Posted on 06/30/2015 10:09:23 AM PDT by xzins
Modest proposal:
Allow states to REQUIRE that only federal judges perform homosexual weddings. They made this mess, let them live with it.
Gays wont’ have a problem finding people to perform their weddings.
The problem will be when they seek out, target, and harass a minister they KNOW objects.
"“Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered.”
This is supposed to somehow protect the church. I do not think it will. I would think performing a ceremony of Holy Matrimony in Church that violates the core beliefs of that institution would be protected. The word of the day is that the government can not stop homosexuals from getting married, but does not compel any individual from performing a service that violates his/her beliefs for them to marry.
I tend to think that once sexual lifestyle choice is "protected" from "discrimination" the same as race or gender, then we may see some activist judges rule against churches like a cake maker.
Just because a service is legal, it does not compel anyone to perform it. In the end, this may end up being an extremely hollow victory.
A lot of money flows from religious entities into political coffers. If liberals attempt to punish churches who refuse to perform gay marriage aka the Catholic church, it is going to hit them right in their pocket books. I think most Americans recoil at the use of force against one person in order to do the bidding of another. We have fought wars over this value.
If you're talking about government officials (e.g., county clerks, justices of the peace), you're probably right. If you're talking about churches, you're wrong-- no one in the US has ever successfully sued a Catholic church for not performing a wedding where one of the spouses is divorced, and no one has ever sued an Orthodox Rabbi for not performing an interfaith wedding.
And you are not listening. I said, a church CANNOT turn down a couple to be married, based on skin color, and I daresay that said church would be sued and regulated into oblivion if they did. Now, this SCOTUS opinion in favor of deviant marriage has placed deviant sexual behavior on the SAME LEVEL as race - both are now "civil rights". Therefore, a church that turns down a deviant couple based on their deviant behavior, said church can now be sued and regulated into oblivion.
State Dept LGBT Speaker: We Don’t Want Gay Marriage; We Want No Marriage
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/381148/state-dept-lgbt-speaker-we-dont-want-gay-marriage-we-want-no-marriage-ian-tuttle
.
Polyamory Is Next, And I’m One Reason Why
.
From income-tax breaks to estate planning benefits to Social Security and insurance benefits to the right to make medical decisions for one’s spouse, there are all kinds of carrots dangled in front of Americans as rewards for getting hitched. Instead of putting unmarried individuals on equal footing with married people, the government has chosen to appease the masses by blessing another category of monogamous couples with the privileges of marriage—those of the same sex.
This is discrimination, plain and simple. It discriminates against single people who have no formal romantic relationships and a growing number of people who identify as polyamorous, who maintain multiple romantic relationships at once. The government has no business incentivizing any type of romantic or non-romantic behavior. It has no business rewarding us or penalizing us based on our relationship status.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/30/polyamory-is-next-and-im-one-reason-why/#disqus_thread
I doubt that. Courts have already ruled, in race-related discrimination cases, that an intent to discriminate need not be present or proven in order to prove racial discrimination. All he plaintiff has to prove is that there was an unequal outcome, "disparate impact."
E.g. if only 20% of the white applicants for fire dept. jobs are rejected, but 35% of black applicants are rejected,that's "actionable" discrimination right there, whether it was related to other criteria or not (e.g. school records, previous arrest record, test scores, physical exam/fitness results, etc.)
So if it "happens" that 100% of the gay couples who asked for marriage are denied marriage, then they can get you for discrimination even if there is no provable, expressed intent to discriminate.
Christians will be FORCED to perform ‘gay’ ceremonies, or lose their livelihoods, or their freedom. This is it, people. Persecution has come to America.
Discussion is futile. They are going to force Christians to choose between their faith and their job. There is no doubt about this. Soon.
...and that right there is the whole point of the exercise.
I'll bet you $1,000.00 you cannot find a case where a church in the U.S. was successfully sued for refusing to perform a wedding where the refusal was based on the church's religious beliefs.
Because it's a policy ruling on the issuing of a corporate tax status.
Roberts called a penalty a tax because the penalty is issued in a part of the tax code that literally says "these taxes are to be called penalties."
Now everyone is upset because SCOTUS just extended the application of the tax code at the section that says "these corporate tax liabilities are to be called marriage."
The country isn't being wrecked by liberals, but by conservatives who refuse to read what the law actually says and learn who it actually applies to. It's pathetic.
The examples you cited are correct:
no one in the US has ever successfully sued a Catholic church for not performing a wedding where one of the spouses is divorced
But the divorced are not a protected class
no one has ever sued an Orthodox Rabbi for not performing an interfaith wedding
Interfaith relationships are not protected classes.
Both of your examples, as your most recent statement (you cannot find a case where a church in the U.S. was successfully sued for refusing to perform a wedding where the refusal was based on the church's religious beliefs) are correct. HOWEVER:
Race / skin color = protected class, and now
Deviant sexual behavior = protected class
Thus far, I've not heard of any church that has turned someone away due to skin color. If they were to do so, they WOULD be sued and regulated into oblivion. Same now, with deviant marriage.
In plain words, you are entirely missing the point.
I think there are churches that refuse to marry interracial couples or bans interracial couples from membership. The ones I know of are independent Baptist.
Freegards
Not to mention where the Obama administration has tried such things, even the libs on the court have slapped him down. One case being brought over hiring practices in the private, religious school.
I am a member of an Independent Baptist congregation. We have a couple interracial families, one married by our pastor. Of course, I can't speak for other churches, but have any couples sued?
And deviant marriage was not a "civil right" until the other day. You guys keep references stuff that went the way of the do do bird after this SCOTUS opinion. Pre-opinion: Deviant marriage was NOT a "civil right". Now it is. That changes EVERYTHING.
It changes nothing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.