]

They won't be forced to provide same sex weddings, people will just get together and beat the shit out of gays, then shoot up their weddings.

[Augarundus]

It's not a religious institution. It's a business and is therefore subject to anti-discrimination laws that apply to all businesses. If it were a church, it wouldn't be subject to the laws that apply to businesses. Additionally, they weren't actually thrown in jail or fined, the law just said they could be. The sentence for discrimination includes jail time as a maximum sentence, not a minimum.

I'm not sure what you're getting at in this post. Calling something a "business" instead of a "religious institution" does not change the fact that you are threatening people with violence for their personal decisions. My point is that this - using violence to get what you want and force people to behave the way you want (even and especially when that violence is legally sanctioned) - is immoral. The fact that the way someone wants to behave (to run a business, practice their religion, organize their social club, etc.) offends you is not justification for your using force to "correct" that behavior. A clinic can be a "business", but you should not force physicians to provide abortions.

Note that I am a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage atheist. I think these ministers' beliefs are insipid, and I think they're stupid people for buying into them. But I'm not about to threaten them with violence because of an intellectual disagreement about what their imaginary friend is telling them to do.

[The Floating Island of the Sleeping God]

It's not a religious institution. It's a business and is therefore subject to anti-discrimination laws that apply to all businesses. If it were a church, it wouldn't be subject to the laws that apply to businesses. Additionally, they weren't actually thrown in jail or fined, the law just said they could be. The sentence for discrimination includes jail time as a maximum sentence, not a minimum.

I'm not sure what you're getting at in this post. Calling something a "business" instead of a "religious institution" does not change the fact that you are threatening people with violence for their personal decisions. My point is that this - using violence to get what you want and force people to behave the way you want (even and especially when that violence is legally sanctioned) - is immoral. The fact that the way someone wants to behave (to run a business, practice their religion, organize their social club, etc.) offends you is not justification for your using force to "correct" that behavior. A clinic can be a "business", but you should not force physicians to provide abortions.

Note that I am a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage atheist. I think these ministers' beliefs are insipid, and I think they're stupid people for buying into them. But I'm not about to threaten them with violence because of an intellectual disagreement about what their imaginary friend is telling them to do.

Is the enforcing of a law "violence" to you? That's an odd way of looking at things, I think. On to the point, though. Here's how it works: if you agree to provide a service (a wedding in the name of the Abrahamic God, for instance) and make a profit off of it (by running a for-profit wedding chapel, hypothetically), you can't deny that service to people based on their sexual orientation.

To address your analogy about forcing a catholic obgyn to perform abortions: Not quite. In this case, it's like if someone offered to perform plastic surgery to repair superficial burns, but not to gay people. It's not an essential service and you can get a slightly different, bare-bones version elsewhere (makeup and the like), but it doesn't excuse the discrimination.

Additional note: No gay people attempted to get married there and were turned away. The owners started this stink by filing a restraining order against the city because they were informed that their business was in danger of being subject to a new part of the local anti-discrimination laws.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I'm actually more than a little shocked at NS's response to this. I thought that liberal, cosmopolitan NS would be defending the religious freedom of these ministers, but I guess that's not in vogue anymore. So atheist, anti-religious, pro-gay me has to do it instead.

A few points:

1) I guess I don't understand whose rights they are supposed to be violating? Same-sex marriage is legal in the state, meaning gays can get married. Only the ministers refuse to service them. The ministers aren't preventing them from getting married any more than a Catholic OBGYN who refuses to perform an abortion (but refers a patient to the appropriate services where she can acquire one) is violating the rights of the patient.

2) I don't understand why a religious institution is obligated to provide this service? The service provided by this organization is quite clear: marriages that are viewed as legitimate according to its established religious criteria. The mere fact that this criteria is "discriminatory" doesn't seem like sufficient justification for forcing them to violate their stated principles and offer a service they morally disagree with. Catholics aren't permitted to re-marry after a divorce (because divorce is not recognized as legitimate amongst Catholics) - should the state threaten Catholic priests with imprisonment unless they oversee marriages of divorced participants?

