Perform Same-Sex Marriage Or Go To Jail !!!!!!

[Cow Poke]

Oops, I'm sure you're right. For some reason I always get those guys confused.

They stay confused enough without your assistance.

Not sure whom I owe an apology to!

Yup!

[phank]

I foresee a legal case here. One lawyer is going to argue that ministers cannot be compelled to perform ceremonies disallowed by their religion. He might even argue that such coercion would be like the reporters who served jail time rather than reveal their sources. If I were a minister required by law to violate my beliefs, I'd certainly go to jail first.

The other lawyer would be pounding the law itself - that this wedding mill is NOT a church, that it is NOT tax-exempt, that it is NOT nonprofit, that it meets all the legal requirements of a for-profit business subject to the laws applying to all for-profit businesses. That the product they're offering for sale is just like the product of the florist. It wouldn't help the florist to become an ordained minister and use that as a pretext to refuse to sell flowers. These people are a business offering a product to the public.

Now, if I were the judge, I'd distinguish between the busines and the ministers, and rule that the business as a business must perform this wedding, but that there would be no problem sub-contracting the ceremony out to a suitable licenced minister or GP licenced to perform legal marriages. Or that alternatively this business go through the legal process of becoming an actual church, giving up their for-profit status.

But the danger to be guarded against here is of business people running out to buy minister licences or whatever, just as some posters here purchase PhD degrees - solely to create false impressions or evade laws. In other words, we don't want a condition where religion trumps the law.

[One Bad Pig]

But the danger to be guarded against here is of business people running out to buy minister licences or whatever, just as some posters here purchase PhD degrees - solely to create false impressions or evade laws. In other words, we don't want a condition where religion trumps the law.

Ever hear of the Universal Life Church? I'm on their ordination lists somewhere, thanks to a prankster in college.

[Tassman]

I think a chapel where they advertise ordained Christian ministers (according to their website) counts as a Christian institution and they would be covered by the constitution. Especially if they show that they have in the past refused to perform weddings on non-believers, or people of different religions.

Nonsense! It's a profit-making business and as such is designated by the federal Civil Rights Act as a "Public Accommodation" and subject to the same laws against discrimination as any other business.

[Juvenal]

Not sure whom I owe an apology to!

BtC is a lot more likely to offer you bacon.

[One Bad Pig]

BtC is a lot more likely to offer you bacon.

Leave me outta this, jerk.

[Bill the Cat]

Bill the Cat is preparing a list of the top ten so stay tuned.

Are you familiar with the term... "sarcasm"??

[robrecht]

Are you familiar with the term... "sarcasm"??

No, but if you hum a few bars, I'll fake it ...

[Jedidiah]

Ever hear of the Universal Life Church? I'm on their ordination lists somewhere, thanks to a prankster in college.

Hey, I was ordained by a friend years ago - long before I came to know Christ.

[Littlejoe]

My guess is that since it is open for rental from anyone in John Q Public for profit, they will have to allow gay marriages to be performed there...but surely they could not require the owners to perform or provide the ministers to perform the ceremony though.

[seer]

..but surely they could not require the owners to perform or provide the ministers to perform the ceremony though.

I'm not so sure. But if Hobby Lobby did not have to offer birth control in their employe medical insurance policy, based on religious convictions, I don't see how these ministers could be compelled to perform gay marriage. But in this case they are saying that the ministers do have to officiate by law.

[Sparko]

Nonsense! It's a profit-making business and as such is designated by the federal Civil Rights Act as a "Public Accommodation" and subject to the same laws against discrimination as any other business.

profit or non-profit are separate categories that have nothing to do with religion or the civil rights act.


Read it yourself instead of just spouting what you want it to say:

http://www.citizensource.com/History...A1964/CRA2.htm

[phank]

profit or non-profit are separate categories that have nothing to do with religion or the civil rights act.


Read it yourself instead of just spouting what you want it to say:

http://www.citizensource.com/History...A1964/CRA2.htm

??? The violation was of a city ordinance, not the Civil Rights Act. Tassman is over-reaching. The city says this for-profit marriage mill falls within their jurisdiction as a business. It remains for a court to decide if they can do that.

[Tassman]

??? The violation was of a city ordinance, not the Civil Rights Act. Tassman is over-reaching. The city says this for-profit marriage mill falls within their jurisdiction as a business. It remains for a court to decide if they can do that.

http://www.twocare.org/idaho-pastors...ligious-right/

[seer]

FYI - on Fox last night: it looks like the City is backing off. And if the Knapps register as a "religious corporation," which they are doing, they will be protected by Idaho state law going forward. A good thing...