Forcing a church to hold a gay wedding

Would it be considered infringing on religious freedom?

Or refusing to hold the wedding is infringing on marriage equality?

P.S. in your opinion (i.e. not what necessarily the law says).

It would be infringing on religious freedom, and it would probably split the supporters of gay marriage as some would see this as a bridge too far, and others would see this as something they should do.

There is absolutely no reason to force a church to hold a gay wedding.

Religious marriage and state marriage are two completely different things, with the signing of the state documents usually occurring in private or after the religious ceremony. So to force a church to perform a wedding for which they may or may not even have a ceremony for is ridiculous.

@chessmaster1989: Unless you count vindictiveness as a reason. Where people are mad at the particular church's beliefs and want the government to force the church to go against those beliefs. Also we could see the desire of the state to flex its muscles and push the church around as a reason to force them to host a wedding.

Are churches forced to accept interracial weddings?

@toast_burner: to my knowledge in the U.S. they aren't forced to accept any weddings against their beliefs, but I don't know how it is in other countries.

Then why is anyone concerned about churches being forced to marry gays? It's clearly not going to happen.

who cares???

@ferrari2001: I thought that in the U.S. the clergyman fulfills the civil requirements (i.e. the state or county's marriage license) at the same time as the religious ceremony. Though from what I understand in France it's different, people have to go to the mayor's office and have some little ceremony after the religious ceremony which seems to me to be an unnecessary step on the part of the French gov't, they should just let the clergy fill out the documents.

@toast_burner: Oh I think some on the far left would push to force churches to marry same-sex couples, but I don't think it will be successful. I have heard something of a push by some groups to go after the tax-exempt status of churches that won't perform same-sex marriages, but my guess is that doing that would be unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination, so they would have to take away the tax-exempt statuses of the other churches as well, but even then that might be viewpoint discrimination if they took away the exemption for all religious groups, so they would have to take away the tax exempt statuses of secular non-profits as well (which would really mean that if gay rights groups tried to go after the tax-exempt status of churches, they may end up jeopardizing their own tax exempt status as well).

the bigger concern is that individuals would be pushed to violate their beliefs on marriage or to keep silent about them, under penalties of government fines or losing their jobs.

Although churches have already started receiving litigations for not performing gay weddings (link). But my question is just a thought experiment to see what is acceptable today in the public opinion. i.e. where the line (in the public opinion) of religious freedom ends and marriage equality begins.

There is no need for the government to force a church into performing same sex weddings. That being said if private individuals would like to voice their distaste for their wedding being turned down (or some other variation of it such as people the church does business with) they can of course exercise their right to do so.

Unless I'm misreading that, the local minister does want to perform the ceremony but is being forced not to. Also Daily Mail

It's rubbing their noses in it, that's what it is. There are plenty of enough people willing to conduct gay marriages that someone isn't going to have a hard time getting married in a town they want. Some places would say no, others would do it. But demanding that it happen specifically at the places that don't want to do it is bullying, simple as that. These people don't just want to get married, they want to get married by someone that doesn't want to do it so they can say "In your face!"

It is a red herring. First, you state your fears that forcing churches to hold ceremonies is where things are headed. Then when gays are discriminated against in the marketplace and the vendors state they are doing it on religious grounds, religious people, having been warned that their churches and right to worship are next on the chopping block and sensing the two might be related, allow their tribalist fears to get the better of them and bring them to your side. Additionally, conservative politicians engage in this business for the same reasons (i.e. getting the fearfully religious on their side), but most of the politicians are not actually personally bigots, just hypocrites and liars.

Likewise, the topic creator posted a link about someone suing the Church of England, this too is a red herring. The Church of England is a government established church, we have no such Church of America, as here there is a separation of church and state. The leader of the Church of England is the Queen of England. This relationship to the government means if the Anglican church is discriminatory, the government itself is being discriminatory.

Additionally, it is meant to create a false sense of equivalence between the largely exaggerated discrimination faced by Christians, who form a very large majority within the society, and the very real discrimination faced by LGBT minorities. By creating a common narrative of victimhood among themselves, it allows them to further separate themselves in a tribal way and define who is in and who is out, which is very important at the moment because society just erased one of the key symbols separating the groups, which they used to keep LBGT out. Most of this is being done subconsciously, just natural animalistic tribal instincts at work.

@Wickerman777:

I see, good point. What's your stance / personal opinion on forcing someone to bake a cake for a gay wedding?

I have heard you use this "vindictive" argument on multiple occasions. I'd like to better understand your position on it. Now I'm not for the government to try to appease the upset people by telling a church what it has to do in the face of their outrage. I believe the people have a right to try to push for change through the government on this and anything else that they would like, but the government cannot acquiesce when it comes to making the church infringe on it's own beliefs.

That's where I'm at with it, but in the past you have appeared to be upset with members of the LGBT community for voicing their outrage to the media and encouraging others to not support or no longer support a church or business due to the way they were treated. Is this actually the case or am I mistaken? If I am mistaken please help clear this up.

I think those not wanting to make them should just say doing so would offend their Muslim customers. :)

So would you be ok with a shop saying "No blacks allowed" or "No Christians"?

Also a good point. Btw, what's your stance on churches refusing to hold a gay wedding?

Ugghh, what you quoted was a joke. But anyway, discrimination against Christians is considered fine by leftists, it's even encouraged. It's other religions they bend over backward for.

