Conscience protections for those opposed to gay marriage?

[D0UBTFIRE]

A couple of thoughts before I ask my questions:

It seems to me the sin is the sex. So technically two gay men getting a civil marriage aren’t sinning at the moment of being wed.

Also, it’s possible that they are getting married to benefit from the privilege that comes from it but might in fact be celibate. We can’t really know for certain unless we ask.

Nonetheless, some conservative Christians feel they shouldn’t have to participate in any way with these ceremonies, such as making the wedding cake or being the photographer. They would like to have legal protections so they don’t get sued for discrimination.

**Should they be given that kind of protection by the law? Should they be legally allowed to discriminate against gay couples when it comes to wedding services?

If so, considering this is because they have deeply held religious beliefs, should those with religious beliefs that interracial marriage is sinful also be allowed to discriminate against interracial couples for wedding services?**

Once you answer those, I’m also curious whether you think Christians that believe divorce and remarriage is a sin should be allowed to discriminate against couples who are entering a second marriage? What about couples that happen to mention they don’t want to have any children?

 

[casey_cates]

Maybe someone smarter or more familiar with Church teaching can help me out but I think the sin is being involved in a marriage that is illegitimate. GOD created and defines marriage not SCOTUS. Sacred Scripture reveals what marriage is in Gen: 3 and Matt 19.

So why should someone who believes in the teachings of the Church be forced to be involved in a gay ‘wedding’. Our VERY FIRST right is the right to not only be able to go to church but to be able to exercise religious freedom as one of the Justices in a dissenting opinion aptly stated.

Some want to call Christians hypocrites saying we need to be tolerant of people that don’t believe as we do. To those, I would ask, where is your tolerance? How hypocritical would it be for us to say that we believe in the Biblical definition of marriage but when the rubber meets the road, we’ll trade our beliefs in for a buck. Then all those same people would again say we are hypocrites for doing that.

I would ask, “Why are we not allowed to follow our beliefs just the same as those who wish to follow theirs?”

 

[casey_cates]

My argument for the race issue you propose is that it is a poor analogy with regard to gay ‘marriage’/religious freedom. The definition in the Bible does not speak to different races but does speak to the complementarity of man and woman in God’s design for marriage.

 

[Birdpreacher]

Religious Freedom means allowing the racist religious to refuse to marry interracial couples.

However, the law has often limited the ability of the “weird/less popular” religions to commit crimes in the name of “upholding the faith”

ex: Mormons and Polygamy, Native American Religious Ceremonies involving Peyote, Santaria followers who sacrifice live animals.

 

[Birdpreacher]

My argument for the race issue you propose is that it is a poor analogy with regard to gay ‘marriage’/religious freedom. The definition in the Bible does not speak to different races but does speak to the complementarity of man and woman in God’s design for marriage.

Its not. You need to take off your Christian-hat for one second and look at the issue from an areligious perspective.

Say you have a faith that forbids an adherant from marrying outside the faith. If the county clerk follows that exclusive faith and refuses to marry straight or gay people due to his faith then don’t you think the clerk aught to find a new job.

 

[Rence]

I really don’t have a clue why someone would want to give their money to someone who doesn’t want to provide the service simply because they don’t agree with you. I would just take my business and my money elsewhere.

However if one is going to discriminate against a same sex couple citing rules of the Catholic Church, then they should buck up and do the same for all marriages that are invalid according to the teachings of the Church - otherwise there really isn’t a point.

 

[casey_cates]

But that’s the whole point. Because of the religious freedoms I enjoy by God and recognized by the State in the Constitution, I don’t need to take off my Christianity. May it not be just a hat, but cover me from head to toe and inside and out. (Still working on that part.)

This second argument is also a stretch. A photographer or baker is not a gov’t employee. They own a private business. People should be able to refuse a contract for any reason or no reason, especially on the grounds of religious liberty. If someone came in and bought a cupcake and they were gay, no you cannot discriminate. If someone contracts for you to do an event for which you have sincerely held beliefs against (gay ‘marriage’, a divorce party, kkk rally, whatever) than you should be able to decline without fear that you will lose your livelihood.

Rather than going off on tangents, I would rather argue the matter at hand. If a county clerk, does not feel comfortable registering a gay marriage but otherwise is adept at doing his job, perhaps a supervisor or coworker can take those cases. No one has to be fired and religious freedom can be respected.

