In Marriage Arguments, Scalia Frets Over Clergy Religious Freedom

At today’s oral arguments at the Supreme Court in the marriage cases, Justice Antonin Scalia raised the specter of clergy who oppose same-sex marriage being stripped of their ability to officiate marriages sanctioned by the state if the Court were to find a constitutional right to marriage. Unlike the more conventional objection from religious right activists–that clergy could be punished or jailed for refusing to officiate same-sex marriages–Scalia suggested such ministers could be barred from officiating any marriages at all, gay or straight.

Scalia rejected the argument initially made by the plaintiffs’ attorney, Mary Bonauto, that in states which passed marriage equality laws, an exemption for clergy was included in the law. Scalia objected that if the Court were to find a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, the Constitution would trump any state law granting an exemption.

Scalia even used a real Washington example, contrasting the National Cathedral, which performs same-sex marriages, and St. Matthews, a Catholic parish in Washington, which obviously does not. “You could have ministers who conduct real marriages that are civilly enforceable at the National Cathedral, but not at St. Matthews downtown, because that minister refuses to marry two men, and therefore, cannot be given the State power to make a real State marriage,” he argued.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor jumped in, pointing out that in states that had anti-discrimination laws that protect the rights of citizens based on sexual orientation, and which legalized same-sex marriage, clergy have not been forced to perform same-sex marriages. But Scalia pressed his constitutional point, arguing that “every State allows ministers to marry people, and their marriages are effective under State law.  That will not be the case if, indeed, we hold, as a constitutional matter, that the State must marry two men.”

Justice Elena Kagan pointed out that “there are many rabbis that will not conduct marriages between Jews and non­-Jews, notwithstanding that we have a constitutional prohibition against  religious discrimination.  And those rabbis get all the powers and privileges of the State, even if they have that rule, most many, many, many rabbis won’t do that.” True. And the state hasn’t taken away their authority to officiate civil marriages.

Justice Steven Breyer, then, came to the rescue citing the First Amendment. But he bungled it a bit.  Or did he? Following up on Kagan’s remark,  Breyer said, “It’s called Congress shall make no law respecting the freedom of religion,” at which point, at least according to the transcript, he was interrupted by others talking or trailed off.

What Breyer meant to say, of course, was that Congress shall not make any law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. But I wonder if it was a little Freudian slip when he said, “Congress shall make no law respecting…,” which of course are the words preceding “an establishment of religion.” Because if states were to decide which ministers could officiate civil marriages and which could not based on their religious beliefs, that would arguably infringe on their religious freedom, but could also constitute a state endorsement of a particular religious view. Which shows why conservatives should show more love for the Establishment Clause than they typically do.

64 Comments

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    Someone needs to ask Scalia how it is that churches are able to pick and choose whom they marry *now.* I guess he doesn’t know that the Catholic church doesn’t marry divorced people, for example?

  • eric.thurman@sewanee.edu' Eric says:

    He knows. He’s just lying by pretending he doesn’t know.

  • HCarr90366@gmail.com' Rev. Dr. Harvey Carr says:

    Another ridiculous non-issue. At no time in history has any minister in any church been forced to officiate for any marriage. It is at their descretion to refuse that. There are some restrictions in some churches that can create issues if you perform ceratin marriage, but those issues are with church heirarchy, not the state. As a minister of almost 50 years I can recall when most churches forbade their ministers to marry people of differing faiths (even between denominaitons within the Christian faith), second weddings for anyone divorced, etc. Today some of those same churches even have ministers who have been divorced and re-married. Ministers are not forced to officiate for weddings, funerals, etc., etc., etc. If they choose to not do so, it is their decision and nobody – no church board, no district superintendent, no bishop – is going to force them to do otherwise. The options is theirs.

  • dkeane123@comcast.net' DKeane123 says:

    While I don’t agree with him, I think his concern that this picking and choosing has never really been tested in the courts. Has there ever been a lawsuit attempting to make the Catholic Church marry a divorcee? I honestly haven’t researched it.

  • Dennis.Lurvey@live.com' GeniusPhx says:

    Ministers can always say they are busy that week and turn the wedding down. Religious people have no problem lying or picking and choosing which Bible verse to accept or decline as long as it suites their purpose. They have no problem accepting the bible verse about gays but declining any verses saying children who talk back to their parents should be put to death.