3) This logic ("I like X - therefore you should be forced to provide it") justifies the end of any religious freedom. If 'non-discrimination' is a basis for forcing people to provide services, Catholic OBGYNs would be forced to perform abortions, priests would be forced to allow same-sex, polygamous, or post-divorce marriages (all of which are viewed as illegitimate). Restaurants should be forced to keep kosher options available, the Catholic Church would be forced to permit female entrance to the priesthood (hell, the Catholic Church should be forced to permit non-Catholic entrance to the priesthood - I'm an atheist, but "discrimination on the basis of religious belief" is unjustified, so I should be able to threaten my local bishop with imprisonment in a cage if he doesn't ordain me), etc. etc.

By extension, this violates all freedom of association. No group of individuals could possibly establish a mutual compact with its own rules, or seek to exclude others from their organization. This establishes the legal precedent that nobody can possibly freely establish associations on their own - if someone wants to be part of your association or wants to change your practices, they will throw you in a cage unless you give into their demands. If a woman wants entrance to an all-male section of a Synagogue, she can sue them and throw the Rabbi in prison if she is refused.

This is one of the most absurd, psychotic precedents I've ever heard, and I'm horrified that nobody else on NS takes issue with it. "Yeah, well, that's the law, bitch" is not a sufficient response when:
A) As per point 1, I'm pretty sure that's not the law. The law only institutes the legal institution of same-sex marriage; it doesn't mandate extra-legal religious services for that marriage
B) What is in question is the moral justification for this legal practice ("That's the law" is not an answer to "what should the law be?").

Here's the problem: They're not providing this service as a church. They're providing this service as part of a for-profit business. They don't have to perform the ceremonies. The business, however, must offer the service equally to same-sex couples. They could accomplish this easily through hiring someone who is willing to provide such a thing. Otherwise, they have the freedom to shut down the business and re-incorporate as a church, in which case the government would not have any say in the matter.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

It's not a religious institution. It's a business and is therefore subject to anti-discrimination laws that apply to all businesses. If it were a church, it wouldn't be subject to the laws that apply to businesses. Additionally, they weren't actually thrown in jail or fined, the law just said they could be. The sentence for discrimination includes jail time as a maximum sentence, not a minimum.

I'm not sure what you're getting at in this post. Calling something a "business" instead of a "religious institution" does not change the fact that you are threatening people with violence for their personal decisions. My point is that this - using violence to get what you want and force people to behave the way you want (even and especially when that violence is legally sanctioned) - is immoral. The fact that the way someone wants to behave (to run a business, practice their religion, organize their social club, etc.) offends you is not justification for your using force to "correct" that behavior. A clinic can be a "business", but you should not force physicians to provide abortions.

Note that I am a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage atheist. I think these ministers' beliefs are insipid, and I think they're stupid people for buying into them. But I'm not about to threaten them with violence because of an intellectual disagreement about what their imaginary friend is telling them to do.

If force is not an option, then discrimination of any sort ends up being perfectly legal. That's fine if you want to argue the position, but it's a wider topic entirely, and probably best suited for a thread in which the ethics of force in general can be debated.

[Imperializt Russia]

I'm actually more than a little shocked at NS's response to this. I thought that liberal, cosmopolitan NS would be defending the religious freedom of these ministers, but I guess that's not in vogue anymore. So atheist, anti-religious, pro-gay me has to do it instead.

"Liberal, cosmopolitan NS" has done exactly what one would expect it to, and defended the freedoms of individuals and customers, not business owners.

[Dyakovo]

I'm actually more than a little shocked at NS's response to this. I thought that liberal, cosmopolitan NS would be defending the religious freedom of these ministers, but I guess that's not in vogue anymore. So atheist, anti-religious, pro-gay me has to do it instead.

A few points:

1) I guess I don't understand whose rights they are supposed to be violating? Same-sex marriage is legal in the state, meaning gays can get married. Only the ministers refuse to service them. The ministers aren't preventing them from getting married any more than a Catholic OBGYN who refuses to perform an abortion (but refers a patient to the appropriate services where she can acquire one) is violating the rights of the patient.

2) I don't understand why a religious institution is obligated to provide this service? The service provided by this organization is quite clear: marriages that are viewed as legitimate according to its established religious criteria. The mere fact that this criteria is "discriminatory" doesn't seem like sufficient justification for forcing them to violate their stated principles and offer a service they morally disagree with. Catholics aren't permitted to re-marry after a divorce (because divorce is not recognized as legitimate amongst Catholics) - should the state threaten Catholic priests with imprisonment unless they oversee marriages of divorced participants?

