Previous 11 - 20 Next
About the time the government decided that restaurants couldn't refuse to serve patrons for being black or hotels refuse to accommodate patrons for being Jewish, the precedent of places of public accommodation not being able to freely discriminate was established. A wedding chapel that was run for profit couldn't refuse to perform a mixed race wedding, for example. And now they can't refuse to perform a gay wedding. But the ministers themselves don't have to perform the ceremony, just allow it to be performed at their wedding business...or change over to a religious nonprofit organization.
The people suing in the first place are the Knapps, the owners of the chapel. They haven't been sued or threatened.
No one in particular has to perform the ceremony. But the chapel is a business, and has to allow the ceremony to be performed there. A wedding chapel business is more like a hotel than a church in the eyes of the law: no turning away customers because, say, you have a religious belief against mixed marriages. A church can refuse to marry people of different races and can refuse to have them as members. A company in the business of offering weddings is a place of public accmmodation in the eyes of the law.
If a Jewish Rabbi opened a for-profit marriage chapel and offered civil weddings, he would absolutely have to marry Christian couples who came to his business to get married. And probably wouldn't have whined about being oppressed for having to do it.
In theory, but they haven't been threatened with anything. The Knapps are the ones who initiated a lawsuit when they turned down a gay couple. 'It' still hasn't happened. This is a business that was open to everyone who wanted to be married, regardless of faith or lack thereof, until the law changed to allow gays to marry. It is not a church. It performed civil weddings as well as religious ones. Cry that your poor church has to perform gay weddings when it actually happens.
Those tacky little chapels also perform civil ceremonies for people who don't want a religious one. Does your church do that? Public accommodation laws that make it illegal for a place of business to discriminate against customers who belong to a group they don't like have been around for 50 years. Whether that was a good idea is debatable, but that it's established law that their are groups that businesses of public accommodation aren't allowed to discriminate against.
So the only thing wrong with the headline is that the city hasn't threatened to arrest these folks.
In response to:

Criminalizing Innocent Christian Behavior

Dean197 Wrote: 6 hours ago (9:50 AM)
So, it turns out the city didn't try to do anything to these folks, they're the ones that filed a lawsuit first. This is about them making a statement, not about them being coerced. Or about them personally having to perform a ceremony, they run a business, not a church, they could get someone else to do it if it goes against their beliefs.
In response to:

Criminalizing Innocent Christian Behavior

Dean197 Wrote: 6 hours ago (9:44 AM)
Because Americans have a long history of discriminating against minorities, most states have laws against discriminating against customers on the basis of race or religion in places of public accommodation already. A newspaper is not a place of public accommodation.
In response to:

Criminalizing Innocent Christian Behavior

Dean197 Wrote: 6 hours ago (9:42 AM)
Right, they can get someone else to perform the ceremony if they want to keep their business and not perform gay weddings.
In response to:

Criminalizing Innocent Christian Behavior

Dean197 Wrote: 6 hours ago (9:41 AM)
If the state can't figure out what's a church or not, what's to stop everyone from trying to evade taxation by claiming to be a church? Is it too much to ask for a church to let the government know they're a church before it becomes a legal question?
Previous 11 - 20 Next