    Scalia and Thomas had their minds made up before the case came up. Being catholic if they decided pro gay issues, the sins of the gays would become the judges personal sins and they believe they would go to hell. 7 out of 9 of the justices are catholic just as most of congress is catholic even though less than 25% of the population they serve are catholic.

    Until we stop electing people who are beholden to their church and beliefs before the people and the common law (constitution) we will continue to he held back to the 1st century.

  • phillinj@slu.edu' NancyP says:

    No court is going to go there.I think that it is pretty clear that clergy can refuse to marry people on whatever grounds. After all, there is a civil option for marriage.

    One could argue that the clergy should not act as officers of the state, thus clarifying that there is a difference between the religious significance of marriage and the legal significance of marriage. A couple gets the license and gets civilly married at town hall, then has a church wedding (or vice versa). Some people think that mingling the religious and the legal aspects of marriage trivializes the religious aspects in practice. Blowing huge sums showing off at a religious wedding trivializes it more.

  • phillinj@slu.edu' NancyP says:

    There’s Catholic, and then there’s Opus Dei super-conservative Catholic. I am not an expert sociologist of religion, but I would be very surprised if more than 5% of Catholics are in the super-conservative category that would like to impose church canon law, eg., ban contraception, etc. for all people including non-believers. Catholic laypeople are in general more tolerant than conservative Protestant laypeople.

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    Not that I’m able to find.

  • Dennis.Lurvey@live.com' GeniusPhx says:

    you are right. Catholics are leaving the church in large numbers. They are going non religious/atheist or Episcopalian, either none or all in.

    But I wasn’t talking about everyday people (who are secular by nature), I’m talking about the religious test for public office the founders prohibited in the constitution that is alive and well today. If we stop electing religious fanatics we will stop states and feds making ridiculous laws.

  • stillgoodtotalk@gmail.com' David says:

    ah, so you’re advocating a religious litmus test. wrong country genius

  • stillgoodtotalk@gmail.com' David says:

    at no time in history has same sex marriage been forced on anyone but it’s happening now and the simple fact is that certain LGBT activists will NOT stop until they have succeeded in forcing churches to conform. There are no options according to them.

  • cathikorelin@sbcglobal.net' Cathi Korelin says:

    There was already a case in England where 2 men sued the Church of England to get married there. Cant find a result of it.

  • Dennis.Lurvey@live.com' GeniusPhx says:

    it’s against article 6 but ppl do it all the time. an atheist cant get elected (although i have an agnostic congresswoman). I say there is already a test and their shouldn’t be.

  • tbh2@cornell.edu' tanyam says:

    If people are worried that somehow the state will force priests to conduct same-sex weddings, why stop there, why aren’t they worried the government will force the church to accept female priests? We don’t allow sex discrimination in hiring in general, right?

  • tbh2@cornell.edu' tanyam says:

    Who is forcing ministers to perform same sex weddings? For that matter — the state isn’t forcing the Catholic church to accept women priests. If you’re that paranoid, why stop with worrying about priests being forced to perform gay marriage.

  • tbh2@cornell.edu' tanyam says:

    And we’ll see if it gets anywhere. However, the Church of England is a state church — an arm of the government, if you will. I don’t think this suit will go anywhere (remember, anybody can sue anybody for anything, doesn’t mean they’ll win) they are arguing on the basis of something that is not the case in the US. Similarly, I don’t think women would get far suing the Catholic church to allow them to be priests. Why isn’t anybody worried about that?

  • awerling@gmail.com' andrew123456789 says:

    Granted, I am no lawyer. However, I’m pretty sure a case in England wouldn’t be valid precedent in a United States court.

  • stillgoodtotalk@gmail.com' David says:

    it’s not paranoia, the state is constantly ignoring the boundaries that should keep it from meddling in religion. the writing is on the wall, only fools will ignore it. take that back fools will celebrate the destruction of that wall, idiots will ignore reality.

  • barnhart.sheila@gmail.com' smb11 says:

    My former Pastor in the Lutheran church would marry a Catholic to a Lutheran as long as one converted to the others religion. He wouldn’t marry a Mormon to a Lutheran.

  • reedjim51@gmail.com' Jim Reed says:

    I get your point. The state is always trying to enforce laws, and some of the laws against discrimination the church wants freedom to break.

