Do you believe that churches have a right to refuse marrying a same-sex couple?

Agreed. In all honesty what will hurt us more is actually forcing others to change their beliefs. Yes it sucks and yes we hope their church changes their tune someday but the whole misconception is that we are throwing in people's faces and by letting people pursue change at their own pace makes it for less hostility. We cannot want freedom while forcing others to give up their freedom in some respects.

 

So, if you go to a Christian shop, and they happen to be very harsh, would you be okay with them refusing to help black people? I mean, sure, if you are black, then you go to a friendly place, right?

Such practices, refusing people based on skin colour, are incredibly absurd in my opinion. When someone would refuse to help a black person, I'm not going to say to the black person "they have the right to refuse to help you, it's their religious right. If you want help, you should go to a place where people would be willing to help you."

My point is, some people want a church marriage. It's not up to me to judge why someone would want that, I'm not religious myself, but for some this might be of importance. The civil servant who is there to marry people, is there to carry out the law, not his own personal beliefs. And if one cannot marry two people who are allowed to marry by law because of "personal opinion", then the person is not qualified for the job in my opinion.

They are not forcing you to "change your beliefs". It means that the person who marries others is there to carry out the law, not his own opinion. And if the person cannot do that, then fine, you shouldn't be marrying people.

 

Remember these are some of the same churches (groups not buildings) that are still getting away with denying most "management roles" to women (priests, bishops, cardinals, pope, etc...), and apparently that's ok for a lot of people and the laws don't apply to those situations either.

Not about to change, of course it should be up to them and they shouldn't be forced, but really...

(I kinda like the idea posted earlier that they should lose their "civil paperwork processing" powers, and the revenue associated, if they chose to exclude certain groups).

 

Well a church believes if they participate in a ceremony like that they are violating their religious doctrine or beliefs and that is a sin. As much as a I disagree with them on that I don't think forcing them to do something they view as sinful is the way to go. It is also not gonna help change things to make it so churches actually accept gay people. That is what the whole thing is about they feel that if they take part in that kind of ceremony they are going to be punished by God. i don't want to force a church to participate in a ceremony they disagree with. It would just feel awkward and not the way to go about it. If no church in my place of residence will marry me than i much rather do it at a courthouse. This whole religious freedom thing has a lot of misconceptions to it. I even talked to a person last night on the other side of this and when i told her the fears the lgbt community she thought it was ridiculous. It is not really about restaurants, retail stores, gas stations, and so on religious freedom is mostly about gay marriage and not participating in ceremonies that they view as sinful In order to get to that place of acceptance i think the best route is by not forcing them into a place of resentment.

 

No, nondiscrimination laws such as ENDA ARE about protecting LGBTQ people in rural and bigoted communities from discrimination of ALL kinds, including employment, housing, and yes, making sure they are able to actually be able to be served by businesses such as gas stations, restaurants, and convenience stores without having to drive an hour to and from a store that will actually serve them. These religious freedom laws that are being passed are harmful to the LGBTQ community because it gives those businesses a right not to serve them, even if they are the only gas station in a 50 mile radius. The sole purpose of those laws is to hurt the LGBTQ community, and to say otherwise is not accurate.

 

Yeah I know I agree our rights should be protected. All i am saying I told many conservative people about what you mentioned above and they think the sole purpose of religious freedom should be about not participating in a gay marriage. But that is just some of them and I agree no one should be discriminated in such a cruel way. The only thing that I think should be respected is their right not to participate in a gay ceremony. As messed up as it is it is their right to their beliefs and they strongly feel that doing otherwise would put them in hell or at odds with God and as sad as it is i think we should respect that until people come around. But no I agree any discriminate that you mentioned otherwise should not be tolerated.

 

A religious institution should not have to marry any group of people it doesn't want to. It's a religious ceremony, not a legal one. I know if I get married, I already know I'm going the courthouse way. That's just because I'm a firm believer in inexpensive marriages.

 

It is not at all the same. A cake shop is a business open to the public. A religious institution is not, at least not in the US. This is important, because in the US anti-discrimination laws apply to the government and to businesses open to the public only. Since a church is neither, they are allowed to discriminate in many ways. A Catholic church can refuse to marry a Catholic to a Muslim. A conservative Jewish temple can refuse to admit women. A church could even refuse to marry a black person if they really wanted to. Anti-discrimination law wouldn't stop it, because a church is a private club, even if it admits the public, and private clubs can discriminate under US law, while a business cannot.

---------- Post added 27th Jun 2015 at 07:30 PM ----------

A priest is not a civil servant, though, and the government does not employ them for the purposes of conducting marriages. A priest only does so on a voluntary basis. As such, it is not their job to marry the general public, and they cannot legally be expected to.

