[kaehurowing]

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.)

[melsec]

Well I have always thought that marriage in a church should require membership but as to attend their services that is a nonsense - a solution could be to have a visitors book like any “club” although I can see that being a bit of a stumbling block!

Mel

[ReformationFan]

Does the law spell it out that specifically? How can a church acquire members unless visitors can come and decide if they want to join?

[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.