3) This logic ("I like X - therefore you should be forced to provide it") justifies the end of any religious freedom. If 'non-discrimination' is a basis for forcing people to provide services, Catholic OBGYNs would be forced to perform abortions, priests would be forced to allow same-sex, polygamous, or post-divorce marriages (all of which are viewed as illegitimate). Restaurants should be forced to keep kosher options available, the Catholic Church would be forced to permit female entrance to the priesthood (hell, the Catholic Church should be forced to permit non-Catholic entrance to the priesthood - I'm an atheist, but "discrimination on the basis of religious belief" is unjustified, so I should be able to threaten my local bishop with imprisonment in a cage if he doesn't ordain me), etc. etc.

By extension, this violates all freedom of association. No group of individuals could possibly establish a mutual compact with its own rules, or seek to exclude others from their organization. This establishes the legal precedent that nobody can possibly freely establish associations on their own - if someone wants to be part of your association or wants to change your practices, they will throw you in a cage unless you give into their demands. If a woman wants entrance to an all-male section of a Synagogue, she can sue them and throw the Rabbi in prison if she is refused.

This is one of the most absurd, psychotic precedents I've ever heard, and I'm horrified that nobody else on NS takes issue with it. "Yeah, well, that's the law, bitch" is not a sufficient response when:
A) As per point 1, I'm pretty sure that's not the law. The law only institutes the legal institution of same-sex marriage; it doesn't mandate extra-legal religious services for that marriage
B) What is in question is the moral justification for this legal practice ("That's the law" is not an answer to "what should the law be?").

The ministers in question operate a for-profit wedding chapel (i.e. a public accommodation) and as such are not allowed to illegally discriminate.

[Augarundus]

I'm actually more than a little shocked at NS's response to this. I thought that liberal, cosmopolitan NS would be defending the religious freedom of these ministers, but I guess that's not in vogue anymore. So atheist, anti-religious, pro-gay me has to do it instead.

"Liberal, cosmopolitan NS" has done exactly what one would expect it to, and defended the freedoms of individuals and customers, not business owners.

I was not aware that "business owners" (people who sell services) are not individuals and don't have rights. Which makes it puzzling that "consumers" (people who sell money in exchange for services/goods) are individuals and do have rights. Especially given the fact that these are the same people we're talking about... so people sometimes have rights depending on whether they're wearing name-tags and uniforms?

Apparently, I'm justified in shooting the owner of a local gas station, because he's a business owner (not an individual) and doesn't have rights.

If force is not an option, then discrimination of any sort ends up being perfectly legal. That's fine if you want to argue the position, but it's a wider topic entirely, and probably best suited for a thread in which the ethics of force in general can be debated.

Well, yeah, I am arguing that position. I contextualized it in this thread as a matter of "freedom of religion" (where I actually just believe in peoples' freedom from aggression), but that's the logical conclusion, I suppose. But it doesn't mean it's not relevant to the thread: I'm saying we shouldn't use violence against people because of their religious beliefs. Apparently, most people in this thread think we should. That's a little shocking to me.

Is the enforcing of a law "violence" to you? That's an odd way of looking at things, I think. On to the point, though. Here's how it works: if you agree to provide a service (a wedding in the name of the Abrahamic God, for instance) and make a profit off of it (by running a for-profit wedding chapel, hypothetically), you can't deny that service to people based on their sexual orientation.

To address your analogy about forcing a catholic obgyn to perform abortions: Not quite. In this case, it's like if someone offered to perform plastic surgery to repair superficial burns, but not to gay people. It's not an essential service and you can get a slightly different, bare-bones version elsewhere (makeup and the like), but it doesn't excuse the discrimination.

Additional note: No gay people attempted to get married there and were turned away. The owners started this stink by filing a restraining order against the city because they were informed that their business was in danger of being subject to a new part of the local anti-discrimination laws.

1) Yes, enforcing this law is violent. Sometimes, the use of force ("enforcing" a law) can be justified, as in laws against murder and rape. But we accept that sort of force as justified whenever anyone uses it - if a woman fights against her rapist, we see that retaliatory force as justified, even though she isn't wearing a police officer's badge.