 

That's fine. We don't need to have anything to do with them and vice versa.


To be honest, that's what I want here in the PH. A separation of church and state. I see no gains for marrying in the eyes of the church, but in the eyes of the law, there is.

 

This is were I think you are wrong. In the short run, it is indeed not going to help, obviously, as the churches will see this happening "against their will". In the long run however, it will very likely help. You see, if they have to marry same-sex couples as well in the church, then there must be someone to do that for them. So there will be someone who is, even if the doctrine of the church tells it's wrong, willing to do this. The more modest/accepting people will likely be the ones to marry a same-sex couple.

Note that I've never said "hey you, guy X, I want you to marry me". If he does not like it, okay, you cannot force the person. All I am saying is is that there should be someone who is willing to do this, in every church.

In the Netherlands, it's how it goes, one cannot refuse to marry same-sex people. That doesn't mean that everyone will do it, it means that there will be someone who won't refuse.

Understandable. However, some think differently.

And in my opinion, private clubs are not allowed to discriminate under the US law, that is kind of the point of this, don't you think?

"Do you believe that churches have a right to refuse marrying a same-sex couple?"

>> Of course, they can discriminate under the US law as they are not open to the public.

That's stating the obvious and I highly doubt that's the point of this whole thread.

Exactly, you said it. A priest only does so on a voluntary basis, and if he or she is not willing to marry a gay couple, then he or she should not do that. But there should be at least someone who is willing to do that.

-

In all honesty, the mindset of the people here surprises me. I think America has a long way to go for the complete acceptance of its LGBT citizens.

 

I believe a priest has the right to refuse to marry a same sex couple based on their personal beliefs, but I don't believe the church as a whole has that right.
I think that in every church, there should be at least one person willing to marry same sex couples.

So an individual person can refuse, but not the church as a whole.

(Eg: "I cannot marry you because of my personal beliefs, however, if you would go and see Father Avery over there, he would be happy to conduct your service.")

 

But they are. The courts here have been quite clear on that.

It is the point in the sense that my position is that I understand the way the law works for private clubs, and do not see a good enough rationale for changing that. The government and businesses cannot discriminate legally (at least, not in states that have seen the light like mine), which is good, but a church is a private organization not available to the general public, and I cannot see a rationale to change that.

Which is why government clerks have to (in theory, thanks to these bullshit attempts in many US states to allow the government or businesses to discriminate) marry anyone legally qualified, gay or straight. They are paid by the government for the purpose of issuing marriage licenses, so they do not get to discriminate.

The problem is, people have the right to be asshats. That's why the KKK can yell racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-Catholic vitriol publicly, WBC can picket funerals, people can fly swastikas from their front porch, and the assholes who visit my college every quarter can scream at every student who passes that they are going to roast in hell because they look like a faggot and yell at men to get their girlfriends under control when a woman talks back to them over their homophobic rants. We suppress this somewhat when it comes to the government or a business providing services, but in the private arena you are under no obligation to accept anybody. That's the price we pay for our wide ranging freedoms.

 

the members of the church can do wat they want those out side the church can do wat they want but no one should force the church to do wat they want and the church has no right to force people to do wat they want

 

I really hope gay people don't start suing churches that refuse to marry them. The religious right of course says this is going to happen en masse, but I really hope it does not. I will have no respect for any person that does that.

 

They won't, don't worry. Obergefell v Hodges has nothing to do with the religious freedom of churches to refuse marriage, and will not give gay and lesbian couples a right to sue, unless something were to happen when asking to be married there such as an actual hate crime. It does mean however that once these refusals do happen, however, the church's view is made clear, and they then are able to become more easily ostracized for their view, and potentially lose membership if they do not change these views in the future. If a gay or lesbian couple 20 years down the road tries to do that, much like an interracial couple would have done in the 1980's and 1990's, I don't think it would be that easy for someone to pass judgement on them for that, now would it? There's a nuance to everything, and social pressure to change their views is that nuance.

 

I think churches should be able to refuse it if it is to be held INSIDE THEIR CHURCH. If it is to be held elsewhere, regardless of that person's religious upbringing, the church should not be able to deny it. Of course they are going to refuse holding the ceremony within the walls of their church, and I think that is okay, as long as they don't try and stomp people down by telling them they are "sinning in they eyes of God" and that sort of bull if they are to be married elsewhere.

 

They can stop collecting tax perks from the government, and they can also refuse anyone they wish, within the law.

 

I believe that some churches should be ashamed for the way they have treated us. But I also believe that they should be free to believe what they believe no matter how misguided it is. I do believe that some of these churches will evolve or die.

 

I think no matter what happens churches will evolve on the issue so it won't matter as much in the future. Young christians are also more open to gay marriage so it will progress as i already see it happening.