 

[Rence]

I think there are ways to decline to contract business that would protect businesses. Most of the trouble comes when someone comes out and says they can’t contract business in a way that is discriminatory. As for a county clerk, I doubt they will be allowed to discriminate based on religion. My question would be: why is a catholic signing marriage licenses in a city hall office anyway?

 

[Birdpreacher]

This second argument is also a stretch. A photographer or baker is not a gov’t employee. They own a private business. People should be able to refuse a contract for any reason or no reason, especially on the grounds of religious liberty. If someone came in and bought a cupcake and they were gay, no you cannot discriminate. If someone contracts for you to do an event for which you have sincerely held beliefs against (gay ‘marriage’, a divorce party, kkk rally, whatever) than you should be able to decline without fear that you will lose your livelihood.

.

If all the airlines decided tomorrow to stop serving Christians. Just their personal choice, would you want the govt to step in and protect your rights to contract?

We have laws on the book at the federal level whcih forbid racists from refusing to sell houses to blacks.

If you are a baker, and you benifit from City Roads, City Services, an educated workforce-educated by public schools, if you are a member of a community, and that community votes to make discrimination against gays illegal, then why not move with your feet to another State?

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

Maybe someone smarter or more familiar with Church teaching can help me out but I think the sin is being involved in a marriage that is illegitimate. GOD created and defines marriage not SCOTUS. Sacred Scripture reveals what marriage is in Gen: 3 and Matt 19.

So why should someone who believes in the teachings of the Church be forced to be involved in a gay ‘wedding’. Our VERY FIRST right is the right to not only be able to go to church but to be able to exercise religious freedom as one of the Justices in a dissenting opinion aptly stated.

Some want to call Christians hypocrites saying we need to be tolerant of people that don’t believe as we do. To those, I would ask, where is your tolerance? How hypocritical would it be for us to say that we believe in the Biblical definition of marriage but when the rubber meets the road, we’ll trade our beliefs in for a buck. Then all those same people would again say we are hypocrites for doing that.

I would ask, “Why are we not allowed to follow our beliefs just the same as those who wish to follow theirs?”

You haven’t answered the question.

The reality is that there are people who for religious reasons honestly believe that interracial marriage is a sin. (Don’t believe me? Read this load of bull: faithandheritage.com/2011/05/the-moral-status-of-miscegenation/)

Lots of people used to believe that, it’s one of the reasons that there were anti-miscegenation laws in America until the Supreme Court decided the Loving v Virginia case (50 years ago).

So, if we pass laws that say believers can refuse wedding related services to people based on conscience protections, this means that not only gay people but also* interracial couples* could be discriminated against, and that discrimination against them would be protected by law.

I would argue that it would be immoral to pass laws that allow discrimination against interracial couples from a Catholic perspective. And I think it would be impossible to provide Christians with those conscience protections surrounding the topic of gay weddings without providing it also to those racist believers.

So, the question is: should we?

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

I think there are ways to decline to contract business that would protect businesses. Most of the trouble comes when someone comes out and says they can’t contract business in a way that is discriminatory. As for a county clerk, I doubt they will be allowed to discriminate based on religion. My question would be: why is a catholic signing marriage licenses in a city hall office anyway?

I’m unfamiliar with this…are Catholics not supposed to have that job?

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

I really don’t have a clue why someone would want to give their money to someone who doesn’t want to provide the service simply because they don’t agree with you. I would just take my business and my money elsewhere.

However if one is going to discriminate against a same sex couple citing rules of the Catholic Church, then they should buck up and do the same for all marriages that are invalid according to the teachings of the Church - otherwise there really isn’t a point.

I agree. I think the lawsuits against Christians are stupid. I would just take my business somewhere else. I also agree that if Catholics are going to refuse service to gay couples they would be hypocritical not to refuse it to people in second marriages.

Then I realized, these are civil unions, and as far as I know the sin is about the act of sex, not the weddings themselves, so I thought most Christians could probably just get past it, because they’re not actually participating directly in sin (maybe very very indirectly?)

