Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

RNS: Ministers who own a chapel sue Idaho city after declining to marry same-sex couple


Zguy28

Recommended Posts

Ministers who own a chapel sue Idaho city after declining to marry same-sex couple

http://www.religionnews.com/2014/10/19/ministers-own-chapel-sue-idaho-city-declining-marry-gay-couple/

 

(RNS) The owners of a wedding chapel have sued an Idaho city, claiming that the city is unconstitutionally forcing them to violate their religious beliefs by performing same-sex marriages or face possible fines and jail time.

Pastors have raised concerns about being forced to conduct same-sex weddings, though some have called those concerns a red herring. The lawsuit in Idaho raises a larger question of whether ordained ministers who run a for-profit business conducting weddings can be required to conduct same-sex weddings under non-discrimination laws.

 

The rest is at the link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They chose to create a BUSINESS, as specifically opposed to a CHURCH.

If they owned a Jiffy Lube, it wouldn't make Jiffy Lube a church.

(Although I suppose we now have Supreme Court decisions announcing that all businesses are now churches. Whenever the business WANTS to be a church.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They chose to create a BUSINESS, as specifically opposed to a CHURCH.

If they owned a Jiffy Lube, it wouldn't make Jiffy Lube a church.

(Although I suppose we now have Supreme Court decisions announcing that all businesses are now churches. Whenever the business WANTS to be a church.)

So, when I am asked (as a minister) to marry a gay couple, do I have the right to refuse? I ask because, religious organizations such as constituted churches don't get paid the ministers honorarium. I do, personally. Ministers are actually self-employed and contract with a church. So when you look at it that way, what is the difference between all other pastors who work for themselves (and pay taxes btw) and these folks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, when I am asked (as a minister) to marry a gay couple, do I have the right to refuse? I ask because, religious organizations such as constituted churches don't get paid the ministers honorarium. I do, personally. Ministers are actually self-employed and contract with a church. So when you look at it that way, what is the difference between all other pastors who work for themselves (and pay taxes btw) and these folks?

 

Not sure I understand your question, but I'm going to take a stab at an answer.  (Which may miss your question completely.) 

 

When someone goes into a business, then they assume some obligations associated with that business. 

 

I reflect back on when I was in my EMT training.  The portion of the training concerning laws and liability and things. 

 

The instructor pointed out the oft-stated (and, as I understand it, not quite 100% true, but it's kinda close) analogy that there is no legal obligation for someone to help another who is in need.  The oft-stated claim is that, if there is someone drowning, 10 feet offshore, and you're standing next to a 20 foot rope, and you just stand there and watch them drown, you cannot be sued.  However, if you pick op the rope, throw it to him, and he gets tangled in it, and drowns, then you can be.  (The class, however, then went into the "good Samaritan" law, however, which shields people from liability if they are taking reasonable efforts to aid someone who is in need.) 

 

However, the instructor stressed, if you join a rescue squad, if you put on that uniform with the Star of life on the shoulder, and you stand next to that ambulance, then you are obligated to help any person who is in need.  Put on that uniform and then, if you stand there and watch a person in need, not only can you be sued, you can be criminally prosecuted. 

 

You assumed that obligation when you assumed that job. 

 

Similarly, if I open a plumbing business, then I have assumed the obligation that I have to be willing to fix the toilets of groups which the law says I may not discriminate against. 

 

Now, if I decide to get married at some hypothetical, secular, wedding chapel, (say the Captain Kirk Starship Enterprise Wedding Chapel, Inc.), is the minister of the local Catholic church required, by law, to come to the chapel and perform the ceremony?  I'd say obviously not. 

 

(Although, if he routinely performs that service for other people, but refuses to do so for people in Klingon costume?  I'd say I could see somebody making that argument.  But I want churches' immunity from most laws to be really broad, and I'd say that broad umbrella still covers that.) 

 

If, however, that same minister owns the Captain Kirk chapel?  If he set it up, and advertises it as a completely secular business, and performs that same service for every customer who pays his fee, regardless of religion or any other circumstances, except for one criteria which is prohibited by law? 

 

Yes, I'm fully aware that that's a really vague, fuzzy, kind of answer.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure I understand your question, but I'm going to take a stab at an answer.  (Which may miss your question completely.) 

 

When someone goes into a business, then they assume some obligations associated with that business. 

