Marriage venue sued for denying homosexual couple

[bruto]

While I think they have a point, it also seems to give opponents of same sex marriage a slipperly-slope argument.

The marriage equality people had said that they wouldn't force people with religious objections to perform the ceremony. For example, if the Catholic Church doesn't want to perform same sex marriages, they wouldn't have to do that. Now it seems that maybe they will have to after all.

I do not see any evidence that gay couples are going back on their promise not to force religious groups to perform odious ceremonies. The case here involves a site that hosts the celebrations, not a church that performs them. The site in question, if they did provide officiants, which I doubt, would have been entirely with its right to refuse to officiate. Most such sites require a couple to make their own officiating decisions, and probably their own florists, caterers, etc. as well.

You may still disagree with the idea, but I think any site that discriminates should not be allowed to do so silently or on a whim. Churches have policies that are public. If you see a sign on a storefront that says "No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service," it is on the outside of the door, not something you are told after you've filled your grocery cart. If this place is going to act as a religious agency, it should advertise its religious limitations.

 

[Puppycow]

I do not see any evidence that gay couples are going back on their promise not to force religious groups to perform odious ceremonies. The case here involves a site that hosts the celebrations, not a church that performs them. The site in question, if they did provide officiants, which I doubt, would have been entirely with its right to refuse to officiate. Most such sites require a couple to make their own officiating decisions, and probably their own florists, caterers, etc. as well.

You may still disagree with the idea, but I think any site that discriminates should not be allowed to do so silently or on a whim. Churches have policies that are public. If you see a sign on a storefront that says "No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service," it is on the outside of the door, not something you are told after you've filled your grocery cart. If this place is going to act as a religious agency, it should advertise its religious limitations.

My post is mainly about the political implications. I understand the perspective of the women suing. At the same time, there are referenda on same sex marriage in four states coming up in a week. Any development that could be spun as "this is going to force religious people to be involved in same sex marriages against their will" might be harmful to those efforts. The marriage equality campaigners have spent a lot of time and money trying to reassure people that that won't happen. That's my only concern.

 

[ponderingturtle]

While I think they have a point, it also seems to give opponents of same sex marriage a slipperly-slope argument.

The marriage equality people had said that they wouldn't force people with religious objections to perform the ceremony. For example, if the Catholic Church doesn't want to perform same sex marriages, they wouldn't have to do that. Now it seems that maybe they will have to after all.

And they are not. They are forcing them to host this. This really has nothing to do with gay marriage law, it is all about making homosexuality a protected class.

If sexuality is a protected class then even with out gay marriage being legal you could get the same thing from a commitment ceremony. And no one ever said non religious venues wouldn't be prevented from this kind of discrimination.

 

[bruto]

My post is mainly about the political implications. I understand the perspective of the women suing. At the same time, there are referenda on same sex marriage in four states coming up in a week. Any development that could be spun as "this is going to force religious people to be involved in same sex marriages against their will" might be harmful to those efforts. The marriage equality campaigners have spent a lot of time and money trying to reassure people that that won't happen. That's my only concern.

I can see your point too, but "involved" covers a lot of territory, and judging from past experience, plenty of religious people consider having to share a street with a gay couple sufficient involvement to fight the law. In any case, of course, the case is in a state where certain rules apply, and it might be asking too much for the participants to anticipate the spin that might be applied everywhere. If you're going to legalize marriage, you're going to have marriages, and if you're going to have a wedding site, you're going to host weddings. If you're going to pull out the religious card, it should be on the table from the start.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

And they are not. They are forcing them to host this. This really has nothing to do with gay marriage law, it is all about making homosexuality a protected class.

If sexuality is a protected class then even with out gay marriage being legal you could get the same thing from a commitment ceremony. And no one ever said non religious venues wouldn't be prevented from this kind of discrimination.

Making? No, it *is*. State law.

 

[Beerina]

So you support the broad reduction in anti discrimination laws but just for weddings?

Insofar as it overlaps religion, yes.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Making? No, it *is*. State law.

But it was that law not the marriage law that had this effect.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Insofar as it overlaps religion, yes.

To what end? There are a lot of problems with allowing religious exemptions to such laws but for example you are getting the states into determining what is really a real religious doctrine or not.