Of course, some people aren’t gonna get past it so easily, and I don’t like the idea of people needing to violate their consciences. And you know not all gay couples are just going to move on to the next business… So I was talking to a friend about it…
But while I was arguing with my friend about how Christians should have conscience protections she brought up the interracial marriage thing, and when I started googling I was sickened to see how many defend the notion that interracial marriage is sinful. And I started analyzing it and realize there probably aren’t ways to protect Christian consciences on the matter of gay weddings, without also protecting racist Christians from discriminating against interracial couples.

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

My argument for the race issue you propose is that it is a poor analogy with regard to gay ‘marriage’/religious freedom. The definition in the Bible does not speak to different races but does speak to the complementarity of man and woman in God’s design for marriage.

I think you’re just unaware of how some people view the Bible. Here’s that disgusting link again (disgusting because it’s so racist - although they try to cover it up with nice words): faithandheritage.com/2011/05/the-moral-status-of-miscegenation/

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

But that’s the whole point. Because of the religious freedoms I enjoy by God and recognized by the State in the Constitution, I don’t need to take off my Christianity. May it not be just a hat, but cover me from head to toe and inside and out. (Still working on that part.)

This second argument is also a stretch. A photographer or baker is not a gov’t employee. They own a private business. People should be able to refuse a contract for any reason or no reason, especially on the grounds of religious liberty. If someone came in and bought a cupcake and they were gay, no you cannot discriminate. If someone contracts for you to do an event for which you have sincerely held beliefs against (gay ‘marriage’, a divorce party, kkk rally, whatever) than you should be able to decline without fear that you will lose your livelihood.

Rather than going off on tangents, I would rather argue the matter at hand. If a county clerk, does not feel comfortable registering a gay marriage but otherwise is adept at doing his job, perhaps a supervisor or coworker can take those cases. No one has to be fired and religious freedom can be respected.

Refusing a contract for any reason? Including racist reasons?? If there were not anti discrimination laws racial equality wouldn’t be any where near where it is today. Blacks would still be refused service in places. It was the fact that businesses were no longer allowed to discriminate and refuse services that has brought us to the more just society (regarding race relations) that we live in today…

 

[Arandur]

Marriage is inherently a public thing. It is two people seeking public approval for their union. Everyone who attends or assists in a wedding is a witness to it, validating it. That’s why people who disagree about the validity of a wedding shouldn’t have to participate. You’re forcing them to bear false witness.

Would you force someone to participate in an incestuous, polygamous, or adult/child marriage?

Beyond that, do you really think there aren’t exceptions in other businesses already?
What about publishers and media who get to choose what content they don’t want to publish or air or give ad time?

What about “No shirt, no shoes, no service?”

What about businesses that will not allow customers to exercise their 2nd Amendment right to bear arms and have valid concealed (or open) carry licenses to enter their establishment?

What about abortion clinics that will not allow Pro-Life demonstrators on their property?

What about black or other ethnic institutions created to serve their own and grant membership only to their own?

What about those who discriminate favorably – military/veterans and senior citizen discounts?

What about stores selecting the content that they will sell, often based on source (e.g., Christian book stores, or any store that doesn’t want to sell cigarettes or pornography)?

If this weren’t about one of the distorted, misguided Leftist sacred cows, to which any double standard applies, it wouldn’t be an issue. But as soon as someone doesn’t fall in line, the full force of hatred, death threats, lawsuits, bigotry, condemnation, judgment, punishment and vilification any way possible is leveled at the one who offended the thought police.

But hey, I guess maybe the Left should be allowed double standards. They are the only standards they have.

 

[casey_cates]

I agree. I think the lawsuits against Christians are stupid. I would just take my business somewhere else. I also agree that if Catholics are going to refuse service to gay couples they would be hypocritical not to refuse it to people in second marriages.

Then I realized, these are civil unions, and as far as I know the sin is about the act of sex, not the weddings themselves, so I thought most Christians could probably just get past it, because they’re not actually participating directly in sin (maybe very very indirectly?)

Of course, some people aren’t gonna get past it so easily, and I don’t like the idea of people needing to violate their consciences. And you know not all gay couples are just going to move on to the next business… So I was talking to a friend about it…
But while I was arguing with my friend about how Christians should have conscience protections she brought up the interracial marriage thing, and when I started googling I was sickened to see how many defend the notion that interracial marriage is sinful. And I started analyzing it and realize there probably aren’t ways to protect Christian consciences on the matter of gay weddings, without also protecting racist Christians from discriminating against interracial couples.