Other times, force is not justified. Imagine that my neighbor wants to eat potato chips, but I think that is unhealthy. We don't accept that as sufficient justification for my threatening my neighbor with a gun to stop him from eating potato chips. If I were to "fine" my neighbor (that is, demand money from him - if he refuses to pay, I'll lock him in a cage for an extended period of time, and, if he resists me, I'll shoot him) for this act, we'd still recognize that this is a form of violence (because it relies upon a threat - the implied use of force to enforce my demand) and it's still unjustified.

Now, I don't see how, if using violence in a non-defensive way isn't justified when certain individuals (me, my neighbor, etc.) use it, it would be justified when other individuals (who call themselves "the state") would use it. Note that this isn't an argument against government per se, only an argument against government using unjust violence. Forcing someone (with the threat of being kidnapped and thrown in a cage, which is ostensibly the "maximum punishment" - in reality, the "maximum punishment" is death, because if these men resist because they have a right to own bodies, they'll be killed) to do something they don't want to do through the threat of violence is unjust.


2) You clearly can deny that service to people based on their sexual orientation. The question is whether or not you can do so legally. I am arguing that, irrespective of whether or not you can do so legally, the law should not force people to non-discriminate, because that force is unjustified.

You can be a Jew hiding in Nazi Germany. You cannot legally be a Jew hiding in Nazi Germany. The law should not prevent a Jew from living in Nazi Germany (that is, the state should not use violence against you on this account).

3) Presumably, this chapel does offer services for homosexuals. Homosexuals are not prevented from marrying anywhere in the United States - they just can't get same-sex marriages. Homosexuals can marry people of the opposite sex. So it's not as though this chapel is denying services to particular people - it's just denying a particular service. Which leads me to believe that, even by the (unjust) laws now, this chapel isn't technically discriminatory any more than an ice cream shop that doesn't serve mint-chocolate chip is discriminatory. People who like mint-chocolate chip can still buy from that ice cream shop: they just have to buy something else.

4) Except that:
4a) As above, they aren't refusing services to gays, they're refusing a particular type of service (I'll admit this is a weak argument, but I still think it makes your case problematic).
4b) Except this directly contravenes their religious beliefs. This is not as though they aren't offering gay marriage because "lol, fuckin queers" or something. They aren't offering gay marriage because that marriage is not recognized as legitimate - that is, because sanctifying that marriage would be a sin (the ministers would be committing a 'sacrilege' by their own standards). It would be morally equivalent to forcing them to do abortions (to commit "murder" - though I'm pro-choice, I'm arguing from their perspective), forcing Jews to eat pork, forcing Jehovah's Witnesses to take part in blood transfusions, etc. etc.
4c) Again, I think my principle ("let's not use violence to force people to do things they don't want to do") also justifies not using force against a surgeon who doesn't want to perform on a gay man. That surgeon's an asshole (and these ministers are stupid), but they doesn't mean we're justified in threatening them with guns or forcing them into a cage because we don't like them. On the same note, they might think gays are evil or something, but that doesn't mean they're justified in murdering homosexuals. People shouldn't use violence because they "like" or "dislike" what other people are doing (and there's an obvious distinction between using violence in a just, defensive way - e.g. stopping a rape - and using it in an unjust way - e.g. committing rape).

[Kelinfort]

Businesses cannot legally discrimination. The free market would not correct such an issue if we let discrimination remain legal; residents of Idaho are strongly against same sex marriage. Again, businesses cannot discrimination. This is why the religious beliefs of the businesses owners does not matter in the slightest.

[Myrensis]

Businesses cannot legally discrimination. The free market would not correct such an issue if we let discrimination remain legal; residents of Idaho are strongly against same sex marriage. Again, businesses cannot discrimination. This is why the religious beliefs of the businesses owners does not matter in the slightest.

I really hate the whole 'THE FREE MARKET WILL PROVIDE!' nonsense. It's not like this is an untested concept. There used to be special road guides for blacks in the South telling them the routes to get places where they could, ya know, actually receive service. Because hey, it turns out that people are quite willing to put all manner of petty personal issues ahead of profit, which is the only motivator the Free Market has. And good luck setting up a business catering to a particular group that the rest of the local community despises and doesn't want around.

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

Hmm, I wonder how many pages that took.

Though I agree with you, How about accommodation for regular churches?(Most likely Yes since this is most likely a stupid question )

It ain't a church, it don't have an actual Congregation etc.
If it were a real church, then Freedom of Worship MIGHT apply.

