Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[dblack]

The nature of almost all religion is inherently discriminatory.

And that is okay.

Why? Why are churches allowed to violate the law, but all other public accommodations must submit? And don't say freedom of religion. The first amendments protects that from laws targeting religious practice, it doesn't give them a free pass to ignore the law.

It is essentially the same reason why States can't legally ban gay marriages.

In order to deny anyone a protected right, the State(meaning either States or the Federal government) must demonstrate that there is some compelling state interest in denying those rights.

There is no compelling state interest in forcing churches to violate their internal doctrines by requiring for example the Catholic Church to marry Jews.

However, the State would have a compelling interest in preventing churches from practicing human sacrifice.

Ok, so why is there a "compelling interest" to force a baker to bake them cakes, but not a priest to marry them?

Sigh you still have this backwards.

The state can only deny rights when the state can demonstrate a compelling interest in denying rights.

The priest is protected by the First Amendment from being forced to practice his religion in ways that violate church doctrine.

The baker baking cakes can make the claim of religious exemption, but State does have a compelling interest in requiring public business's to business's even with 'despised minorities'- that was established in the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Why is it not a compelling interest in both cases? Isn't the actual marriage more fundamental than the cake?

 

[Syriusly]

And that is okay.

Why? Why are churches allowed to violate the law, but all other public accommodations must submit? And don't say freedom of religion. The first amendments protects that from laws targeting religious practice, it doesn't give them a free pass to ignore the law.

It is essentially the same reason why States can't legally ban gay marriages.

In order to deny anyone a protected right, the State(meaning either States or the Federal government) must demonstrate that there is some compelling state interest in denying those rights.

There is no compelling state interest in forcing churches to violate their internal doctrines by requiring for example the Catholic Church to marry Jews.

However, the State would have a compelling interest in preventing churches from practicing human sacrifice.

Ok, so why is there a "compelling interest" to force a baker to bake them cakes, but not a priest to marry them?

Sigh you still have this backwards.

The state can only deny rights when the state can demonstrate a compelling interest in denying rights.

The priest is protected by the First Amendment from being forced to practice his religion in ways that violate church doctrine.

The baker baking cakes can make the claim of religious exemption, but State does have a compelling interest in requiring public business's to business's even with 'despised minorities'- that was established in the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Why is it not a compelling interest in both cases? Isn't the actual marriage more fundamental than the cake?

Nope.

Legal marriage is essentially a civic function. Any couple can get married regardless of whether a Priest wants to marry them or not- there are public officials which will marry them.

Religious marriage is purely a religious function- no public official can perform a religious marriage- that essentially activates the state issued marriage licence.

The state does not provide an alternative to private business.

 

[Syriusly]

And that is okay.

Why? Why are churches allowed to violate the law, but all other public accommodations must submit? And don't say freedom of religion. The first amendments protects that from laws targeting religious practice, it doesn't give them a free pass to ignore the law.

It is essentially the same reason why States can't legally ban gay marriages.

In order to deny anyone a protected right, the State(meaning either States or the Federal government) must demonstrate that there is some compelling state interest in denying those rights.

There is no compelling state interest in forcing churches to violate their internal doctrines by requiring for example the Catholic Church to marry Jews.

However, the State would have a compelling interest in preventing churches from practicing human sacrifice.

Ok, so why is there a "compelling interest" to force a baker to bake them cakes, but not a priest to marry them?

Sigh you still have this backwards.

The state can only deny rights when the state can demonstrate a compelling interest in denying rights.

The priest is protected by the First Amendment from being forced to practice his religion in ways that violate church doctrine.

The baker baking cakes can make the claim of religious exemption, but State does have a compelling interest in requiring public business's to business's even with 'despised minorities'- that was established in the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Why is it not a compelling interest in both cases? Isn't the actual marriage more fundamental than the cake?

Rather keep asking the same questions over and over- go ahead and state your position.

Do you think Church's should be forced to marry any couple- regardless of Church doctrine?

 

[Skylar]

Yeah - I thought you were saying marriage was a right? What gives?

The difference is that one need not go to a given church to exercise that right. You can do it at another church. Or a justice of the peace. Or hire your own minister and have it done in your backyard. The refusal of a particular church to perform a particular wedding puts no significant burden on the exercise of the right to marry.

