I'll start with a couple of hypothetical stories based upon New York law:

Ben and Beth are Conservative Jews who run a kosher restaurant and catering business. In a given week they turn down jobs to cater a bachelor party with strippers, a romantic getaway for a married man and his mistress, and they refuse to serve the foul-mouthed members of an “outlaw” motorcycle gang that show up at their restaurant. All these actions are within their legal rights. But if a homosexual couple approaches them asking that they cater their wedding, they are liable to be sued and forced to pay damages if they refuse this job. Their reason for refusing all the jobs is virtually identical. The reason is legal for the first three, but illegal for the last one.

Jamal is a Muslim photographer who works almost exclusively within the Muslim community. In a given week he turns down job offers to photograph models for a lingerie catalog, provide some publicity stills for a pork packaging plant, and do a group photo inside a local sorority house. He has the legal right to refuse all of these jobs. He is approached by a gay couple to photograph their wedding. He refuses and is sued successfully. He is not allowed to refuse to photograph their marriage.

In New York, the lawsuits have already begun. Photographers, caterers, and venue owners are all being sued to force them to provide services to homosexual couples. And most of the lawsuits are successful.

New York's same-sex marriage law provides a religious exemption, but this actually muddies the issue. Allowing that there are valid religious objections to same-sex marriage, it allows churches to discriminate against them. But only churches and a handful of non-profits qualify. So a Baptist minister cannot be compelled to perform a gay marriage. He can also bar his church from being used for the ceremony. But if he runs a catering business on the side, he violates the law if he refuses to cater the wedding that he legally refused to officiate or allow within his church.

And under the rule of unintended consequences, a law that recognizes the validity of a religious group discriminating against homosexuals, must also be reckoned with as legal footing for a much wider range of legal discrimination. This article by the Cornell Law Review notes that it may open the door for legalized xenophobic and racist organizations operating as religions with full protection due to the discrimination allowed in this law.

http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/research/cornell-law-review/upload/Dickson-final.pdf

What are your reactions? How do we address the inherent inconsistency that churches are allowed the freedom to follow their morals, but their members are not?
Or should the religious beliefs of some folks trump the desire by others to have their marriages treated with full equality? Should we consider this as the opening salvo aimed at eliminating much of the broader religious freedoms that some believe host the hatred and bigotry behind resistance to same-sex marriage?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/29/2013 04:42AM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

I think this thread needs more attention in the gay marriage debate. I didn't see it TMSH, so sorry.

What happens when the 1st Amendment conflict with equal rights legislation?

NY's compromise is explained by NYCLU here:
http://www.nyclu.org/marriage-faq#12

TSMH asked the question:

"How do we address the inherent inconsistency that churches are allowed the freedom to follow their morals, but their members are not?"

Good question.

Performing CIVIL marriages are NOT a religious act, thus not protected by the Constitution. Changing the definition of Civil marriages does infringe on religious freedoms in any way.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/02/2013 03:00PM by MJ.

So do you agree with the NYS law, below explained by the NYCLU.
http://www.nyclu.org/marriage-faq#14

"Can I be discriminated against for marrying someone of the same sex?

Generally, no. The new marriage law requires that all married couples be treated equally. State law also prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and marital status. The marriage law allows clergy and certain religious entities to refuse to perform wedding ceremonies or provide services and facilities for a wedding ceremony. Beyond that, nothing in the new marriage law expands anyone’s right to discriminate against same-sex couples, married or not."

The anti-discrimination code is not written into the MARRIAGE law.

So, in regards to agreeing with MARRIAGE laws, the anti-discrimination laws are NOT RELEVANT because they are not part of MARRIAGE law.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/02/2013 03:11PM by MJ.

"The MARRIAGE LAW allows clergy and certain religious entities to refuse to perform wedding ceremonies or provide services and facilities for a wedding ceremony. BEYOND THAT, nothing in the NEW MARRIAGE LAW expands anyone’s right to discriminate against same-sex couples, married or not."
http://www.nyclu.org/marriage-faq#14

Is the source incorrect?

Do you even read what I write? Religions should not be granted special favors in regard to civil institutions, doing so would violate the first amendment.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/02/2013 03:28PM by MJ.

I'm done. Good day MJ. I can't see into your brain, no do I care too.

You seem to expect that I should just agree with your flawed logic and you have clearly not read a word I have said.

Good riddance to your closed mind in regards to this discussion.

It is an honor that the likes of you are critical of my brain. Just like it is an honor to be an enemy of the Westboro Baptist Church.

The idea that you do not want to understand my point of view is clearly obvious.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/02/2013 03:31PM by MJ.

If the churches don't what to play be the rules for civil marriages, they are free not to perform CIVIL marriages as they perform RELIGIOUS marriages.

Regulating CIVIL marriages does not violate religious freedom in any way. Having religions define what civil marriages should be would be a violation of separation of church and state.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/02/2013 02:56PM by MJ.

How do we address the gap between the rights granted to a faith, but denied to the faithful, as cited with my Baptist minster above:

A Baptist minister cannot be compelled to perform a gay marriage. He can also bar his church from being used for the ceremony. But if he runs a catering business on the side, he violates the law if he refuses to cater the wedding that he legally refused to officiate or allow within his church.

