Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Can a church be forced to marry a same sex couple?
I'm legitimately curious to hear your answer to that question as not even the most loony of state legislatures have required such (even though many churches have voluntarily decided to do so). That is discriminating against people who do not adhere to your religion, but no legal scholar seriously disputes that it is within the a church's right to refuse to do so. So where to we draw the line is the next most logical question? Does the freedom of religion stop with actual churches? Is John Doe not allowed to utilize the same religious freedom argument as the church? IMO, when government starts to take a position that John Doe is not, government gets in trouble as they are picking and choosing what is "legitimate" religious practice vs. what is not. Every action is not in good taste. But the Constitution protects the unpopular, too.
I'm sorry, apples and oranges. A church is not a private institution and does not have to provide "public accommodation", a business, open to the public, by definition does have to provide accommodation. It's very simple when you get down to it.
One I started questioning her about the book of Revelations. She has done a total about face and says Trump is the Anti-Christ. roflmao
I've thought about this as well. I am not a very religious person anymore but if I was, I would see Trump as being an "anti-Christ" more than the savior of Christendom in America that his supporters think he is. Trumpism and true Christianity (as Jesus taught) are nearly polar opposites.
WE are a Republic and majority does not rule. If it did women would not vote, blacks and whites could not marry and cakes would only be made for god minding and fearing people.
Originally Posted by MPowering1 As a business, they have to follow local, state and federal laws. They chose not to follow them and this was the outcome.
My only beef with this is that Judge Vance Day in Oregon refuses to conduct same sex marriages citing religious beliefs and he's still on the bench without any kind of penalty that I'm aware of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident
Do you feel that Vance Day should be legally required to perform sex sex marriages and whether it is constitutional to require such? This is another case where I think someone in Day's shoes is a fool to not perform such marriages, but the remedy for this position in my view is political (i.e. vote him out of office), not legal. As far as I know, there is no right to be wed before a particular judge and judges have discretion as to whether they will perform wedding ceremonies at all. So long as there are other judges willing and ready to perform same sex wedding ceremonies (and there are, and at the same courthouse at that), then there is no actual injury (a requirement to bring a lawsuit in a court of law) from Day's refusal to perform same sex weddings.
I think whatever the law is, it should be consistently enforced. I don't understand how the state of Oregon can allow a judge to exercise his bias but tell small business owners they aren't allowed to do the same. And just as you state, the public can express their opinion about it with votes and with dollars.
A couple can seek the service from another judge, but by the same token, a couple can find another bakery. Either the law involves serving everyone whether you like it or not, or it doesn't.
As for the constitutionality of it, I don't think the government should be sticking their noses in such things where small businesses are concerned. And I find it particularly odd that anyone would want to force the hand of people tasked with preparing food. I wouldn't trust them not to do something to
Let me ask you a question. What if a couple wanted a cake for a Saturday wedding from a bakery owned and run by Orthodox Jews? Should they be forced to work on the Sabbath?
What about the EEOC suing Star Transport for firing two Muslims who refused to transport alcohol? The Muslims were awarded $240,000. In their statement following the trial, they said, "EEOC is proud to support the rights of workers to equal treatment in the workplace without having to sacrifice their religious beliefs or practices," said EEOC General Counsel David Lopez. "This is fundamental to the American principles of religious freedom and tolerance."
Do you not see a problem with this?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