Whereas sacrificing someone as part of a religious rite puts a significant burden on their right to life.

Forcing a church to violate its own tenets would put a significant burden on the right of free exercise of their religion. Think of it in terms of say, Free Speech. You have every right to say what you wish. But you don't necessarily have the right to force your way into my house to say it.

 

[dblack]

Why? Why are churches allowed to violate the law, but all other public accommodations must submit? And don't say freedom of religion. The first amendments protects that from laws targeting religious practice, it doesn't give them a free pass to ignore the law.

It is essentially the same reason why States can't legally ban gay marriages.

In order to deny anyone a protected right, the State(meaning either States or the Federal government) must demonstrate that there is some compelling state interest in denying those rights.

There is no compelling state interest in forcing churches to violate their internal doctrines by requiring for example the Catholic Church to marry Jews.

However, the State would have a compelling interest in preventing churches from practicing human sacrifice.

Ok, so why is there a "compelling interest" to force a baker to bake them cakes, but not a priest to marry them?

Sigh you still have this backwards.

The state can only deny rights when the state can demonstrate a compelling interest in denying rights.

The priest is protected by the First Amendment from being forced to practice his religion in ways that violate church doctrine.

The baker baking cakes can make the claim of religious exemption, but State does have a compelling interest in requiring public business's to business's even with 'despised minorities'- that was established in the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Why is it not a compelling interest in both cases? Isn't the actual marriage more fundamental than the cake?

Nope.

Legal marriage is essentially a civic function. Any couple can get married regardless of whether a Priest wants to marry them or not- there are public officials which will marry them.

Religious marriage is purely a religious function- no public official can perform a religious marriage- that essentially activates the state issued marriage licence.

The state does not provide an alternative to private business.

How does that make any difference. If gays rights are being violated when a baker won't bake them a cake because they're gay, then their rights are also being violated when a church won't marry them because they're gay. We've already agreed a chruch can't used it's freedom of religion to violate our rights.

Now, just to be forthright, I don't think rights are involved in either case. There's no such thing as a "right" to demand that someone bake you a cake, or marry you, but that's the kind of dimwittedness underlying PA laws.

 

[Skylar]

How does that make any difference. If gays rights are being violated when a baker won't bake them a cake because they're gay, then their rights are also being violated when a church won't marry them because they're gay. We've already agreed a chruch can't used it's freedom of religion to violate our rights.

There's nothing intrinsically religious about baking a cake. There is something intrinsically religious about a religious wedding.

 

[dblack]

Yeah - I thought you were saying marriage was a right? What gives?

The difference is that one need not go to a given church to exercise that right. You can do it at another church. Or a justice of the peace. Or hire your own minister and have it done in your backyard. The refusal of a particular church to perform a particular wedding puts no significant burden on the exercise of the right to marry.

And no one need go to a given baker to get a wedding cake. They can go to another baker, or bake it themselves. The refusal of a particular baker to bake them a cake puts no significant burden on the exercise of their right to cake.

Whereas sacrificing someone as part of the process of baking a cake puts a significant burden on their right to life.

 

[dblack]

How does that make any difference. If gays rights are being violated when a baker won't bake them a cake because they're gay, then their rights are also being violated when a church won't marry them because they're gay. We've already agreed a chruch can't used it's freedom of religion to violate our rights.

There's nothing intrinsically religious about baking a cake. There is something intrinsically religious about a religious wedding.

I thought we agreed that didn't matter. If a religious practice violates someone's other rights, it doesn't enjoy special protection right? If churches can practice discrimination against gays, can they also discriminate based on race, or any of the other protected classes?

 

[mikegriffith1]

Just as a matter of basic decency and tolerance, why would you want to force a church to host your wedding against their will? Why would you want to force any facility--church, restaurant, club, etc.--to host your wedding against their will? Why would you want to get married under such circumstances, regardless of whether your marriage would be traditional, gay, whatever?

 

[Seawytch]

I haven't been following this thread closely, but the question of the OP is whether churches should be prohibited from discriminating against gays when performing marriages.

And the answer is "no". Churches have and will always be free to discriminate if they want.

How come? Aren't churches public accommodations?

No and they never have been. Wanna guess how I know?