Two priests set up a business, a phoney-baloney wedding chapel. So far, so good. Then they get greedy, they want these phoney-baloney weddings to be legally valid. They het legally registered. Surprise, surprise, to get registered as a business, you got to comply with laws about business.

PENNY: It was a fake wedding, it was conducted by an Elvis impersonater,
ZACK: Of course it was a fake Elvis, honey. Do you know how much a real Elvis costs

That was a general question about all churches.

[Novorobo]

Good, throw their asses in jail. No different than someone owning a Negro Free Mcdonalds.

More like one that doesn't serve beef on behalf of some new manager who happens to be Hindu.

The service itself is a same-sex wedding. This isn't turning them away 100% solely for being gay, but rather refusing to provide a service catered to their desires.

I suppose by that standard you could argue in turn that it's sex discrimination instead, but you know what? So would some live-action porn director hiring only women to fuck some particular male porn star, but clearly a law against that would be very intrusive... and in turn, so would this.

[Novorobo]

Otherwise, they have the freedom to shut down the business and re-incorporate as a church

And no longer be taxed? Careful what you wish for.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Otherwise, they have the freedom to shut down the business and re-incorporate as a church

And no longer be taxed? Careful what you wish for.

Yes, and no longer be taxed. I would have no issue whatsoever with that.

[Stormwind-City]

Such cases, such as the one from the Mod-Sanctioned LGBT thread require business to be allowing of their services to homosexuals.

That ruling predated Hobby Lobby, so its logic may no longer apply.

I don't know if this has been addressed but let me refer to the 1878 Reynolds Vs. United States.

"The Court investigated the history of religious freedom in the United States and quoted a letter from Thomas Jefferson in which he wrote that there was a distinction between religious belief and action that flowed from religious belief. The former "lies solely between man and his God," therefore "the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions." The court considered that if polygamy was allowed, someone might eventually argue that human sacrifice was a necessary part of their religion, and "to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself." The Court believed the First Amendment forbade Congress from legislating against opinion, but allowed it to legislate against action."

In short, religious duty is not valid legal defense.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._United_States

[Novorobo]

And no longer be taxed? Careful what you wish for.

Yes, and no longer be taxed. I would have no issue whatsoever with that.

And what if we used the money from taxing them to send a justice of the peace to their location to provide a wedding service instead? It'd technically be a subsidy, but it'd be a lot less intrusive than telling private businesses, including churches, what sorts of services they have to provide.

I don't give a damn about religious freedom, but I do give a damn about how much authority the state has over private property. Sending blacks away was something made illegal because it was rampant, there was no comparable public-sector equivalent for many of the services in question, and even then there was dispute as to whether or not that was going too far as it is. But the very nature of the wedding itself provides at least one degree of separation from discrimination based purely on who someone is.

[Upper America]

Blatant violation of the 1st amendment. The ministers shouldn't be forced to perform them, but the same sex couples should still be allowed to be given an official marriage by the government. Besides, I'm sure with the Vatican's recent approval of same-sex marriages, they'll find a church that is willing to stop being homophobic.

[Stormwind-City]

Blatant violation of the 1st amendment. The ministers shouldn't be forced to perform them, but the same sex couples should still be allowed to be given an official marriage by the government. Besides, I'm sure with the Vatican's recent approval of same-sex marriages, they'll find a church that is willing to stop being homophobic.

See my last post.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Yes, and no longer be taxed. I would have no issue whatsoever with that.

And what if we used the money from taxing them to send a justice of the peace to their location to provide a wedding service instead? It'd technically be a subsidy, but it'd be a lot less intrusive than telling private businesses, including churches, what sorts of services they have to provide.

I don't give a damn about religious freedom, but I do give a damn about how much authority the state has over private property. Sending blacks away was something made illegal because it was rampant, there was no comparable public-sector equivalent for many of the services in question, and even then there was dispute as to whether or not that was going too far as it is. But the very nature of the wedding itself provides at least one degree of separation from discrimination based purely on who someone is.

And while I do give a damn about how much authority the state has over private property, telling people that they have to serve everyone regardless of sexual orientation as part of a for-profit business does not cross that line. It can't possibly be that hard for them to bring aboard someone who doesn't mind solemnizing the occasional Adam and Steve pairing.