ssm & religious liberty protection

[ken777]

Robin Fretwell Wilson, a University of Illinois law professor who leads a group of legal scholars that advise lawmakers on religious exemptions identifies the levels of protection needed:

"Wilson identifies four layers of needed protections. She starts with the clergy, who need—and already get—the best defense from the U.S. Constitution. While most states where same sex-marriage is legalized specify this protection, she calls it a "fake religious liberty protection" because it's already guaranteed at the federal level.

"Religious facilities which may be rented out to non-members make up the next layer, Wilson said. Next are religious social service agencies (such as the Salvation Army or Catholic Charities), religious universities, and religious marriage counseling services which may be open to prosecution or civil suit if they don't accommodate same-sex couples seeking services.

"The fourth layer comprises people of faith who work in so-called secular jobs. The marriage counselor at a non-religious practice, the judge asked to perform the marriage, the bakers and florists and photographers—all should have religious rights, she said. "

.

 

[Avid]

In each case, the courts and the people who expect to do things affecting the liberties of these people should read the US Constitution, and have a care of trampling religious freedoms. In these cases, as well as other cases in other situations, there is an expressed freedom here, and nothing specifically expressed concerning what they wish to categorize as freedoms or rights.

 

[bhsmte]

Robin Fretwell Wilson, a University of Illinois law professor who leads a group of legal scholars that advise lawmakers on religious exemptions identifies the levels of protection needed:

"Wilson identifies four layers of needed protections. She starts with the clergy, who need—and already get—the best defense from the U.S. Constitution. While most states where same sex-marriage is legalized specify this protection, she calls it a "fake religious liberty protection" because it's already guaranteed at the federal level.

"Religious facilities which may be rented out to non-members make up the next layer, Wilson said. Next are religious social service agencies (such as the Salvation Army or Catholic Charities), religious universities, and religious marriage counseling services which may be open to prosecution or civil suit if they don't accommodate same-sex couples seeking services.

"The fourth layer comprises people of faith who work in so-called secular jobs. The marriage counselor at a non-religious practice, the judge asked to perform the marriage, the bakers and florists and photographers—all should have religious rights, she said. "

.

Church's and pastors have always been able to deny marrying someone, based on their theology. This will never change and should not ever change, the constitution guarantees it.

In regards to publically accommodating businesses, that is a different story. It has been illegal to discriminate against a protected class in the United States for over 50 years. Even the law Indiana was trying to introduce, would not have allowed a publically accommodating business to discriminate against gays and the governor himself said this and added; gays should not be discriminated against in public arenas.

If one has such strong religious beliefs, don't open a public accommodating business. Make your business a private one, where you can discriminate.

 

[ken777]

Church's and pastors have always been able to deny marrying someone, based on their theology. This will never change and should not ever change, the constitution guarantees it.

In regards to publically accommodating businesses, that is a different story. It has been illegal to discriminate against a protected class in the United States for over 50 years. Even the law Indiana was trying to introduce, would not have allowed a publically accommodating business to discriminate against gays and the governor himself said this and added; gays should not be discriminated against in public arenas.
If one has such strong religious beliefs, don't open a public accommodating business. Make your business a private one, where you can discriminate.

When addressing the situation involving businesses we need to consider the situation as it exists now - many businesses have been in operation for years, sometimes generations.

I am interested in attempts by states in the US to address religious freedom in all the areas identified by Wilson because my country, Australia, will probably introduce ssm before the end of the year.

The Human Rights Commissioner in this country has stated:

"Preserving religious freedom is greater than exempting religious celebrants, such as priests, rabbis and imams, from being bound to marry all couples. It can also require that some people of faith are not forced to act against their conscience and participate in a marriage they disagree with, from hosting a ceremony to providing services. Their rights are just as important as those of same-sex couples seeking to marry."​

.

 

[ken777]

In each case, the courts and the people who expect to do things affecting the liberties of these people should read the US Constitution, and have a care of trampling religious freedoms. In these cases, as well as other cases in other situations, there is an expressed freedom here, and nothing specifically expressed concerning what they wish to categorize as freedoms or rights.

Do you know of any specific state legislation that has tried to address the issue of ssm & religious freedom?

I think there is already accommodation for employees concerning religious exemption - employees are not required to carry out an activity that is contrary to their religious beliefs if other employees are available to carry out the task.

I would like to see this extended to businesses so they can refer customers seeking services for a ss wedding to an alternative business in the local community.

.

 

[Avid]

Do you know of any specific state legislation that has tried to address the issue of ssm & religious freedom?