  • tbh2@cornell.edu' tanyam says:

    I’m trying to see what evidence you have for that. Forbidding people to give away food to the homeless — there’ another place where people are concerned about the state infringing on the “free exercise” of religion. Is that something you worry about?
    Or maybe you worry that the tax benefit to clergy — not having to pay taxes on their housing (when teachers, social workers and the leaders of other non-profits –not to mention everybody else do) might be taken away — there are rumblings about that. The very fact that it exists is odd though, wouldn’t you say? Not only do the churches themselves exist as non-profits, but clergy get a special break.
    Or maybe you are concerned about native American’s use of peyote — first that was illegal, but they won the right to use it in religious ceremonies. Freedom of religion. Were you worried when that was a conversation? Turned out okay.
    My point is there have always been lines to discuss — but your paranoia makes no sense to me.

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    And somehow no one came along to take away his birthday … or his right to pick and choose who got married in the church where he presided. No surprise there.

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    Really, David? Have you been dragged downtown and forced to marry a man? Please provide photographs.

  • dwysocki@4thtdev.com' skrekk says:

    Scalia purposely plays a dullard for rhetorical purposes. He surely knows that priests cannot be compelled to perform a marriage or perform a religious wedding for anyone since they’re free to be as bigoted as they like…..there have even been several Southern Baptist pastors who have recently denied religious weddings to black couples and mixed-race couples, and the state literally doesn’t care nor can it care.

    He might have been getting at a somewhat related issue, like when Bob Jones U lost its tax exempt status and had to pay back taxes due to its racist policies which included a ban on interracial dating and marriage. And in fact if the court adopts heightened scrutiny for sexual orientation, it’s exactly that type of publicly-subsidized discrimination which will be unlawful for organizations which aren’t churches or private clubs.

  • dwysocki@4thtdev.com' skrekk says:

    Catholics actually support marriage at a rate higher than the general population (one poll shows 71%), and both Kennedy and Sotomayor are Catholics with a strong record on gay rights.

    But I agree that Congress shouldn’t be sending religious extremists of any sort to the court. We need secular courts, not mullahs. Scalia is an odd case though – while he appears to be a bigot and an Opus Dei Catholic of the very worst kind, he also authored Employment Div v Smith.

  • junesxing@yahoo.com' Jeffrey Samuels says:

    so what would be so bad if clergy no longer ‘married’ people officially, and everyone had to go file for a marriage certificate with local government, while clergy were free to perform religious marriages for whomever they chose.

    As I understand it, there were places in the past where some liberal clergy performed marriage ceremonies for gay folks, even while understanding that these were not officially sanctioned by law.

    It would certainly address the issue.

  • Dennis.Lurvey@live.com' GeniusPhx says:

    true, but there is also greece and hobby lobby, which set separation law back 100 yrs.

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    I hate to break it to you, David, but marriage is a civil contract. If you don’t have a license from the state, you are not legally married — no matter how many church ceremonies you have.

  • phatkhat@centurylink.net' phatkhat says:

    Neither do a lot of Baptist ministers.

  • phatkhat@centurylink.net' phatkhat says:

    In Europe, that is a common model. You get married at the magistrate’s office (with or without a prayer), and if you want a church ceremony, it’s a whole ‘nother thing.

  • phatkhat@centurylink.net' phatkhat says:

    Down here in the South, candidates put their religious affiliation right on their materials with their experience and education. You don’t get elected in Arkansas unless you are a verifiable Xtian.

  • reedjim51@gmail.com' Jim Reed says:

    The concern is the church seems to be losing respect, and legal means to force people to respect the church might be their best hope.

  • jimbentn@verizon.net' Jim 'Prup' Benton says:

    Okay, name one of those ‘certain gay activists.’ I read several gay blogs daily — I am bi, as well as someone who wants other people to have the rights my motherS never had. (Claire died before Stonewall, and Billie only a couple of years after, so they never even had the right to walk proudly down Fifth Avenue hand in hand — or kissing, though they weren’t much for ‘public displays.’)
    I also read a good portion of the comments there, and tend to read other gay-themed articles in places like HuffPo and the like.
    I may have missed some, but I can say that I have NEVER, literally, seen any gay activist who has not insisted on the right of ministers. etc. to refuse to perform gay marriages.
    There may be some. (Prup’s First Rule: Whatever side you take in any political, religious, social, or sexual discussion, you will have some idjits agreeing with you.) But if you know of any specifics, any names of people or organizations who have taken that stand, I’d very much appreciate your mentioning them — or apologizing for making a statement that you had been told and hadn’t actually checked out for yourself.