A church is a religious institution, not a business. The entire point of it is to follow a set of beliefs. So if they believe that marriage is between a man and a woman of the same race and religion, then that's all there is to it. You don't expect a Mosque to perform a Jewish wedding so why would anyone expect a homophobic church to perform a same sex wedding?

I see, so would it be ok for a church to deny a black / interracial couple wedding based on race?

It's no worse than denying a couple based on their sexuality.

Correct me if I'm wrong, what you're saying is it would be considered infringing on religious freedom if a church is not allowed the freedom to discriminate based on race?

What I'm saying is that it makes them immoral pieces of shit, but they have the right to be immoral pieces of shit if they want to.

I see, that's a consistent stance of you. Thanks for the answer.

Even talking about this is just absurd. It's just more conservative sour grapes and fear-mongering. No one is interested in a gay wedding at a church under such circumstances, especially when there are churches that perform gay weddings all the time.

No one discriminates against Christians. Another faux "war on Chriatianity". However, rational, critical thinkers do ridicule their goofy magical beliefs, a trend that I sincerely hope not only continues, but intensifies.

I think the better question is, why would anyone want a service to be provided by someone who hates you? Particularly a wedding, that is supposedly a celebration of love and a day you'd want to remember.

"The wedding was so beautiful...John and Adam were so happy...too bad about the homophobic priest..."

Lol, just words. Meanwhile the real world goes on.

Exactly my point. "In the name of the father, the son..." They're just nonsensical, made-up words. I am glad we agree.

Good point, I mean, from the perspective of what kind of cake I would expect if I forced someone that dislike me to do it.

But I think they do it (i.e. forcing someone to perform a service) out of principal.

However, those are non-essential services which you can live without. But the scary part is when someone is discriminating against you and you need their help for essential services.

Despite the propaganda coming from homophobes the law does not force any religious organization to perform or recognize any marriage that violates their beliefs. That doesn't mean that people won't disagree with and protest their stance but 1st amendment not only protects their rights but also those of the people who disagree with them.

Typically bakeries have a selection of cakes to choose from. So what kind of cake you would expect would be whatever one you chose.

@Mystery_Writer: I've been asked to leave a few establishments for being Moroccan (which I'm not, but I didn't care enough to correct them, they can suck me) and while that's shitty I'd rather be told upfront I'm not wanted there and go somewhere else than them being forced to serve me and me being offered a half-assed service (especially at restaurants...I prefer my food without the staff's DNA)...now if I'm at the hospital and they tell me to **** off, then yeah, that would suck...

@korvus:

yep, agree 100%, would definitely appreciate knowing upfront so I won't risk getting a service from them. Nobody wins in forcing a service, it has to come from the heart.

even for wedding cakes? In any case, I think it's safer to avoid than to force them to serve you.

Church's shouldn't be forced. So far here its a non issue

Indeed. It shouldn't be an issue for them, if they value "love" above all else.

It would be funny if the WBC held a gay wedding though :3

The civic side of things involves signing all the legal paperwork that officially makes one legally married. Most religious ceremonies do not expressly perform this function. Especially at Catholic weddings for example, the bride and groom usually go into the sacristy of the church after the wedding ceremony and sign the court paperwork there. This fulfills the legal requirements for state marriage while the actually ceremony is expressly a religious one. Many other denominations do similar things.

Oh look more non-issues from the Christian right. *yawns*

Yes, and I'm not sure why there should even be such a thing as "gay politics". Any marriage, regardless of whether it's between opposite or the same gender, should be viewed the same in the eyes of the law in terms of what rights they have, etc. A civil union/domestic partnership should be the legal abstraction the government deals with which should encompass marriage and non-religious legally recognized partnerships. The government should leave the issue of whether gay couples can marry (which is traditionally a religious ceremony) for the individual churches to decide. Basically: Church =/= State.

Right? There is nothing forcing a church to marry gay couples, yet more than half of the 2016 Republican candidates are making this their main issue. Fucking idiots, let's fight something that isn't there.

Sometimes I wish politicians would walk hand in hand right over a cliff.

Well I don't see why a gay couple would do that knowing that they will most likely be judged right on the spot and denied. Then again, you can't force these individuals to shut up and force them to arrange a gay marriage since churches are considered private organizations thus that would infringe their beliefs.

@Mystery_Writer: A church doesn't provide a public service, and a service in a church is not NEEDED to get married. Their is no logical pathway at all to churches being forced to host gay wedding ceremonies. Same sex couples have the right to marriage, they do not have the right to a religious ceremony to confirm that marriage in the eyes of whatever god they may believe in. The insistence that this will happen is simply more of the rampant Christian persecution complex. They are so convinced that they are an oppressed minority that they fail to realize the simple reality that throughout the history of this country, they are the ones persecuting and oppressing.

So the LGBT movement achieved a major triumph lately by instating marriage equality nationwide, good for them. They, however, mustn't be dicks about it. Forcing churches to perform SSM would be pushing the envelope and it may galvanize fundamentalist Christians into shooting down the rainbow. Talks about secession might also become fashionable again.

Buggery remains a contentious issue in the U.S despite all the legal strides for its institutionalization. At this point it must be approached judiciously lest it result in an irrevocable schism. Besides, why would a gay couple want to get married in a church? That sounds bizarre.