[highball]

The exemption is in fact illusory. It says churches may restrict marriages to opposite sex couples, but only if their church only marries church members to each other and they do not allow the public to use their facilities or attend their services. (I.e., they are the equivalent of a closed private club.)

I haven't read the bill, but if your summary is true, that's a new and dangerous provision.

We've known for a long time that churches that rent to the public will be unable to avoid renting to gay couples. That's an unfortunate side effect of the Civil Rights Act. But that requirement has never before been extended to churches just because their services are open to the general public.

I really have to read this bill.

[ReformationFan]

As long as the churches don’t rent their property to the public, are they safe? I’m not Roman Catholic but I assume all Roman Catholic churches limit their facilities for wedding use to Roman Catholic weddings only which by definition would only be 1 man to 1 woman.

[kaehurowing]

The key, first, is that it purports to give limited protection to ministers and churches, so long as they marry *only* their own members (think about it, that means if you go to the church, the only women you can legally marry in a ceremony in your church are those in your own congregation, which to me seems to be a problem in itself).

But the kicker is that none of the so-called protections apply if your church is deemed to be a “public accommodation.” Public accommodation is defined very broadly in Hawaii, there is no restriction to being a business or charging money. So long as you invite members of the public to use your facilities (even if you don’t charge them anything) you are a public accommodation. So the Attorney General and Civil Rights Commission have already testified before the Legislature that if a church invites the public to its services or advertises things like Christmas or Easter services, that makes them a public accommodation. The testimony has been that if the churches want protection, they must become the equivalent of “members only” private clubs.

Here’s the definition of public accommodation in Hawaii:

“’Place of public accommodation’ means a business,
accommodation, refreshment, entertainment, recreation, or transportation facility of any kind whose goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations are extended, offered, sold, or otherwise made available to the general public as customers, clients, or visitors.” (HRS section 489-2)

You will see there is no restriction to commercial activities, or money being charged. If you allow members of the public to attend your church, you fall under the law, and then cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, etc.

Obviously big First Amendment problems, but that is where it is at in Hawaii. There is already a case pending in the Civil Rights Commission (has been pending 3 years without decision) as to whether the Roman Catholic Church must allow same-sex ceremonies in one of its chapels that it allowed the public to come pray in. http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/upload/Same-Sex-Marriage-Fact-Sheet-Updated.pdf (Just as another example, think of all the old Spanish mission churches in California that are kept open for people to pray in or tourists to walk through. In Hawaii, if you let people see your church like that, arguably you would have to allow them to have same-sex ceremonies there.)