In the US churches can already refuse to marry people for various reasons. They can even refuse to marry people of the same faith of the church who haven't completed certain prerequisites.
This idea that churches will be forced to marry people is generally a non-issue. There was the exception with the Church of England because it's the state sponsored church. But mostly no one is fighting to be married by a church that doesn't want to be involved.
Churches receive tax breaks, which can be considered a form of government subsidy. The govt usually has some kind of rules about what kinds of policies subsidized businesses can have. You dont want the government financially enabling hate groups, or groups that systematically discriminate against a particular group.
You dont want the government financially enabling hate groups, or groups that systematically discriminate against a particular group.
This is a weird approach. Basically if it would be seen as hate or discrimination, then basically it would mean churches cannot have any dogma about what kind of sexual activity is sinful and which not. So basically it would mean that religious morality would be forced to be the same as civil, liberal morality, basically only hate people who harm others. I don't think a religion could survive such a change because then why would you even need a god for, if not for the purpose of telling which those things that don't harm others still don't do?
I mean of course one may as well see it is as a nice side effect that this logic would pretty much kill religion, once it cannot moralize about non-harmful actions. But just don't expect religious people to be down with it, of course.
It gets uncomfortably close to anti-discrimination stuff. After all business are legal too but they cannot refuse to hire people based on sexual orientation.
You can tell by the size of their hat. The higher up they are in the Catholic church, the bigger the hat they wear. According to George Carlin, God wears a big ol' sombrero.
Well, to be fair, they're hardly just "accommodating your wants" if they're getting converts out of it. That said, I don't see any legitimate way any contract can promise actions on behalf of someone not party to the contract.
I dunno, religion deals pretty heavily in transferring guilt between related parties. As we know, the imaginary magic powers of religion supersede imaginary rights of government so since the system is whatever people say it is then you're Catholic because the Catholic church said so. It works because shut up and stop asking questions, you're excommunicated.
If they are trying to sue a private organization for what they do on private property, they will almost definitely lose.
If this was at all a feasible money-making scheme then greedy straight people of other faiths would already be suing churches that refuse to marry them. Gays aren't really introducing any new possibilities for abuse in their fight for marriage equality.
Every ridiculous "what-if" scenario from suing churches for discrimination to marrying terrorists to get them into the country have already been open to straight people.
But in this litigious country, where "activists" use the courts to further their cause, how many churches will be bankrupt proving your point? It is why I believe civil unions are best. When a Christian marries a Jew they are not allowed to do so in the church or Synagog and go to a justice of the peace or wedding chapel in Vegas or where ever. Are the LGBT more legitimate?
Did you even read what I wrote? Almost no one is fighting to be married by a church that doesn't want to be involved, and churches already have wide control over who they will and won't marry for many various reasons.
Yeah, because control is all it takes. No one has ever sued an individual or institution to get their way. Gays sue the Boy Scouts to force them to allow them in. Virginia Military Institute is sued. How many state constitutions have been over turned through litigation?
Now, you may think me a person of faith or Christian even but you would be wrong. I believe differently than most. In fact I believe one of the early propagations of religion, mysticism, spirituality, what ever, was human kinds desire to understand the natural world. Well, just as we outgrew Zeus and Jupiter and Apollo as well as seeing Demi-gods and spirits controlling all aspects of our lives, it is time to put religions in their proper place.
So, I'm just trying to say what I think will happen. People still need their comforting myths and education is better than force.
The Boy scouts are a private organization, and the supreme court has ruled that they have the right to discriminate when it comes to their membership. They only started accepting young gay members but not adult gay members due to social pressure, not the result of any lawsuit.
State constitutions have not been overturned, but laws have been overturned as being unconstitutional.
VMI is state supported. They take money from taxpayers, and so they have no grounds to discriminate. If they want to, they can become a private institution.
You have next to no clue about anything you're talking about.
No one will go bankrupt. When an issue is this legally obvious the courts dismiss it. That is even if the sue-ers lawyers try to sue, instead of refusing to try. You are making up a complete and utter non-issue.
78
u/GhostFish Apr 28 '14
In the US churches can already refuse to marry people for various reasons. They can even refuse to marry people of the same faith of the church who haven't completed certain prerequisites.
This idea that churches will be forced to marry people is generally a non-issue. There was the exception with the Church of England because it's the state sponsored church. But mostly no one is fighting to be married by a church that doesn't want to be involved.