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

[Queller]

Gay Danish couples win right to marry in church - Telegraph

You were saying...

even though nearly one third of the country's priests have said they will refuse to carry out the ceremonies.

That doesn't seem to me to be forcing acceptance.

Of course, that's what happens you have an official state church, the church gets forced to do things they don't want to do because they are part of the government. Just one more reason separation of church and state is such an outstanding idea.

BTW, the conversation is about the US, not the world. You might want to check into the difference.

 

[bhsmte]

Except we have judges that believe they can choose to ignore parts of the Constitution when they feel like it. A President that thumbs his nose at the Constitution, a House that has no backbone, and a Senate that is currently under the control of an individual with no ethics.

It is your personal interpretation they choose to ignore the constitution.

 

[GarfieldJL]

It is your personal interpretation they choose to ignore the constitution.

The President of the United States does not have the authority to rewrite law, he's rewritten parts of Obamacare on numerous occasions, in violation of both Article I and Article II of the Constitution.

 

[bhsmte]

The President of the United States does not have the authority to rewrite law, he's rewritten parts of Obamacare on numerous occasions, in violation of both Article I and Article II of the Constitution.

What does that have to do with judges ruling on SSM?

And last I heard, the GOP was talking about filing suit in this matter, which is their right to do, if they feel so strongly about Obama's actions and then let the courts decide if Obama overreached. From a technical legal standpoint, he may have overreached, but nothing to do with SSM.

 

[GarfieldJL]

What does that have to do with judges ruling on SSM?

And last I heard, the GOP was talking about filing suit in this matter, which is their right to do, if they feel so strongly about Obama's actions and then let the courts decide if Obama overreached. From a technical legal standpoint, he may have overreached, but nothing to do with SSM.

How about the Supreme Court rewriting part of Obamacare and then declaring it constitutional?

 

[NotreDame]

Originally Posted by Queller

I didn't say reorganization was the basis for Volokhs remarks. It was however, the basis for the city changing its stance.

Again, my point is that the city changed it's view on the situation after the Hitching Post reorganized. Volokh's personal views on that are not the point.

Whether it is a saving grace according to Volokh is irrelevant. It was a saving grace according to the city involved.

First, you need to be reminded the original purpose of the post I made addressing TLK. The post I made to TLK is the same post you have been addressing and are addressing in your post above, and our history of interaction so far is the progeny of this original post. The purpose of my original post was to illuminate to TLK a "analysis of how and why the law may violate the rights of the pastors at the chapel." Post number 458 and 437.

I wasn't citing to the article for the city's perspective but rather to invoke Volokh's point of view. This should have been rather conspicuous given the author of the article and analysis was Volokh. I explicitly made this known when I said, "[M]y fault I wasn't more unequivocal in stating it is Volokh's view and analysis I am invoking." Post number 477.


As a result, and do not take this the wrong way, I really couldn't care less of the city's perspective, at this point, as I was referencing Volokh's analysis, and not the city. Now, if you believe Volokh is wrong, and the city is correct, then the city's view is of particular relevance to me. In addition your speculation of what caused the city to change its opinion isn't relevant.

In addition, Volokh's view is very relevant. Volokh offers a legal defense of the Hitching Post irrespective of the city's perceptions of the situation. This is rather significant because Volokh provides alternate reasons why the Hitching Post may be exempt.

According to the Idaho RFRA, their business has nothing to do with it.

(2) Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.

Their business is not their person.

A few points. First, the word "person" can refer to a business and if I recall correctly, Idaho does have legal precedent for the word "person" to mean and include "business." Now, while this may seem weird or strange to you, this notion of the word "person" to include a "business" made news over the summer in the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, in which the federal statute of RFRA used the word "person" and under federal law "person" was defined to include, inter alia, "business."

Second, Volokh's view could be understood, and I am being charitable, as stating application of the ordinance to the business cannot result in the pastors personally having to peform weddings and RFRA would personally give these pastors relief.

The ordinance doesn't apply to the ministers personally, it applies to their business.