  • stillgoodtotalk@gmail.com' David says:

    I’m not at all opposed to legal protections for same sex couples (though why limit it to 2?) I am concerned by what I see in the attitude of some towards the church’s and believer’s rights not to participate.

  • stillgoodtotalk@gmail.com' David says:

    I do hope I can give my specifications for what I would want in a man before it happens 🙂

  • stillgoodtotalk@gmail.com' David says:

    valid question and I have personally read the writings of those opposed to any religious exemptions though I couldn’t point to them at this moment. If I do come across some I well let you know. I need not apologize for anything, well at least anything concerning my statements.

  • stillgoodtotalk@gmail.com' David says:

    It shouldn’t, courts leaning on cases from other countries would be inappropriate.

  • stillgoodtotalk@gmail.com' David says:

    so you’re saying that Christian (or any other religion) schools no long have the right to enforce moral standards based on their beliefs? Sounds pretty oppressive to me.

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    Okay, I admit to smiling at that.

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    Here’s the thing, David; churches already pick and choose whom they will marry. Don’t believe me? Try being divorced and getting married in a Catholic church.

    The First Amendment protects the rights of churches to pick and choose whom they will marry, and that is not going to change. There are many denominations that are welcoming and affirming of same-sex couples; what about *their* right to perform legally binding marriages of said pairs? They are, after all, protected by the same first amendment.

    Now, when you refer to “believers,” clearly you are using a dogwhistle to refer to people who own a public accommodation (like a bakery) and their “sincerely held belief” giving them a right to deny services that they otherwise provide. That, sir, is problematic. It’s been a matter of settled law since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that one cannot open a public accommodation and then say “You people have to sit over there/use a different entrance/sit in a different part of the bus.”

    My question to you is serious, David: which of your civil rights should be up for popular vote? After all, that’s what you are proposing should be the case for my GLBT friends and neighbors, so I’m curious.

  • awerling@gmail.com' andrew123456789 says:

    Churches who tell kids that gay relations are sinful and evil are abusing the kids. Hands down. They’re either teaching self-loathing or they’re teaching how to persecute. I’d rather oppress churches than children.

  • Robynmarigny@aol.com' Robyn Ryan says:

    what about the right of people to be free of religion in their civil lives?

  • dakotahgeo@hotmail.com' George M Melby says:

    As a retired Baptist minister, I found that entire denomination the most hypocritical of any that exist, including the Mormon church! They had way too many of their own back porches to clean. That SHOULD have kept them busy for life.

  • dakotahgeo@hotmail.com' George M Melby says:

    Another pseudonym for Frank, Hooper, et al. Your writing style and attitude gives away your hiding place.

  • stillgoodtotalk@gmail.com' David says:

    LOL, that’s funny. I’ve never been anyone but David or Dave in any comments or message boards. But thanks for the entertainment

  • stillgoodtotalk@gmail.com' David says:

    none of the businesses that have been bullied by infantile same sex couples have denied service because the customer was gay. In every case they declined to have their services be part of a ceremony that they believe is wrong. There is a difference and an important one. The only civil rights that were denied in these cases are those of the business. And the vindictive couples and courts have seen fit to punish with large fines. That is wrong. All they need to is walk their whiny asses to the next business who probably would be thrilled to get their business. The whole mess isn’t about gay rights it’s about revenge and punishment and forcing Christians to do their will The backlash that is coming will be epic and innocent people will get hurt. All because a few bitter, hostile self-proclaimed defenders of LGBT folk are hungry and thirsty for power. Lost in the upheaval is the fact that most LGBT people simply want to live their lives. And they should be able to but it’s not enough for a malignant few. Yes there are fanatic anti-gay attitudes and those who think like that are just as nasty, hostile and irrational as the LGBT activists. Sadly, we all lose while they battle it out.

    It is true now that pastors/priests have the right to choose what weddings they officiate at. It’s also quite clear that that right is in danger. The arguments/questions before the SCOTUS made it obvious. The decision should only impact the civil/legal contract, but that will not be enough for some. It may take time, it may happen quick but churches will be forced just as church run schools will be forced to compromise their beliefs (that is already happening).

    I don’t recall recommending that the same sex marriage issue be settled by popular vote.

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    You are a total dumbfuck if you don’t understand that the first amendment preserves the right of churches to do what they wish in their sanctuaries.

    If a business makes wedding cakes for the public, they cannot say “We don’t make wedding cakes for your kind.” Period, end of report.