To be married is to be joined together. Interracial couples are still a man and a woman with the complementarity that makes them capable of true marriage. This is false discrimination because gay ‘marriage’ is an impossibility. So I believe you’re arguing apples and oranges by saying that I should support the Court’s version of marriage for which there is no precedent even in non-Christian societies and was made-up in the latter half of the 20th century in an attempt to legitimize homosexuality in the wake of the if it feels good do it 60’s and the me generation 70’s.

Okay I gotta go to sleep now so I can go pay the Justices for their bad decision.

 

[Forthright234]

Its not. You need to take off your Christian-hat for one second and look at the issue from an areligious perspective.

Say you have a faith that forbids an adherant from marrying outside the faith. If the county clerk follows that exclusive faith and refuses to marry straight or gay people due to his faith then don’t you think the clerk aught to find a new job.

Isn’t that a conflict of of law?

 

[Horton]

You haven’t answered the question.

The reality is that there are people who for religious reasons honestly believe that interracial marriage is a sin. (Don’t believe me? Read this load of bull: faithandheritage.com/2011/05/the-moral-status-of-miscegenation/)

Lots of people used to believe that, it’s one of the reasons that there were anti-miscegenation laws in America until the Supreme Court decided the Loving v Virginia case (50 years ago).

So, the question is: should we?

Did you check out the source of your link? It appears to me to be a white supremacist web site disguised at a religious christian 'freedom" site. Probably not the best to use this site to claim many people believe interracial marriage is wrong.

 

[utah_rose]

If all the airlines decided tomorrow to stop serving Christians. Just their personal choice, would you want the govt to step in and protect your rights to contract?

We have laws on the book at the federal level whcih forbid racists from refusing to sell houses to blacks.

If you are a baker, and you benifit from City Roads, City Services, an educated workforce-educated by public schools, if you are a member of a community, and that community votes to make discrimination against gays illegal, then why not move with your feet to another State?

But, given the argument, many businesses refuse service to men with no shirt or shoes, but that’s ok? What about fancy restaurants who refuse to accommodate men without a tie? What about malls that play classical music to discourage loitering teens? Finally, there are still clubs out there like country clubs that refuse membership to certain people. Isn’t this also discrimination? I believe that there’s still a lot of anti Semitism in this country too, and certain neighborhoods don’t want Jewish people to buy homes or blacks for that matter, but there’s very few if any discrimination lawsuits. Any business, whether you agree with them or not has the right to refuse service. In fact some retail stores forbid you to wear backpacks or carry bags into a store unless they’re checked in. So, if I don’t agree with any of this, I have the right to take my business elsewhere. I don’t see how a business can refuse a gay customer a meal etc. that would be bad for business. Furthermore, how could you even tell an individual is gay? It would certainly be bad for business. But if a business owner doesn’t agree with an event, now it could even be a happy divorce part, they have the right to refuse, and cheerfully refer them to another business that will accommodate them.

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

Did you check out the source of your link? It appears to me to be a white supremacist web site disguised at a religious christian 'freedom" site. Probably not the best to use this site to claim many people believe interracial marriage is wrong.

I’m not saying many people believe it now, I’m saying that clearly (based on the existence of websites like the one I posted) there are still some who do, and that at some point in history many did.

I think a lot of people don’t realize that white supremacist use the bible to defend their beliefs. That it is a sincerely held religious belief for them.

My question is should they have legal conscience protections too? Or alternatively, how can legal conscience protections be granted to Christians who oppose gay marriage but not to the white supremacist Christians (I hate to even call them Christians but technically they are)? I’m not asking in a snarky way, I’m actually wondering how the legislation would work to defend one groups’ conscience without by default defending the other…I’m also wondering if it’s even right to defend some people’s conscience but not other’s… But then if we give it to both, reconciling that with the denying interracial couples protection against discrimination is another issue that bugs me …

I can’t in good conscience tell my friend that interracial couples shouldn’t legally be protected against discrimination but at the same time I can’t in good conscience tell someone they should not be protected from being forced to violate their conscience… And I also can’t in good conscience tell someone that one group deserves the conscience protections but that their group doesn’t… No matter how I look at it, someone’s rights will be violated.