Ministers threatened with jail and thousands in fines for refusing to marry gays

[essentialsaltes]

Christ confirmed every word in the Old Testament which condemns homosexual behavior. In His own words, every jot and tittle.

Time for bible tennis.

A: So Christians can't eat pork?

B: That was for the Jews. New covenant blah blah

A: Maybe the rules for homosexual behavior were just for the Jews.

B: It was an abomination.

A: So was eating pork.

B: Jesus said it was what comes out of your mouth, not what goes in...

A: So he did change a jot & tittle?

B: No way, Jose.

A: Whatever, dude.

 

[MachZer0]

Time for bible tennis.

A: So Christians can't eat pork?

B: That was for the Jews. New covenant blah blah

A: Maybe the rules for homosexual behavior were just for the Jews.

B: It was an abomination.

A: So was eating pork.

B: Jesus said it was what comes out of your mouth, not what goes in...

A: So he did change a jot & tittle?

B: No way, Jose.

A: Whatever, dude.

Here's a little legal info. You don't get to decide what is a legitimate religious belief for others. You only get to decide for yourself

 

[David Brider]

The point is that they are against the marriage, not the people who want to be married.

Okay. If they're against same-sex couples getting married, then all they have to do is...not get married to people of the same sex as themselves. Quite what they achieve by refusing service to same-sex couples (be that by refusing to provide a cake, or take photos, or whatever) isn't quite clear. Best case scenario, the couple will take their custom elsewhere (as will other people when they find out what's happened - I certainly wouldn't want to patronise a company that refused to serve same-sex couples). Worst case scenario, they'll find themselves on the wrong end of legal action for discriminatory business practices. Either way, they haven't stopped the marriage of the couple going ahead. So...what exactly have they achieved.

 

[David Brider]

Christ confirmed every word in the Old Testament which condemns homosexual behavior.

"Homosexual behaviour" is such a coy euphemism, isn't it? And pretty meaningless, too. If you mean "same-sex sexual intercourse," just say that. But using the phrase "homosexual behaviour" to refer to that is silly, really, seeing as a.) same-sex sexual intercourse isn't behaviour that all homosexual people engage in, b.) it's not behaviour that's engaged in all the time by those homosexuals who do engage in it, and c.) it's not behaviour that's exclusive to homosexuals.

It's a bit like saying to heterosexuals, "oh, we know what you do all the time...constantly having sex...at it like little bunny rabbits all the time, you are..."

 

[David Brider]

Here's a little legal info. You don't get to decide what is a legitimate religious belief for others. You only get to decide for yourself

He wasn't deciding. Just summarising the way many of the conversations round here go...

 

[MachZer0]

Okay. If they're against same-sex couples getting married, then all they have to do is...not get married to people of the same sex as themselves. Quite what they achieve by refusing service to same-sex couples (be that by refusing to provide a cake, or take photos, or whatever) isn't quite clear. Best case scenario, the couple will take their custom elsewhere (as will other people when they find out what's happened - I certainly wouldn't want to patronise a company that refused to serve same-sex couples). Worst case scenario, they'll find themselves on the wrong end of legal action for discriminatory business practices. Either way, they haven't stopped the marriage of the couple going ahead. So...what exactly have they achieved.

Or, the liberty solution would be that if the homosexual couple objects to businesses that don't provide services for homosexual ceremonies, they could take their business elsewhere

 

[MachZer0]

"Homosexual behaviour" is such a coy euphemism, isn't it? And pretty meaningless, too. If you mean "same-sex sexual intercourse," just say that. But using the phrase "homosexual behaviour" to refer to that is silly, really, seeing as a.) same-sex sexual intercourse isn't behaviour that all homosexual people engage in, b.) it's not behaviour that's engaged in all the time by those homosexuals who do engage in it, and c.) it's not behaviour that's exclusive to homosexuals.

It's a bit like saying to heterosexuals, "oh, we know what you do all the time...constantly having sex...at it like little bunny rabbits all the time, you are..."

Let's not drag this into a semantics debate.

 

[MachZer0]

He wasn't deciding. Just summarising the way many of the conversations round here go...

Then it was a non sequitur

 

[AirPo]

Let's not drag this into a semantics debate.

Oh the irony!

 

[kermit]

Here's a little legal info. You don't get to decide what is a legitimate religious belief for others. You only get to decide for yourself

Yes, we can blame SCOTUS for a major ruling based upon deeply held beliefs yet gave no guidance on determining a deeply held belief from the claim of a deeply held belief.