This above remark does not adequately address my comment of, "In addition, Volokh asserts application of this ordinance to these two ministers would violate their free speech rights under the 1st Amendment." In other words, if applying this ordinance to this business would necessitate they (the pastors) perform a ceremony, then application of the ordinance would violate their free speech rights, in Volokh's view. So your response above is not an adequate refuttal.

I never said Volokh based his views on the reorganization. I simply stated that the article provided support for my claim, as a portion of it did.

No, nothing in those two links I cited supports any idea or notion of "reorganization" by the Hitching Post. You imposed this outside information onto the two links.

 

[bhsmte]

How about the Supreme Court rewriting part of Obamacare and then declaring it constitutional?

What does that have to do with the myriad of judges (both conservative and liberal) overturning laws against SSM?

 

[trunks2k]

What does that have to do with judges ruling on SSM?

Absolutely nothing of course. Since the 60s, interracial marriage has been legal throughout the US. Yet, the government has not tried to force a church to perform a interracial wedding ceremony. Divorce has been legal in the US for a very long time, and no government has tried to force churches such as the Catholic church to perform a wedding ceremony between a couple where at least one has been divorced and not had their previous marriage annulled.

Why people think that make same sex marriages legal will suddenly mean governments in the US will force individual churches to perform same sex weddings is beyond me.

 

[Belk]

Except we have judges that believe they can choose to ignore parts of the Constitution when they feel like it. A President that thumbs his nose at the Constitution, a House that has no backbone, and a Senate that is currently under the control of an individual with no ethics.

The sky is falling!





Or perhaps your understanding of this constitutional legality is incorrect.



One of those two.

 

[GarfieldJL]

The sky is falling!





Or perhaps your understanding of this constitutional legality is incorrect.



One of those two.

Option 3, that I actually know what I'm talking about are you need to stop playing ostrich...

Fact: The US Supreme Court rewrote part of Obamacare, to make it constitutional and then declared it constitutional.
Fact: Per the Constitution only Congress is allowed to write law.
Fact: Obama has rewritten parts of Obamacare which is in effect writing legislation.

The Supreme Court has ignored the Constitution, the President continues to ignore it.

As to whether or not the lawsuit will get filed, I have no idea.

 

[NotreDame]

Originally Posted by Queller

On what legal basis do you make that claim?

"Considering the RFRA (which I hate to break it to you, but it is also a piece of civil rights legislation) was signed into law more recently than the civil rights act, it trumps the Civil Rights Act from the 1960s where the two conflict." Statement by Garfield.

He probably could have phrased his statement more eloquently but, unless a specific exception was made in some federal law I am not aware of, all federal statutes are subject to federal RFRA, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This does not mean, and should not be construed as RFRA is paramount to the Civil Rights Act or the Civil Rights Act yields at all times to the RFRA, when and where to two are alleged to conflict or a lawsuit is instituted alleging a conflict.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Option 3, that I actually know what I'm talking about are you need to stop playing ostrich...

We considered that option, but it didn't fit the facts.

 

[TLK Valentine]

What does that have to do with judges ruling on SSM?

Nothing -- it's a red herring.

 

[Belk]

Option 3, that I actually know what I'm talking about are you need to stop playing ostrich...

Fact: The US Supreme Court rewrote part of Obamacare, to make it constitutional and then declared it constitutional.
Fact: Per the Constitution only Congress is allowed to write law.
Fact: Obama has rewritten parts of Obamacare which is in effect writing legislation.

The Supreme Court has ignored the Constitution, the President continues to ignore it.

As to whether or not the lawsuit will get filed, I have no idea.

I find that to be highly unlikely given you have no expertise in the law and actual experts disagree with you. Sorry, but I think you are off in the weeds on this one Garfield.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

Out of curiosity, is SSM legal in your state or country? If it is, how receptive to it are churches, reception venues, and others who work in the wedding industry? If you're a Christian, does your denomination prohibit ministers from officiating over SSM?

