Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 You're not required to sell anything but if you do, you don't get to discriminate if a gay guy wants to buy some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 I could watch twa and Larry argue constitutional issues all day. The bottom line is: there has to be a way to classify something as a church or every business that wants to avoid paying taxes can call itself a church. The "for profit/not for profit" designation is about the safest way to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Possible counter-argument to my "it's a business not a church" position. In this case, the gay couple (I'm assuming that there's a gay couple in the picture, somewhere) are asking the ministers to function AS A MINISTER. To perform in their capacity as ministers. To me, that's an argument that says the "minister" rules should apply, not the "business" rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 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. something that makes it interesting is the ordination (authority to marry anyone) comes from a religious organization/church hard to claim it is not religious in nature when that is the only reason they have the ability under the law. add if the church they were ordained by revokes it for performing SSM we would have real fun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted October 20, 2014 Author Share Posted October 20, 2014 Possible counter-argument to my "it's a business not a church" position. In this case, the gay couple (I'm assuming that there's a gay couple in the picture, somewhere) are asking the ministers to function AS A MINISTER. To perform in their capacity as ministers. To me, that's an argument that says the "minister" rules should apply, not the "business" rules. And that kind of was my point. In my function as a minister, I am self-employed. I don't work for the church payroll, but rather contractually (for lack of better word). When I file my taxes, I file it as self-employed. So in a sense, I'm a business, but in another sense, I'm part of the church. I think you are hitting on it correctly. Although this chapel is a business, it is an extension of their ministry just like a constituted church would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 I would suggest that if your religious beliefs in connection with your job does not allow you to follow the law, you must get another job. You have no right to your job, and you have no right to defy the law over some beliefs that you chose to have. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 And that kind of was my point. In my function as a minister, I am self-employed. I don't work for the church payroll, but rather contractually (for lack of better word). When I file my taxes, I file it as self-employed. So in a sense, I'm a business, but in another sense, I'm part of the church. I think you are hitting on it correctly. Although this chapel is a business, it is an extension of their ministry just like a constituted church would be. And yet, there is some reason why they wanted it to be "not the church". (I can think of lots of possible reasons for doing so. So they could marry people who they couldn't, for one reason or another, marry in the church? So they could attract "the secular business"? Obviously I can't tell what their reason was. But there has to be one.) Or they wouldn't have built the thing. They would have just married people in the church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 I would suggest that if your religious beliefs in connection with your job does not allow you to follow the law, you must get another job. You have no right to your job, and you have no right to defy the law over some beliefs that you chose to have. ~Bang new law or old law? add since that probably is too vague... can I make laws to deny your livelihood based on your religion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 You know what would be the better solution? If Christian leaders came out and said it's not evil to be born gay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 if the church they were ordained by revokes it for performing SSM we would have real fun Not to me. What would they do? Sue the church for discriminating against them? You have no right to your job, and you have no right to defy the law over some beliefs that you chose to have. Pointing out that your argument is very similar to one that's been used by people promoting the right to fire gays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 I'm confused can I blame Obama on this one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebluefood Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 I'm confused can I blame Obama on this one? Well, obviously! Gay people didn't exist before he was President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stugein Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 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 Yeah, my bad. I meant ordained as in, "any dude who can/is allowed to perform the ceremony". And yeah I suppose the government can compel them to hire or associate or spend money in order to comply with regulations. Happens in most every industry. Companies working in field X must have Y certified safety guys on staff, etc. I don't see it as a big leap to say if you run a for profit service you need to have at least one dude on retainer who can provide that service in special cases in order to remain in compliance with state regulations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Well, obviously! Gay people didn't exist before he was President. Not in Iran at least Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Legal issues aside, what self-respecting gay couple would want those particular ministers officiating their ceremony anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebluefood Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Legal issues aside, what self-respecting gay couple would want those particular ministers officiating their ceremony anyway? This has been my thinking as well, especially with more mainline denominations becoming inclusive toward same-sex couples. Why on earth would you even want to darken the doorway of a conservative church or ministers with conservative leanings? Perhaps to make a point and bring this argument to the table, which I can sort of understand, but if all you want to do is get married, go down to the courthouse or find the nearest Episcopalian church. Then again, I suppose you could use the same argument for racial discrimination in public places as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 new law or old law? add since that probably is too vague... can I make laws to deny your livelihood based on your religion? You can try. Since I do graphics and such, my career stems from my ability to imagine things, too. But you don't need any new law against my profession. If I discriminate based on what the law defines as discrimination, then you can take legal steps against me. If i say i won't design a gay couple's invitations because they're gay, you can take steps against me. And if it's a new law that you can't discriminate against somebody, oh well. You can look at it as proof of evolution. