4 ms·

Luckily their participation is not necessary.

ctdonath 11y ago
The question isn't about whether they're necessary, the question is what happens to someone whose services are solicited and they refuse.
- dsr_ 11y ago
  Absolutely nothing. The government can't coerce religions to perform ceremonies. The right to marriage is not a religious right, it is a civil right, and will be provided by civil authorities. For example, in Massachusetts anyone can become a marriage officiant by applying to the governor. There's a form; permission is always granted. As a result, I have performed two marriages. The better question is, what happens to a civil official who declares that it is against their religion to perform their civil duty?
- jcater 11y ago
  My old church refused to marry anyone who was previously divorced. Clergy have a lot of leeway in who they can refuse. No one is forcing them to do anything.
- clavalle 11y ago
  Oh, I see. You are conflating a 'religious service provider' with, say, a business who bakes cakes. Religious institutions are not considered public accommodations so they are not required to offer their services without discrimination to protected classes.
  - hackuser 11y ago
    > Religious institutions are not considered public accommodations so they are not required to offer their services without discrimination to protected classes. What if their services are funded by the government, such as services to the poor? Can they refuse poor gay people?
    - clavalle 11y ago
      Is there any example of a religious marriage service being funded by the government? It seems like an unlikely, and possibly illegal, situation.
  - ctdonath 11y ago
    The baker in question specializes in weddings. They may refuse customers if the function at issue is not a wedding. The baker considers the formalized celebratory union of anyone other than a man + woman to be not a wedding. Now, based on no legislation (as one dissenting Justice makes scathingly clear), a new "protected class" has been created. The baker still considers a pair entering that "protected class" not a "wedding", a view the ruling notes still should be respected and free to hold & act on.
    - clavalle 11y ago
      Well, the SCOTUS just decided that same sex unions are, in fact, weddings and sex is an existing protected class based on actual legislation and precedent. That means the baker would be discriminating illegally as a public accommodation on a federal level if they refused their service based on the sex of that event's participants.
      - ctdonath 11y ago
        And, by same reasoning, the consequences to clergy are ...?
        clavalle 11y ago
        Non-existent because they do not provide a public accommodation and are exempt from legal entanglements based on discrimination. IOW, even though they provide a service, it is not the same class of service, legally, as a cake maker or any other for profit entity serving the public.
      - Pinckney 11y ago
        Public accommodations are not prohibited from discriminating on the basis of sex by federal law. Furthermore, the bakery is probably not a public accommodation under federal law unless it's principally selling food for consumption on the premises.

The question isn't about whether they're necessary, the question is what happens to someone whose services are solicited and they refuse.

dsr_ 11y ago
Absolutely nothing. The government can't coerce religions to perform ceremonies. The right to marriage is not a religious right, it is a civil right, and will be provided by civil authorities. For example, in Massachusetts anyone can become a marriage officiant by applying to the governor. There's a form; permission is always granted. As a result, I have performed two marriages. The better question is, what happens to a civil official who declares that it is against their religion to perform their civil duty?
jcater 11y ago
My old church refused to marry anyone who was previously divorced. Clergy have a lot of leeway in who they can refuse. No one is forcing them to do anything.
clavalle 11y ago
Oh, I see. You are conflating a 'religious service provider' with, say, a business who bakes cakes. Religious institutions are not considered public accommodations so they are not required to offer their services without discrimination to protected classes.
- hackuser 11y ago
  > Religious institutions are not considered public accommodations so they are not required to offer their services without discrimination to protected classes. What if their services are funded by the government, such as services to the poor? Can they refuse poor gay people?
  - clavalle 11y ago
    Is there any example of a religious marriage service being funded by the government? It seems like an unlikely, and possibly illegal, situation.
- ctdonath 11y ago
  The baker in question specializes in weddings. They may refuse customers if the function at issue is not a wedding. The baker considers the formalized celebratory union of anyone other than a man + woman to be not a wedding. Now, based on no legislation (as one dissenting Justice makes scathingly clear), a new "protected class" has been created. The baker still considers a pair entering that "protected class" not a "wedding", a view the ruling notes still should be respected and free to hold & act on.
  - clavalle 11y ago
    Well, the SCOTUS just decided that same sex unions are, in fact, weddings and sex is an existing protected class based on actual legislation and precedent. That means the baker would be discriminating illegally as a public accommodation on a federal level if they refused their service based on the sex of that event's participants.
    - ctdonath 11y ago
      And, by same reasoning, the consequences to clergy are ...?
      - clavalle 11y ago
        Non-existent because they do not provide a public accommodation and are exempt from legal entanglements based on discrimination. IOW, even though they provide a service, it is not the same class of service, legally, as a cake maker or any other for profit entity serving the public.
    - Pinckney 11y ago
      Public accommodations are not prohibited from discriminating on the basis of sex by federal law. Furthermore, the bakery is probably not a public accommodation under federal law unless it's principally selling food for consumption on the premises.