I should probably have started a new thread for this but I'm writing from my phone because we're traveling today, and it's easier to just post this here.

 

[AirPo]

Option 3, that I actually know what I'm talking about are you need to stop playing ostrich...

Fact: The US Supreme Court rewrote part of Obamacare, to make it constitutional and then declared it constitutional.
Fact: Per the Constitution only Congress is allowed to write law.
Fact: Obama has rewritten parts of Obamacare which is in effect writing legislation.

The Supreme Court has ignored the Constitution, the President continues to ignore it.

As to whether or not the lawsuit will get filed, I have no idea.

I would love to see the before and after text of the Affordable Care Act.

 

[Queller]

First, you need to be reminded the original purpose of the post I made addressing TLK. The post I made to TLK is the same post you have been addressing and are addressing in your post above, and our history of interaction so far is the progeny of this original post. The purpose of my original post was to illuminate to TLK a "analysis of how and why the law may violate the rights of the pastors at the chapel." Post number 458 and 437.

I wasn't citing to the article for the city's perspective but rather to invoke Volokh's point of view. This should have been rather conspicuous given the author of the article and analysis was Volokh. I explicitly made this known when I said, "[M]y fault I wasn't more unequivocal in stating it is Volokh's view and analysis I am invoking." Post number 477.

And my post was in response to this comment from your post;

Interestingly enough, the ACLU refused to contest decision of the chapel ministers, and apparently the city has reversed its position. The city's decision is a very prudent exercise of discretion.

Nothing else.

As a result, and do not take this the wrong way, I really couldn't care less of the city's perspective, at this point, as I was referencing Volokh's analysis, and not the city. Now, if you believe Volokh is wrong, and the city is correct, then the city's view is of particular relevance to me. In addition your speculation of what caused the city to change its opinion isn't relevant.

Here's the thing, They city is the one in the middle of this, not Volokh which is what I was referring to. Don't take this wrong but I couldn't care less about Volokh's opinion.

In addition, Volokh's view is very relevant. Volokh offers a legal defense of the Hitching Post irrespective of the city's perceptions of the situation. This is rather significant because Volokh provides alternate reasons why the Hitching Post may be exempt.

None of which have much standing, because unlike the Hobby Lobby case, this is about who a business may serve or refuse to serve as customers, not what benefits the company can be forced to offer its employees.

A few points. First, the word "person" can refer to a business and if I recall correctly, Idaho does have legal precedent for the word "person" to mean and include "business." Now, while this may seem weird or strange to you, this notion of the word "person" to include a "business" made news over the summer in the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, in which the federal statute of RFRA used the word "person" and under federal law "person" was defined to include, inter alia, "business."

While this may seem weird or strange to you, the Hobby Lobby case was about what benefits a company can offer its employees, not what people they can refuse to serve as customers. I would love to see a closely held corporation claim that their within their legal rights to refuse to serve blacks or Muslims because of their religious beliefs and see how quickly the RFRA defense is shot down.

This above remark does not adequately address my comment of, "In addition, Volokh asserts application of this ordinance to these two ministers would violate their free speech rights under the 1st Amendment." In other words, if applying this ordinance to this business would necessitate they (the pastors) perform a ceremony, then application of the ordinance would violate their free speech rights, in Volokh's view. So your response above is not an adequate refuttal.

And if it didn't apply to those two ministers (and has been noted on this thread there are many ways to ensure it didn't) then no, it wouldn't violate their First Amendment rights.

No, nothing in those two links I cited supports any idea or notion of "reorganization" by the Hitching Post. You imposed this outside information onto the two links.

I quoted about the city's reasoning regarding the religious corporation directly from one of the articles. That ably supports my contention that the city changed it's mind because of the Hitching Post's recent reorganization.

 

[trunks2k]

Out of curiosity, is SSM legal in your state or country? If it is, how receptive to it are churches, reception venues, and others who work in the wedding industry?