Nobody is forcing religious institutions to perform civil marriages. Nobody is forcing religious individuals to perform civil marriages.

Any "gap" was created by the unnecessary exemption of religious institutions. There should be no such exemptions, because they are unneeded.

+1

The gap is ONLY relevant because of the attempt to exempt churches when it is not necessary.

They exemptions are to try to allow Churches to continue to discriminate in retards to UNPROTECTED civil activities that are not covered by religious protections.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/02/2013 03:08PM by MJ.

"deal with people that they hate, or they can close down their businesses"

I think you are correct, Sonoma. Under NYS state law, a clergy would have to do just that (minus all the expletives of course).

This post should be moved down a window...don't know how to fix that.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/02/2013 03:26PM by fudley.

The performance of CIVIL marriages by region or religious is NOT A PROTECTED RELIGIOUS RIGHT.

They would not be prohibited from doing CIVIL marriages, they would be stopping performing them based on their own beliefs.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/02/2013 03:21PM by MJ.

Agreed, I don't understand why people must unnecessarily complicate at simple idea.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How do we address the gap between the rights
> granted to a faith, but denied to the faithful, as
> cited with my Baptist minster above:
>
> A Baptist minister cannot be compelled to perform
> a gay marriage. He can also bar his church from
> being used for the ceremony. But if he runs a
> catering business on the side, he violates the law
> if he refuses to cater the wedding that he legally
> refused to officiate or allow within his church.


That's right. Because his catering business is not a religious institution. It's a public accommodation.

how 'bout this, TALL Man, Short Dick. Ben Beth and Jamal are going to have to deal with people that they hate, or they can close down their businesses. can't say i give a flying fuck. it's call living in a society, something most of us have had to do for a long time.

it must be very hard for you to see the writing on the wall, but you're no longer going to have an "underclass" that you can pretend you're better than.

I'm surprised at the lack of understanding of the 1st Amendment, it is pretty clear that freedom of expression is for everyone, not just for the people that you agree with. In addition because of the Establishment Clause the government is not at liberty to codify a specific bias for an expression. For the Gay Marriage debate what this means is that the government cannot force someone to act in a manner that is contrary to their desired expression unless that someone happens to be government in which case they that are not allowed to act in a manner that would indicate bias.

Civil marriages are not a religious activity. They do not become a religious activity because they are granted the legal ability to perform them.

Allowing gay civil marriages has nothing to do with religion or the first amendment.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/02/2013 03:24PM by MJ.

I agree allowing gay civil marriages has to do with other, equally important amendments. The only reason I bring it up is because people keep on bringing up this idea that allowing gay civil marriages would violate the 1st Amendment, which is of course silly.

You're right fudley.

One of the first rules of statutory construction is that laws are to be read in conjuntion with one other with an eye to giving full effect to the plain language of both.

This is one of the points of the OP and of the NYCLU link that you posted.

While a given minister cannot be required by NYS's law to marry someone, a public accomodation, and cases say this includes caterers and photographers, cannot discriminate against Lesbian and Gays, whether its for their marriage or otherwise.

And to move closer to part of what the OP is getting at, yes, I hope that is a step closer to the law, even if only the tax exemption law, forcing churchers to treat Lesbians and Gay people exactly the same as they would anyone else.

And that's progress.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/02/2013 03:50PM by lulu.

NOBODY. Clergy is not required to perform civil marriages. The laws that are causing problems are the laws that ban discrimination against gays, NOT THE MARRIAGE LAWS.

The fact that this issue is governed by anti-discrimination laws is evident when the issue is not "marriage" but "gay-marriage" that is the problem. Marriage law is not the issue.

It is believably inappropriate to hold marriage law accountable for problems, real or imagined, created by anti-discrimination laws.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/02/2013 03:54PM by MJ.

good luck lulu. My advise would be to stop now :)

But hey, I see you have now just resorted to ad hominems.

Sorry, just because I don't back down from you flawed arguments does not make me wrong.

"Ben and Beth are Conservative Jews who run a kosher restaurant and catering business. In a given week they turn down jobs to cater a bachelor party with strippers, a romantic getaway for a married man and his mistress, and they refuse to serve the foul-mouthed members of an “outlaw” motorcycle gang that show up at their restaurant. All these actions are within their legal rights."

Except they're not. When you hang your hat out to serve the public, you cannot discriminate against anything that is not a public health violation (e.g., requiring people to wear shirt and shoes).

fiona64 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Ben and Beth are Conservative Jews who run a
> kosher restaurant and catering business. In a
> given week they turn down jobs to cater a bachelor
> party with strippers, a romantic getaway for a
> married man and his mistress, and they refuse to
> serve the foul-mouthed members of an “outlaw”
> motorcycle gang that show up at their restaurant.
> All these actions are within their legal rights."
>
> Except they're not. When you hang your hat out to
> serve the public, you cannot discriminate against
> anything that is not a public health violation
> (e.g., requiring people to wear shirt and shoes).

Actually, only protected groups are exempt. If you have a dress code, you can throw out people who don't meet it. Bars expel drunk and otherwise obnoxious patrons daily. Restaurants legally enforce, "No shirt, no shoes, no service"

You cannot refuse service based upon race, religion or gender, but all other is pretty much fair game. Sexual orientation is pushing to be added to that list.