I think there is already accommodation for employees concerning religious exemption - employees are not required to carry out an activity that is contrary to their religious beliefs if other employees are available to carry out the task.

I would like to see this extended to businesses so they can refer customers seeking services for a ss wedding to an alternative business in the local community.

Not sure exactly how to answer, but I know we discussed this in a Baptist Forum, and it is difficult for people to realize that there is no freedom to marry expressed in the US Constitution, but there is an expressed freedom of religion, and the free exercise thereof.

The court cases were initiated when someone chose a shop that would object to such a thing, and specifically confronted them with the prospect of doing this to press their point. An ss couple got married in a state that allowed that, and then tried to get divorced in FL, simply to press the issue. They were not satisfied to seek a divorce where they got married, because that would not force someone else to accept their ways.

It seems obvious from this, and from things that have been discussed since the recent SCOTUS ruling, that the goal always was to end the institution of marriage, not simply to seek the privileges of marriage to be extended to people who form some other type of union.

 

[revanneosl]

No, the goal was to extend the basic human right of marriage (so defined by the court in Loving v. Virginia) to all citizens. Nobody's trying to "destroy" marriage. My cousin's 24 years of marriage to her wife in no way threatens my 25-year marriage to my husband.

 

[bhsmte]

When addressing the situation involving businesses we need to consider the situation as it exists now - many businesses have been in operation for years, sometimes generations.

I am interested in attempts by states in the US to address religious freedom in all the areas identified by Wilson because my country, Australia, will probably introduce ssm before the end of the year.

The Human Rights Commissioner in this country has stated:

"Preserving religious freedom is greater than exempting religious celebrants, such as priests, rabbis and imams, from being bound to marry all couples. It can also require that some people of faith are not forced to act against their conscience and participate in a marriage they disagree with, from hosting a ceremony to providing services. Their rights are just as important as those of same-sex couples seeking to marry."​

.

There is a simple solution, if someone has strong religious beliefs, don't go into the public accommodation business, that deals with marriages, such as a baker of wedding cakes.

Countries such as the US, that value equal rights have found, there is a compelling interest to assure the public is treated equally, in publically accommodating businesses. This isn't going away in the United States, but I can't speak for your country.

Keep in mind, churches can still discriminate against gays, private organizations can also discriminate and a person can discriminate in their private lives.

 

[bhsmte]

Do you know of any specific state legislation that has tried to address the issue of ssm & religious freedom?

I think there is already accommodation for employees concerning religious exemption - employees are not required to carry out an activity that is contrary to their religious beliefs if other employees are available to carry out the task.

I would like to see this extended to businesses so they can refer customers seeking services for a ss wedding to an alternative business in the local community.

.

In reality, I would have no problem with this, with one caveat, the public accommodating business, informs the public of who they will refuse service to ahead of time, because of their religious beliefs. In this way, a person will not waste their time going to that establishment in the first place.

I would call this, transparency.

 

[Cearbhall]

In regards to publically accommodating businesses, that is a different story. It has been illegal to discriminate against a protected class in the United States for over 50 years. Even the law Indiana was trying to introduce, would not have allowed a publically accommodating business to discriminate against gays and the governor himself said this and added; gays should not be discriminated against in public arenas.

I agree. The hubbub is just because there are people who are homophobic but not racist, or at least who care whether people think they're racist but don't care about being openly homophobic. The people who are against interracial marriage for religious reasons have been putting up with this for 50 years, but I haven't heard of any complaints about the law recently in that regard. This is just another case of people saying "Discrimination is wrong unless I want to do it." Too bad for them. The Constitution doesn't allow the government to view one religious belief as being more or less reasonable than another.

 

[Belk]

Not sure exactly how to answer, but I know we discussed this in a Baptist Forum, and it is difficult for people to realize that there is no freedom to marry expressed in the US Constitution, but there is an expressed freedom of religion, and the free exercise thereof.

The court cases were initiated when someone chose a shop that would object to such a thing, and specifically confronted them with the prospect of doing this to press their point. An ss couple got married in a state that allowed that, and then tried to get divorced in FL, simply to press the issue. They were not satisfied to seek a divorce where they got married, because that would not force someone else to accept their ways.

It seems obvious from this, and from things that have been discussed since the recent SCOTUS ruling, that the goal always was to end the institution of marriage, not simply to seek the privileges of marriage to be extended to people who form some other type of union.