    I’m sorry you’re too stupid to understand that it is absolutely no different from saying “We won’t sell wedding cakes to n*****s.’

  • stillgoodtotalk@gmail.com' David says:

    it doesn’t matter what the 1st amendment now preserves, they will try and tear it down, your head is in the sand as you buy the myth of the harmless gay couple who is in love. No one EVER EVER said we don’t make cakes for your kind. Period. But if it makes you feel better to watch businesses bulldozed fine, just wait until they turn on you.

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    No one EVER EVER said we don’t make cakes for your kind.

    Yeah, actually, that is exactly what they said.

    You obviously think that since I advocate for my GLBT friends and neighbors to have the same rights I do, I must be GLBT. I’ll bet you thought everyone who marched with MLK was Black, too.

    it doesn’t matter what the 1st amendment now preserves, they will try and tear it down

    On what do you base this (asinine) assertion?

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    He’s not nearly as stupid as Frank.

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    There is no separation of church and state in England …

  • stillgoodtotalk@gmail.com' David says:

    “your kind” was a quote from your post not an indication of who I think you are. Perhaps some reading comprehension is in order, what they did was decline to contribute to an EVENT. In at least a couple of cases they were dealing with repeat customers so sexual orientation was not the issue. No business should be forced to into providing services for an event they think is wrong. Blacks should not have to serve a Klan rally, Jews should not have to serve a neo-Nazi event etc. To see it any other way is to betray basic freedoms. As far as the threat to the 1st amendment, one only need watch what is happening. Force is the order of the day in this country, from the Left that is. This is boring, you’re not interested in anything outside of your set world view. Ignorance will be no excuse in the long run. Have a nice life

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    what they did was decline to contribute to an EVENT

    Tell me, Mr. Bojangles, how long have you been tap dancing?

    The bakery makes wedding cakes. They refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. That most assuredly is “We don’t serve your kind.”

    No business should be forced to into providing services for an event they think is wrong.

    You have already demonstrated that you do not understand how public accommodation laws work. This is no different from “We don’t allow n*****s to sit at the lunch counter” … and deep down inside, you know it.

    Now, how about if you take your antiquated views and fuck off out of it? The rest of us are in the 21st century.

  • stillgoodtotalk@gmail.com' David says:

    I understand completely how you and many on the left totally warp the idea of public accommodation. But that’s because you believe that everyone should be forced to follow your perverse ways. Actually that is not at all a 21st century way of thinking but comes from the dark ages. But you’re just a parrot spouting what you have been feed. Maybe there’s a day you’ll wake up, doubt it. Too bad you can’t talk above gutter level, does it make you feel tough?

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    Your tone policing is duly noted, and dismissed. It’s a tool abusers use to silence their intended victims, and I’ve got news for you, buddy: it doesn’t fucking work on me.

    everyone should be forced to follow your perverse ways.

    What perverse ways would those be, David? The ones where I believe my GLBT friends and neighbors should have the same rights I do?

    Unlike you, I actually *do * understand public accommodation law. You can open your tiny, bigoted mind and read this: http://civilrights.findlaw.com/enforcing-your-civil-rights/discrimination-in-public-accommodations.html

    Quote: Privately-owned businesses and facilities that offer certain goods or
    services to the public — including food, lodging, gasoline, and
    entertainment — are considered public accommodations for purposes of
    federal and state anti-discrimination laws. For purposes of disability
    discrimination, the definition of a “public accommodation” is even more
    broad, encompassing most businesses that are open to the public
    (regardless of type).

    That’s so straightforward that even a Neandertal like yourself should be able to understand it.

    Privately-owned businesses and facilities that offer certain goods or
    services to the public — including food, lodging, gasoline, and
    entertainment — are considered public accommodations for purposes of
    federal and state anti-discrimination laws. For purposes of disability
    discrimination, the definition of a “public accommodation” is even more
    broad, encompassing most businesses that are open to the public
    (regardless of type). – See more at:
    http://civilrights.findlaw.com/enforcing-your-civil-rights/discrimination-in-public-accommodations.html#sthash.egjqTknD.dpuf

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    But you’re just a parrot spouting what you have been feed

    That’s rich, coming from an obvious Randtard like yourself …

  • stillgoodtotalk@gmail.com' David says:

    why would I want to silence you, you make me laugh. Except for the fact you represent a grave threat to freedom in this country, that’s not funny.

