So what does a person do if the find that their customer is gay and they are getting a religious wedding officiated by a member of that religions clergy.  If their religion officially allows such a wedding, is that different than two persons not in good standing with a religious group if it isn't yours, does that make a difference in serving them.

I personally have no problem with a "Cleric" who has issues with homosexual marriage not doing them.  If he or she opens a denominational wedding chapel still no problem, that chapel having exemptions allowing doing marriages for affiliated religions, still no problem. but they had better keep track of current issues in those denominations.

In my denomination if the Pastor feels called to do homosexual marriage they can. If the church council wishes to allow church property and sanctuary to be used for such a marriage they can. Our churches are highly independant at certain levels and subjects, as this denomination is the creation of a series of joined denominations.

    I have a few issues with the whole question [biases]; first I'm libertarian, I fit well with my denomination, I am married and have two boys with my wife, the boys obviously like girls [we are still trying to get our oldest married to the mother of our grand daughter(she has emotional issues from her first marriage)], I find it doubtful that Homosexuals are not created that way, I feel that a homosexual marrying one of the opposite sex is perpetuating a lie and so is a sexual perversion of their nature.
 (I swear I thought I had posted on this issue before but don't see it, maybe I only planned to)
Edit spelling
This message was last edited by the player at 16:09, Wed 27 May 2015.

On the topic of same-sex-marriage and Catholicism Ireland had a vote this past weekend.

When what is probably the most Catholic country in Europe has such a one-sided vote to legalize gay marriage, the times are definitely changing.  How the Catholic church will adjust to the changing world, I don't know.  As others have already pointed out, they've stuck to their guns on several things (e.g., contraception, divorce, female priests, etc.) that the western world has largely moved on from, so it seems unlikely that there will be an "official" change in stance.  But is there a limit to the number of rules the average catholic will overlook before they start to think "why am I still a part of this group?"

If I recall correctly, the RCC has been declining numbers-wise in the west (though growing in other parts of the world, I think) for a while now.  A vote like this seems to really highlight the degree to which many catholics don't share the beliefs/practices of the church they're a part of, and I have to wonder how sustainable that is for the RCC.  I have to say, I was surprised by the result of the vote (pleasantly so!), and even more so by the wide margin it was decided by.  If the RCC can't count on Ireland to back its version of morality, is steady decline the only foreseeable future for it (in Europe, at least)?
This message was last edited by the GM at 19:56, Mon 25 May 2015.

I wish had more experience with those who are Catholic.  Those I grew up with were mostly French Canadians who moved out west for farming (from Manitoba).  Foam at the mouth over things like getting married in the Catholic church, or when one of their kids would get baptized in a Baptist church (shaming our family!) - but had no issues sleeping around and could outdrink most other folks...haha.

I don't get the sense they were representative of the larger Catholic community.

Well, there's a bit of a difference there.  Churches are essentially private organizations, you don't have to let in everyone.  So, if you say you'll only do weddings for members, and you have clear criteria for membership, you're well within your rights to turn down anyone else.

A wedding chapel is a business, though.  They might be privately owned, but if they do business with the public, then they pretty much have to accept everyone, regardless of the owner's beliefs.

For example, a restaurant at a racist golf club might turn away black people, legally, because they only serve members of the club.  That same restaurant on a city corner, not so much-- if they're accepting walk ins, they really don't have the right to cry "free association".

Someone who ran a "Baptist only" wedding chapel would tread the line, so it would get very dangerous for them.  It'd be even murkier if they let in affiilated denominations, because after a certain point it could be argued that this is no different than accepting walk-ins.

Bear in mind, "I believe this is morally wrong" is not necessarily the same as "I believe this should be illegal".

Also in my experience, most Catholics take a pretty kind view to drinking ;) There's a reason why there are so many beers named after Catholic monasteries and orders.

In reply to Grandmaster Cain (msg # 274):

Not only is it a private membership. But due to the idea of separation of church and state, membership and property ownership issues for church's have been handed over to Church tribunals to make rulings on church portions so the court can finish up the lawsuits.

You can still run into issues.  If a church runs a business, and that business accepts public customers, then that business must abide by anti-racism laws even if the church is exempt.

For example, let's say a church has a known anti-gay stance, and clearly does not allow gay members.  This is perfectly legal, even if it is scuzzy. However, let's say they run a thrift shop on the side, on the church property.  Because that shop accepts walk-ins, they can't deny anyone service without a good reason-- they can't turn away black people, or gays, or whomever, and cite their religion as a defense.

Can a religion, solely for religious purposes, deny black folk services?

Technically, yes, although it does depend.

Again, a private group is free to set their own standards for membership.  So a church, under that law, can say that only whites can be members.  Then, they can say they'll only do certain services for members-- like weddings-- and be in the clear.

However, if they accept non-members for certain services, then those services need to be open to the whole public.  So, if they do weddings for non-members, it's a public business and needs to be open to the public.

This is basically the same thing as the Salvation Army saying they'll only do weddings for members, it's legal and acceptable, and no one is seriously trying to change that.  But if they tried denying gays access to their thrift stores, there'd be a problem.  Same with Mormons-- you can't force them to do homosexual weddings, but Deseret Industries stores can't block gays from shopping there.

Well, it's over except for the whinging.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/...ge-ruling/index.html

Homosexual marriage is now the law of the land.  You don't have to like it-- you don't have to like any marriage, I think the Kardashian wedding was a joke-- but don't pretend that it's not real.

Long overdue.  Really glad to see it.

My dad said we have a responsibility to resist SCOTUS. I'm not quite sure what precisely he thinks he's going to do. Unless  you are a non-religious person working in the wedding industry, there's not a lot of steps you can take to 'resist'.

Yeah, SCOTUS is pretty much the final word.  Even with controversial decisions, the court is loathe to overturn their previous rulings.  I mean, I get some people resist to the bitter end, but it's kinda like resisting the tide.

I'm pretty happy with the ruling, but I'm certain there will be some resistance similar to the civil rights conflicts.

Yay.

I think I've made my previous views on this clear. While I do appreciate the end result, I think this is just about the worst way we could have reached it. The SCOTUS has circumvented congress, and the rights of states.

I don't think SCOTUS has exceeded their authority. This is similar to other civil rights issues they've resolved in the past.

It's not up to them to decide what is a protected class. The 14th was passed through the amendment process, and clearly defines what is protected. The judges just decided that it includes this other class. It should have gone through legislation. That's why the congress exists in the first place.

If not the courts who is to defend the minority.. the majority?
   I remember reading a sqib by one of the justices, about how she had been questioning why something that had not been an issue for the supreme court should become one.  It seemed she was startled when she came up with an answer, when the legislature started giving tax brakes to married folk that was claiming a federal interest in marriage in a manner that was legal.
   I belong to a denomination that has a reputation for being heavily into social justice since before the civil war.  We have ordained openly Gay Pastors, and Pastors have permission to marry gay couples, and church councils have permission to decide if they will hold gay marriages in there sanctuary.
   There are some "feminist" non-duality pagan religions that appeared as a response to the cruelty of the "church" whose ordained priests and priestesses would hand-fast in a moment.

   I have a tendency at this point to remind people that one authority God gave Adam was to name things, do you really believe we have stopped.  And if that is the case what of those words and ideas that didn't exist when the scriptures were written or by those writing them.

   I may believe that "God is Still Speaking" though I personally believe He is saying the same thing He always did, just we now have more words than we did before to make his will clearer.

If your argument is that the ban on homosexual marriages infringes on the right to practice religion, I'd be inclined to agree. But that's an application of the current laws as written, and it doesn't seem to be what the justices did. Alternatively, if they said the government's applying definitions of marriage is violating separation of church and state, again I'd be inclined to agree.

I don't want to seem to claim to be better read on this then I am but as I said the reading I have done it started with tax exemptions to support married households.  Without it they would never have agreed to see the case.
  The courts have listened carefully to suggestions of issues that would compromise that very strentgh of household those tax breaks were meant to protect.  Because the 14th amendment was ruled by the supreme court to enforce the same rights as repesented by the bill of rights on the states, it is the job of the supreme court to protect the rights of the individual, and especially one belonging to a minority of some kind.
  The problem is if they couldn't find an issue that threatened that household that was special in the nature of gay marriage then they had to rule the union and the state had no valid intrestin excluding gay marriage from the definition.  This is not taking a power it is refusing to take one.  That said because that power is refused the current powers enforcing and supporting marriages now includes them.

Except that the marriage tax benefits were established for a very specific public good; establishing cohesive families to produce future tax-payers. The majority of homosexual couples do not and will not have children, and in a large number of places, cannot adopt. Therefore, the marriage tax benefit does not apply.

That's actually not true. Here in the US, marriage benefits were established to give a break to couples who were solemnized by religious groups.  Also, nowhere are marriage benefits actually dependent on having children; you get them even if you state from the get-go that you're not going to have any.

Sounds like an argument for making the rules much easier (ie less discriminatory) for same sex couples to raise a family.  I just tried to find some numbers on same-sex couples vs opposite-sex couples and couldn't find anything with a cursory glance, but I imagine there are good numbers out there.  Looks like as of 5 years ago there were already about 25% of same-sex couples who had kids - and this despite discriminatory laws regarding adoption for those folks.

It only makes sense that as same-sex couples are now legally allowed to marry, and as adoption laws are brought more into line with what is fair, that same-sex couples will also have more kids. Either way, even if 'only' 25% of those couples have kids, that's still a significant amount (again, not sure how that compares today with opposite-sex couples).

The argument that same-sex couples are not capable of establishing cohesive families that will produce future tax-payers (if that's even truly the purpose of that specific tax benefit) seems completely offbase.

K; and marriage will make it easyier to adopt.
 Circular logic that they shouldn't marry because they can't adopt, because they aren't or can't marry, won't be an issue.  People worry about legalizing pologamy, minor marriages and beastiality, my thought will be the next push will be against banns on adoptions.

Gm-C; and by Captains at sea and Justice of the Peace on land.

It is quite true; most marriage law was established in the English and French systems hundreds of years ago, when the most advanced form of birth control was a sheep's bladder. At the time, most marriages resulted in children (or were formed to care for existing children), and the civil concept of marriage established parental rights, inheritance, so on and so forth. The tax benefits, when income taxes were established int eh 19th century, just followed what was already there; support the family.

The transition to the modern setting is laws not keeping up with technology. Young married people not having children is an option now, where it really wasn't before, and the elderly have always been an edge case (plus, it's grandmas, who's going to harass them?) Judging the current laws based on the current technology rather than the original intent is a mistake.