 

[Skylar]

Yeah - I thought you were saying marriage was a right? What gives?

The difference is that one need not go to a given church to exercise that right. You can do it at another church. Or a justice of the peace. Or hire your own minister and have it done in your backyard. The refusal of a particular church to perform a particular wedding puts no significant burden on the exercise of the right to marry.

And no one need go to a given baker to get a wedding cake. They can go to another baker, or bake it themselves. The refusal of a particular baker to bake them a cake puts no significant burden on the exercise of their right to cake.

Whereas sacrificing someone as part of the process of baking a cake puts a significant burden on their right to life.

The obvious problem with that reasoning is that no one is suggesting we sacrifice anyone as part of baking a cake. Giving your reply an amusingly Mad Libs vibe. But not much relevance to what is being discussed.

 

[Seawytch]

Just as a matter of basic decency and tolerance, why would you want to force a church to host your wedding against their will? Why would you want to force any facility--church, restaurant, club, etc.--to host your wedding against their will? Why would you want to get married under such circumstances, regardless of whether your marriage would be traditional, gay, whatever?

It's irrelevant. It can't be done. Churches will change through public opinion not government coercion...like they ALWAYS a have.

 

[Skylar]

Just as a matter of basic decency and tolerance, why would you want to force a church to host your wedding against their will? Why would you want to force any facility--church, restaurant, club, etc.--to host your wedding against their will? Why would you want to get married under such circumstances, regardless of whether your marriage would be traditional, gay, whatever?

I don't know of anyone who is suggesting it should be done. Mostly its another 'bear in the woods' argument of conservatives. But there doesn't seem to be much to the claims.

 

[Seawytch]

How does that make any difference. If gays rights are being violated when a baker won't bake them a cake because they're gay, then their rights are also being violated when a church won't marry them because they're gay. We've already agreed a chruch can't used it's freedom of religion to violate our rights.

There's nothing intrinsically religious about baking a cake. There is something intrinsically religious about a religious wedding.

I thought we agreed that didn't matter. If a religious practice violates someone's other rights, it doesn't enjoy special protection right? If churches can practice discrimination against gays, can they also discriminate based on race, or any of the other protected classes?

Yes, they can...and have.

 

[Seawytch]

Yeah - I thought you were saying marriage was a right? What gives?

The difference is that one need not go to a given church to exercise that right. You can do it at another church. Or a justice of the peace. Or hire your own minister and have it done in your backyard. The refusal of a particular church to perform a particular wedding puts no significant burden on the exercise of the right to marry.

And no one need go to a given baker to get a wedding cake. They can go to another baker, or bake it themselves. The refusal of a particular baker to bake them a cake puts no significant burden on the exercise of their right to cake.

Whereas sacrificing someone as part of the process of baking a cake puts a significant burden on their right to life.

Churches are not, nor have they ever been a place of business that must adhere to laws that govern owning a business. A baker is not a tax exempt church.

 

[Skylar]

I thought we agreed that didn't matter.

In terms of the free excercise of religion, it definitely matters. So no, there would be no such agreement.

If a religious practice violates someone's other rights, it doesn't enjoy special protection right?

Because the denial of a wedding by a particular church creates no substantial burden on the exercise of the right to marry. They can get married somewhere else. While forcing a church to conduct a wedding against its tenets creates an enormous burden on the exercise of religion.

Baking doesn't have any particular religious protection. As baking isn't inherently religious. Religious ceremonies do, as religious ceremonies are.

If churches can practice discrimination against gays, can they also discriminate based on race, or any of the other protected classes?

Religions can largely practice discrimination against anyone, as discrimination is inherent to the free exercise of religion. Discrimination isn't inherent to baking.

 

[dblack]

I thought we agreed that didn't matter.

In terms of the free excercise of religion, it definitely matters. So no, there would be no such agreement.

If a religious practice violates someone's other rights, it doesn't enjoy special protection right?

Because the denial of a wedding by a particular church creates no substantial burden on the exercise of the right to marry. They can get married somewhere else. While forcing a church to conduct a wedding against its tenets creates an enormous burden on the exercise of religion.

Baking doesn't have any particular religious protection. As baking isn't inherently religious. Religious ceremonies do, as religious ceremonies are.

If churches can practice discrimination against gays, can they also discriminate based on race, or any of the other protected classes?

