Posted on 05/03/2009 1:58:41 PM PDT by Steelfish
The flip-side of same-sex marriage Those who object on religious grounds need legal protection too.
By Robin Wilson
May 3, 2009 As a growing number of states stand poised to pass same-sex marriage laws, they should consider this: It's possible to legalize gay marriage without infringing on religious liberty. But it takes careful crafting of robust religious protections. And no state has gotten that right yet.
The country is deeply divided on same-sex marriage. But once it is recognized legally, all kinds of people -- clerks in the local registrar's office, photographers, owners of reception halls, florists -- might not have the legal right to refuse to provide services for same-sex weddings, even if doing so would violate deeply held beliefs.
Religious organizations could be affected too. For example, a Catholic university that offers married-student housing might have to rent to married same-sex couples or risk violating state law.
These are not imagined or speculative concerns. Flash-points over same-sex unions are already occurring across the United States. In Iowa, the state's attorney general told county recorders that they must issue licenses to same-sex couples or face criminal misdemeanor charges and even dismissal.
New Mexico's Human Rights Commission fined a husband-wife photography team more than $6,000 because they declined to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony. In New Jersey, authorities yanked the property tax exemption of a church group that denied requests by two lesbian couples to use the group's boardwalk pavilion for their commitment ceremonies.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
"Once," not "if." These little habits of Progressive presumption can't be left uncorrected.
That said, it's foolish to think that religious exemptions and conscience protections will be worth anything if the public or the legal elite decides dissenters are the same as racists and need to be suppressed.
a "religious organization" providing adoption services may continue to place children only with heterosexual married couples as long as it gets no government money.
So pro-gay religious groups have an advantage over those who aren't. That's still pretty bad.
We probably have something worse than that in Mass. I can understand this in terms of supplying essential services, but wedding photography?
The photo business is so reference driven that taking bad photos isn't really an option - though it's the first thing I thought of too. Given the importance of the day, would you really want to force someone to do that job for you? I mean why risk it?
You and the other person are probably right about them being selected as an example. Still I might be so traumatized that I wouldn't be able to work for a while and have to sue someone to recover that lost income.
That’s what I’m learning. Fortunately I shoot sports where we don’t have these kinds of issues.
bump
Yes, and they will have to. Not to offer a gay Ken Doll would be “hate speech”.
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.