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Legal issues aside, what self-respecting gay couple would want those particular ministers officiating their ceremony anyway? I made a similar argument about the people who sued a wedding photographer over refusing to shoot their wedding. Do you really want the most important day of your lives to be commemorated by somebody you had to take to court, to force them to show up? Never mind the entire fact that a fine or a court or some such may be able to force a photographer to show up, but they cannot force him to do a good job. (Now, I don't get the impression that that's what's happening, here, though. No one is taking the ministers to court, demanding that the minister marry them. Rather, the county has announced their intention to apply a law, which imposes possible fines or jail time, and the ministers are preemptively suing to demand exemption from the law.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted October 20, 2014 Author Share Posted October 20, 2014 And yet, there is some reason why they wanted it to be "not the church". (I can think of lots of possible reasons for doing so. So they could marry people who they couldn't, for one reason or another, marry in the church? So they could attract "the secular business"? Obviously I can't tell what their reason was. But there has to be one.) Or they wouldn't have built the thing. They would have just married people in the church. Perhaps the same reason that other para-church ministries are also formed such as orphanages, youth groups, and such. But they are generally non-profit. Still the nearest comparison is any other minister in the world. Regular ministers (like me, a baptist preacher), are self-employed (from gov't POV). Again, does that mean since I officiate weddings outside the church building for a fee, that I will be compelled to offer officiating to gay couples for a fee because technically I'm a one man business? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Yup Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Perhaps the same reason that other para-church ministries are also formed such as orphanages, youth groups, and such. But they are generally non-profit. Still the nearest comparison is any other minister in the world. Regular ministers (like me, a baptist preacher), are self-employed (from gov't POV). Again, does that mean since I officiate weddings outside the church building for a fee, that I will be compelled to offer officiating to gay couples for a fee because technically I'm a one man business? And yet, you have not taken the affirmative step of setting yourself up AS a business. Is this: 1) A business? 2) A church? 3) A person? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 So, when I am asked (as a minister) to marry a gay couple, do I have the right to refuse? Yes. Next question. And I like how the business here is suing before anyone asked them to do anything. Preemptive feelings of oppression are the best feelings of oppression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 You can try. isn't that what they have done?....especially if it is a ordination from a church that forbids marrying them. you are either forcing them to risk fines/jail or losing their ordination And yet, you have not taken the affirmative step of setting yourself up AS a business. Is this: 1) A business? 2) A church? 3) A person? 1+ 3 empowered by number 2 they could not be 1 w/o number 2 in this case now if they were secular in nature such as a ship's captain ect the number 2 would not be relevant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Possible counter-argument to my "it's a business not a church" position. In this case, the gay couple (I'm assuming that there's a gay couple in the picture, somewhere) are asking the ministers to function AS A MINISTER. To perform in their capacity as ministers. To me, that's an argument that says the "minister" rules should apply, not the "business" rules. That is the distinction that will be drawn. That's the distinction that is drawn under California law. And I agree with it. (however, in this case it doesn't appear that there is any gay couple in the picture. This is a publicity lawsuit) I would suggest that if your religious beliefs in connection with your job does not allow you to follow the law, you must get another job. You have no right to your job, and you have no right to defy the law over some beliefs that you chose to have. ~Bang I don't agree. If your job is being a minister, your religious tenats trump anyone else's rights to claim your services as a minister. You don't have to marry gay people. If your job is selling bread, your religious tenats do not trump the rights of other people not to be discriminated against. You do have to sell bread to gay people. One is a core religious function. One is a basic commercial transaction. It's really not that difficult a distinction to apply in the overwhelming majority of cases. Again, does that mean since I officiate weddings outside the church building for a fee, that I will be compelled to offer officiating to gay couples for a fee because technically I'm a one man business? Again, no, you won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Yes. Next question. And I like how the business here is suing before anyone asked them to do anything. Preemptive feelings of oppression are the best feelings of oppression. someone supposedly did ask the threat of fines/jail existing isn't oppressive?....especially since the authorities seem to disagree with your interpretation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.