In fact during that ruling the evidence suggested, based upon behavior, that the deeply held belief was really merely a claim of a deeply held belief. The owners of the company provided insurance that covered the drugs in question and didn't stop coverage of them until after they filed suit. Prior to, during and likely still use the manufacturer of those drugs as an investment in their 401k plans.

Let's not also forget that that ruling allowed a major witness in a child labor case to avoid testifying by merely claiming that testifying in a way that could hurt the religious leader violated a deeply held belief. Nothing in the doctrine of the faith needed to support that claim for the court of uphold the claim.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Yes, we can blame SCOTUS for a major ruling based upon deeply held beliefs yet gave no guidance on determining a deeply held belief from the claim of a deeply held belief.

In an attempt to keep this thread on-topic, it is to be noted that the situation under discussion here involves a municipality's new ordinance and the injunctive relief being sought from its onerous repercussions.

 

[kermit]

Or, the liberty solution would be that if the homosexual couple objects to businesses that don't provide services for homosexual ceremonies, they could take their business elsewhere

This has already been discussed.

Please recall the incident where a pharmacist refused to fill a prescription for a morning after pill. In that case it was a rural town and was the only pharmacy in town. While the pharmacist individually has the right to refuse to issue drugs that violate his faith (makes one wonder why he became a pharmacist), the pharmacy legally has to fill any legally issued prescription.

So, no, business that are open to the public don't get to decide who sits at their lunch counter. If the business offers A, B and C they offer it to everyone who walks in. If an employee has a faith exception to offering A, B and C and to everyone it's up to the business to find another employee that will.

 

[MachZer0]

This has already been discussed.

Please recall the incident where a pharmacist refused to fill a prescription for a morning after pill. In that case it was a rural town and was the only pharmacy in town. While the pharmacist individually has the right to refuse to issue drugs that violate his faith (makes one wonder why he became a pharmacist), the pharmacy legally has to fill any legally issued prescription.

So, no, business that are open to the public don't get to decide who sits at their lunch counter. If the business offers A, B and C they offer it to everyone who walks in. If an employee has a faith exception to offering A, B and C and to everyone it's up to the business to find another employee that will.

A big difference being that bakers and photographers do not provide essential services and the requested services are readily available elsewhere

 

[David Brider]

A big difference being that bakers and photographers do not provide essential services and the requested services are readily available elsewhere

Nevertheless, the fact remains that bakers and photographers have no right to refuse to serve a same-sex couple just because they have objections to them being a same-sex couple.

 

[David Brider]

In an attempt to keep this thread on-topic, it is to be noted that the situation under discussion here involves a municipality's new ordinance and the injunctive relief being sought from its onerous repercussions.

As has been pointed out, though, the fears of onerous repercussions were, in fact, unfounded.

 

[David Brider]

Or, the liberty solution would be that if the homosexual couple objects to businesses that don't provide services for homosexual ceremonies, they could take their business elsewhere

Except that they shouldn't have to. Maybe if the businesses put up a sign ("we do not serve same-sex couples") I might have a bit more (grudging) respect for them, but from what I can tell most people in these cases only find out when they go into the shop/establishment/store to be served. At which point, if nothing else, it's a bit embarrassing to be told, "we don't serve your type."

And like I said - what exactly do business gain by refusing to serve same-sex couples?

 

[NightHawkeye]

As has been pointed out, though, the fears of onerous repercussions were, in fact, unfounded.

Incorrect.

The city, according to the legal filings, imposed both fines and incarceration as penalties for non-compliance with its new ordinance.

 

[bhsmte]

Except that they shouldn't have to. Maybe if the businesses put up a sign ("we do not serve same-sex couples") I might have a bit more (grudging) respect for them, but from what I can tell most people in these cases only find out when they go into the shop/establishment/store.

And like I said - what exactly do business gain by refusing to serve same-sex couples?

Well, what they gain is absolute religious freedom.

What they would lose by notifying the public ahead of time they don't serve certain people is; a whole ton of business.

 

[GarfieldJL]

Well, what they gain is absolute religious freedom.

What they would lose by notifying the public ahead of time they don't serve certain people is; a whole ton of business.

Except we're dealing with ordained pastors here, something your side is failing to take into account.

 

[bhsmte]

Except we're dealing with ordained pastors here, something your side is failing to take into account.

Yes, ordained ministers who made a free choice to open a for profit public business. They claim now, they have strong religious beliefs, yet, advertised on their website they did civil weddings and weddings for other religious groups, so not sure how that relates to their strong religious beliefs.

It looks as though these ministers may get an exemption from the local ordinance, because they are ministers, last I checked.