In my personal experience, reception venues and other wedding industry people are more than happy to cater to same sex weddings. I know of a few same sex couples who have gotten married and none of them ran into any issues in regards to this. I think there was one business nearby that was refusing to cater to same sex couples who were getting married (and they could legally do so as there sexual orientation is not covered under anti-discrimination laws), but IIRC they lost a lot of business when that became known.

Churches are a different thing. Some denominations started performing the ceremonies when it became legal, some were already doing it before it was legal, in some it might depend on the individual church within a denomination, other denominations won't do it at all. It really depends.

 

[Queller]

The point I responded to was about marrying the one you love. It's obvious that there is bipartisan support against that notion, it's just that people oppose it based on different criteria

My point about marrying the one you love was linked to the qualifier "solely because the law says they are the wrong gender".

That you had to dishonestly sever that link to be able to bring in something unrelated to what I posted (incest) and then double down on it says a lot about you.

 

[NotreDame]

And my post was in response to this comment from your post;

Nothing else.

Here's the thing, They city is the one in the middle of this, not Volokh which is what I was referring to. Don't take this wrong but I couldn't care less about Volokh's opinion.

None of which have much standing, because unlike the Hobby Lobby case, this is about who a business may serve or refuse to serve as customers, not what benefits the company can be forced to offer its employees.

While this may seem weird or strange to you, the Hobby Lobby case was about what benefits a company can offer its employees, not what people they can refuse to serve as customers. I would love to see a closely held corporation claim that their within their legal rights to refuse to serve blacks or Muslims because of their religious beliefs and see how quickly the RFRA defense is shot down.

And if it didn't apply to those two ministers (and has been noted on this thread there are many ways to ensure it didn't) then no, it wouldn't violate their First Amendment rights.

I quoted about the city's reasoning regarding the religious corporation directly from one of the articles. That ably supports my contention that the city changed it's mind because of the Hitching Post's recent reorganization.

While this may seem weird or strange to you, the Hobby Lobby case was about what benefits a company can offer its employees, not what people they can refuse to serve as customers. I would love to see a closely held corporation claim that their within their legal rights to refuse to serve blacks or Muslims because of their religious beliefs and see how quickly the RFRA defense is shot down.

I am quite familiar with the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby decision and you aren't illuminating any new information with your statement above. Well, I pause to state your characterization of the case above does not completely capture the entirety of what the "case was about" but I digress.

Is the word red herring and tangent weird or strange to you? Your comment above is irrelevant to the point under discussion and the point under discussion was whether the word "person" in the Idaho RFRA could include a business. Hence, I stated, "While this may seem weird or strange to you, the Hobby Lobby case was about what benefits a company can offer its employees, not what people they can refuse to serve as customers. I would love to see a closely held corporation claim that their within their legal rights to refuse to serve blacks or Muslims because of their religious beliefs and see how quickly the RFRA defense is shot down."

Your comment above does not address this point. Hence it is not germane to the point under discussion and therefore a red herring, a tangent.

None of which have much standing, because unlike the Hobby Lobby case, this is about who a business may serve or refuse to serve as customers, not what benefits the company can be forced to offer its employees.

This remark above was in response to my comment of, "In addition, Volokh's view is very relevant. Volokh offers a legal defense of the Hitching Post irrespective of the city's perceptions of the situation. This is rather significant because Volokh provides alternate reasons why the Hitching Post may be exempt."

It is mystifying why you are referencing Hobby Lobby when I never stated Volokh relied upon Hobby Lobby and indeed if one were to read the links, they'd understand Volokh's analysis isn't dependent upon and does not invoke the Hobby Lobby case. So, once again, your statement above is not an adequate reply since it does not address at all the substance of Volokh's position.

And if it didn't apply to those two ministers (and has been noted on this thread there are many ways to ensure it didn't) then no, it wouldn't violate their First Amendment rights.

Application of this ordinance to these ministers was a palpable concern, as Volokh discusses, and the city had not unequivocally expressed the point of view application of the ordinance would not necessitate pastor's perform a cermony. Hence, Volokh's analysis is relevant.