This does not seem obvious to me. In fact the idea of wanting to end the institution of marriage by fighting very hard to be allowed to have one seems decidedly counter intuitive. Perhaps you can detail some of these statements that make this goal "obvious"?

 

[Cearbhall]

It seems obvious from this, and from things that have been discussed since the recent SCOTUS ruling, that the goal always was to end the institution of marriage

I fail to see how increasing the number of people who can marry their partners achieves this. I also don't know why millions of people would fight for the right to marry if they wanted to get rid of it.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

No freedom is absolute and this includes religious freedom. Muslims can't eat pork but we don't go and ban pork products in the US because of Islamic beliefs.

Christians can't marry people of the same sex. Ok... Please, explain why that should be the law for the entire country (or even for any one state) and how that is totally different from living under Sharia.

 

[Avid]

This does not seem obvious to me. In fact the idea of wanting to end the institution of marriage by fighting very hard to be allowed to have one seems decidedly counter intuitive. Perhaps you can detail some of these statements that make this goal "obvious"?

http://www.religionnews.com/2015/03...ranting-marriage-licenses-leave-clergy-hands/

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...olish-marriage-entirely-sex-weddings-allowed/

http://truthinmedia.com/alabama-senate-approves-bill-to-abolish-marriage-licensing/

 

[Red Fox]

No, the goal was to extend the basic human right of marriage (so defined by the court in Loving v. Virginia) to all citizens. Nobody's trying to "destroy" marriage. My cousin's 24 years of marriage to her wife in no way threatens my 25-year marriage to my husband.

Well said, revanneosl.

If traditional marriage was so sacred to Christians than there wouldn't be any divorce, remarriage or committing adultery among them.

 

[bhsmte]

Well said, revanneosl.

If traditional marriage was so sacred to Christians than there wouldn't be any divorce, remarriage or committing adultery among them.

And Christians divorce more than anyone.

 

[ken777]

Not sure exactly how to answer, but I know we discussed this in a Baptist Forum, and it is difficult for people to realize that there is no freedom to marry expressed in the US Constitution, but there is an expressed freedom of religion, and the free exercise thereof.

The court cases were initiated when someone chose a shop that would object to such a thing, and specifically confronted them with the prospect of doing this to press their point. An ss couple got married in a state that allowed that, and then tried to get divorced in FL, simply to press the issue. They were not satisfied to seek a divorce where they got married, because that would not force someone else to accept their ways.

It seems obvious from this, and from things that have been discussed since the recent SCOTUS ruling, that the goal always was to end the institution of marriage, not simply to seek the privileges of marriage to be extended to people who form some other type of union.

In effect, ssm marriage destroys the historic, traditional concept of marriage. Schools will now be required to teach a different definition of marriage, husband, wife, etc. The 5-4 split in the SCOTUS decision shows that this is not a clear cut issue.

Most Christians accept that society is gradually growing more ungodly as time goes on. The Good News is that in the end, we win!

.



.

 

[ken777]

In reality, I would have no problem with this, with one caveat, the public accommodating business, informs the public of who they will refuse service to ahead of time, because of their religious beliefs. In this way, a person will not waste their time going to that establishment in the first place.
I would call this, transparency.

That sounds reasonable but would it be acceptable in US society? I doubt that it will be accepted here in Australia.


.

 

[ken777]

I agree. The hubbub is just because there are people who are homophobic but not racist, or at least who care whether people think they're racist but don't care about being openly homophobic. The people who are against interracial marriage for religious reasons have been putting up with this for 50 years, but I haven't heard of any complaints about the law recently in that regard. This is just another case of people saying "Discrimination is wrong unless I want to do it." Too bad for them. The Constitution doesn't allow the government to view one religious belief as being more or less reasonable than another.

You are simply repeating the old lie that Christians who oppose ssm are "homophobic". All of the businesses that have been prosecuted welcomed homosexual customers.

It would make no difference if the customer seeking services for a ss wedding was heterosexual or homosexual, the response would be the same.

Christian businesses want to retain the right to decline to participate in specific activities, just as a catering company might refuse to provide their services for a football club party with strippers.


.

 

[Belk]

http://www.religionnews.com/2015/03...ranting-marriage-licenses-leave-clergy-hands/

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...olish-marriage-entirely-sex-weddings-allowed/

http://truthinmedia.com/alabama-senate-approves-bill-to-abolish-marriage-licensing/

These are all instances of conservatives who are attempting to abolish marriage. How is that evidence? Unless your claim is that the homosexuals dastardly plan was to gain marriage recognition in the hopes that conservatives would attempt to end government involvement?