 

 

 

do the obligations negate freedoms and rights though?

 

could I compel them to provide the male minster since I don't believe in women being ordained?

 

the battle of protected classes is going to be fun.

 

to the ministers the court has fundamentally changed the nature of the business they are in....are they not harmed?

 

this one goes mostly with the compelling speech angle,but it involves much more

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/10/18/can-ministers-who-make-a-living-by-conducting-weddings-be-required-to-conduct-same-sex-weddings/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is just the wedding-cake thing all over again.

 

Well, it's slightly different, in that the people suing are ministers.  And yeah, churches and ministers are afforded an increased immunity from a lot of laws that apply to normal people and businesses. 

 

(And I think they should be afforded those immunities.) 

 

To me, the question revolves around whether, when the minister leaves the church, and walks across the street, and opens a business, then do those immunities extend to the business? 

 

I think that it shouldn't. 

 

(Although I think of things as a rather sliding scale kind of thing.  If the business across the street is, say, a Catholic school?  Then I would say that they don;t get all of the immunities of a church, but they still get some.  Because it's a fundamental part of the business that it is, in fact, a quasi-religious institution.  (Just as I think that Hooters should be immune from sex discrimination laws.  Having only female waiters is a fundamental part of the business's identity.)  If the business is a Baptist hospital?  Then I'd say that's a lot closer to a business than it is to a church.) 

 

(Which then raises the question of whether this particular wedding chapel is more like a Catholic school or more like a Baptist hospital.  It might very well have to depend on a judge making a decision as to this, individual, business.  I'd want to look at things like the business' name, it's advertising, things like that.) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really admiring the efforts to turn discrimination into a protected right.

 

 

 

 

isn't religion discrimination and free exercise protected by our law as much as reasonable?

 

what can't a govt compel a business or individual to do under your reasoning?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is just the wedding-cake thing all over again.

 

it goes quite a bit further

that was much easier to claim it is just a product supplied, this is closer to the photographer.....but a step beyond

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it goes quite a bit further

that was much easier to claim it is just a product supplied, this is closer to the photographer.....but a step beyond

That it's a service versus a product doesn't seem to change the core arguments though. Unless I'm missing something.  Which is quite possible because I don't really pay attention very well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That it's a service versus a product doesn't seem to change the core arguments though. Unless I'm missing something.  Which is quite possible because I don't really pay attention very well.

 

compelling officiating and being compelled to say words clearly is different ....much more personal

 

kinda like the difference between serving pork and eating it.....degrees of separation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This one certainly seems to have some gray areas. One one hand, they do have a for-profit business, but on the other, they are ordained ministers. I'm really not sure how to feel about this one since I am, on one hand, an advocate for marriage equality, but I don't feel ministers of any faith should be required to practice same-sex marriages.

 

One of the arguments I always make to people who are against same-sex marriage is Maryland's Question 6, which shields clergy from performing those ceremonies if they don't want to. This, though, seems to makes it a little more ambiguous.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess they would just need to have at least one ordained fellow on stand-by who doesn't mind doing it if the situation arises?

 

 the govt can compel them to hire and associate at will then?....where is the limit?

 

add

 

you mean like a JP that is always around?

that you mention ordinated is illustrative of the problem,it is inherently religiously based vs a wedding with a JP or magistrate ect

 

You can't deny the minister's right to follow his religion. He should not have to marry that couple and should be allowed to kill them.

 

nice leap 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone who is currently going through the baptismal process, I always find it odd when religious folk are so intolerant of others. Isn't that what religion is about? Tolerance, faith and the greater good?

 

Putting that point aside, though, no one should be forced to provide a good that they don't feel is right to provide (as idiotic as it may be). Grocery stores shouldn't be forced to carry cigarettes (they aren't), sell liquor (they aren't), or even carry loaves of bread (they aren't). 

 

I'm sure there are plenty of people with tolerance and understanding that would be willing to marry same-sex couples in a beautiful setting. And those people are better off for it. But no one should HAVE to provide a good that they don't wish to provide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if you are going to sell bread, you don't get to pick and choose who you sell it to.

 

That's a great point that I have to concede.

 

Although on the flip side, you can deny the sale of alcohol. Not that it's the same as same-sex marriage (it's not.. At all). But you can refuse to sell goods to certain customers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...