Religions can largely practice discrimination against anyone, as discrimination is inherent to the free exercise of religion. Discrimination isn't inherent to baking.

Hmm... Are you sure about that? I'm gonna hafta go a googling, cause I bet churches can't discriminate based on race.

Frankly, I don't see how anyone can pretend there are any consistent principles at work in civil rights law. It's straight-up, authoritarian, social engineering, and has nothing at all to do with protecting our rights.

 

[Seawytch]

I thought we agreed that didn't matter.

In terms of the free excercise of religion, it definitely matters. So no, there would be no such agreement.

If a religious practice violates someone's other rights, it doesn't enjoy special protection right?

Because the denial of a wedding by a particular church creates no substantial burden on the exercise of the right to marry. They can get married somewhere else. While forcing a church to conduct a wedding against its tenets creates an enormous burden on the exercise of religion.

Baking doesn't have any particular religious protection. As baking isn't inherently religious. Religious ceremonies do, as religious ceremonies are.

If churches can practice discrimination against gays, can they also discriminate based on race, or any of the other protected classes?

Religions can largely practice discrimination against anyone, as discrimination is inherent to the free exercise of religion. Discrimination isn't inherent to baking.

Hmm... Are you sure about that? I'm gonna hafta go a googling, cause I bet churches can't discriminate based on race.

Frankly, I don't see how anyone can pretend there are any consistent principles at work in civil rights law. It's straight-up, authoritarian, social engineering, and has nothing at all to do with protecting our rights.

You would be wrong. Churches have NEVER nor will they ever be forced to perform a ceremony contrary to the tenants of their faith.

Kentucky church votes to ban interracial couples US news theguardian.com

 

[Syriusly]

I thought we agreed that didn't matter.

In terms of the free excercise of religion, it definitely matters. So no, there would be no such agreement.

If a religious practice violates someone's other rights, it doesn't enjoy special protection right?

Because the denial of a wedding by a particular church creates no substantial burden on the exercise of the right to marry. They can get married somewhere else. While forcing a church to conduct a wedding against its tenets creates an enormous burden on the exercise of religion.

Baking doesn't have any particular religious protection. As baking isn't inherently religious. Religious ceremonies do, as religious ceremonies are.

If churches can practice discrimination against gays, can they also discriminate based on race, or any of the other protected classes?

Religions can largely practice discrimination against anyone, as discrimination is inherent to the free exercise of religion. Discrimination isn't inherent to baking.

Hmm... Are you sure about that? I'm gonna hafta go a googling, cause I bet churches can't discriminate based on race.
.

You will find out you are wrong.

UP until the Mormon church changed its doctrine in 1978, the Church of Latter Day Saints discriminated against African Americans, and denied them many of the benefits of the Church- even if they were members.

Yet that was never a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

 

[dblack]

I thought we agreed that didn't matter.

In terms of the free excercise of religion, it definitely matters. So no, there would be no such agreement.

If a religious practice violates someone's other rights, it doesn't enjoy special protection right?

Because the denial of a wedding by a particular church creates no substantial burden on the exercise of the right to marry. They can get married somewhere else. While forcing a church to conduct a wedding against its tenets creates an enormous burden on the exercise of religion.

Baking doesn't have any particular religious protection. As baking isn't inherently religious. Religious ceremonies do, as religious ceremonies are.

If churches can practice discrimination against gays, can they also discriminate based on race, or any of the other protected classes?

Religions can largely practice discrimination against anyone, as discrimination is inherent to the free exercise of religion. Discrimination isn't inherent to baking.

Hmm... Are you sure about that? I'm gonna hafta go a googling, cause I bet churches can't discriminate based on race.

Frankly, I don't see how anyone can pretend there are any consistent principles at work in civil rights law. It's straight-up, authoritarian, social engineering, and has nothing at all to do with protecting our rights.

You would be wrong. Churches have NEVER nor will they ever be forced to perform a ceremony contrary to the tenants of their faith.

Kentucky church votes to ban interracial couples US news theguardian.com

Well, I'm finding some other interesting stuff too. In any case, why is it ok for churches to violate civil rights, but not other rights? The seems like a concession that civil rights aren't really 'rights' after all, but perks afforded to targeted minorities.