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    you represent a grave threat to freedom in this country,

    Oh, FFS. That is perhaps the most asinine thing I’ve ever read … unless, of course, you mean that you’re pissed that people of whom you don’t approve have the same rights in the public square that you do, and your freedom to be a bigot in business is “threatened.”

    I take it as a compliment, in that case. Because your right to bigot in the public square SHOULD be threatened. Freedom of association is *personal,* not institutional. If you own a public accommodation, you are required to serve the public. That’s been a matter of settled law since the 1960s. I’m surprised you missed the memo.

  • stillgoodtotalk@gmail.com' David says:

    religious beliefs are also personal and the gov’t has no right to force someone to compromise them. You are unable to see what a Pandora’s box is being opened by these attacks on businesses. Brainwashing at it’s best. When citizens are forced to betray their moral standards to appease the desires of a few the door to complete control by the gov’t is opened. The only workable answer in a diverse population is compromise, a gay couple need only find a new business it hurts no one. Yes a business is and should be required to serve the public. But they do have a right to decide what services. Should a kosher butcher shop be forced to sell pork? I am very heavy and that means that I cannot walk into any clothing store and find my size. BFD, I find one where I can. If A&F discriminating against me because I can’t shop there? Ridiculous. To some business owners a same sex union is not the same as a heterosexual marriage, period. In a free society they should have the right so say “we don’t provide services for same sex unions”. The fight for LGBT rights used to be about equality, now it’s about domination. One belief system CANNOT lord itself over the whole population. That is oppression, and that is the ultimate end to all this nonsense. When courts fall for the completely ridiculous whines about “emotional distress” and award ludicrous monetary punishments they have become a tool in the destruction of democracy. You joyfully (and viciously) support that. Fine, but society will reap what it is sowing and freedom in the USA will become a thing of the past.

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    The only workable answer in a diverse population is compromise, a gay couple need only find a new business it hurts no one.

    “The only workable answer in a diverse population is compromise. A Black man need only find a new business. It hurts no one.”

    “The only workable answer in a diverse population is compromise. A Latina need only find a new business. It hurts no one.”

    “The only workable answer in a diverse population is compromise. A Chinese man need only find a new business. It hurts no one.”

    You can also substitute Polish, Irish, Jewish, etc.

    Yes, you buffoon, it DOES hurt people. That’s why the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was created — because it DOES hurt real people when you deny them services because of your own prejudices.

    I’m sorry you’re too damned stupid to see that what you advocate is a return to Jim Crow, with gays being the new “n*****s.” The rest of us, however, can see it very plainly. Frankly, I am embarrassed for you.

  • stillgoodtotalk@gmail.com' David says:

    you should be embarrassed about confusing racial/ethnic heritage with a behavioral choice. You can’t/won’t see the difference between what someone is and something they choose to do – the union. People should NEVER be required to be a part of someone’s actions that they do not want to be. it has zero to do with the civil rights of the participants, they are not being stopped from their ceremony. The only possible reason to attack the businesses is because the couple arrogantly believes that everyone should be involved. It’s infantile to throw tantrums and run to the courts. It cheapens the real battles for civil rights, wastes court time and money and destroys innocent people who are just asking for respect for their religious beliefs.

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    you should be embarrassed about confusing racial/ethnic heritage with a behavioral choice.

    You should be embarrassed for thinking that sexual orientation is a choice.

    You should also be embarrassed for not being able to see that your bigotry is no different from that of the KKK. People don’t lose their civil rights under public accommodations for being gay, and it is NOT infantile to say so. What is infantile is saying that people whom you think are “icky” should be made to go elsewhere — and that is NO DIFFERENT WHATSOEVER from the segregation laws that I cited.

  • stillgoodtotalk@gmail.com' David says:

    nope, never said sexual orientation is a choice. behavior is clearly a choice, no one is obligated to be a part of someone else’s behavior choice. LGBT folk want the right to get married, fine whatever, no big deal (to me) but why do they (at least some of them, a nasty bitter minority) insist on forcing others to participate. These cases and racial bigotry could hardly be farther apart. But, fact is neither one of us will ever convince the other of our positions so as fun as it has been I’m am going to quietly bow out of the conversation. 🙂 adios

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    but why do they (at least some of them, a nasty bitter minority) insist on forcing others to participate.

    Baking a cake is not “participating.” It is business as usual if one is a baker.

    These cases and racial bigotry could hardly be farther apart.

    Only a simpleton could fail to see that they are 100 percent identical.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *