I'm gonna be careful here because I know that this topic gets people defensive.
In the article it says that this church has been threatened with legal action if they don't stop discriminating against who they will marry and who they won't.
"Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed a federal lawsuit and a motion for a temporary restraining order Friday to stop officials in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, from forcing two ordained Christian ministers to perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples. ... "The government should not force ordained ministers to act contrary to their faith under threat of jail time and criminal fines," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco.""
I do support this position. "The government should not force ordained ministers to act contrary to their faith under threat of jail time and criminal fines." Makes sense right?
However, the article does point out that the 'Hitching Post' as it has been lovingly called, is a business, not a ministry, therefore it should comply with anti discrimination laws. And I can see that but the idea of it still bugs me. Would people really go as far as demanding actual ministries to perform same sex marriages under threat of criminal charges? That annoys, irritates and somewhat angers me.
Whatever, equal rights for everyone. That makes sense and I support that. Free agency. But forcing another to comply with your beliefs because they don't support them...doesn't that raise some red flags?
Now I know that this was all hypothetical and didn't actually happen but it got pretty close here...all those lawyers just found a legal loophole to strangle them with.
What do you think about it?
Comment below, let me know! You can view the article here.
It was only a matter of time before issues like this appeared. I agree that religious entities and leaders should not be required to marry certain people, but in this case it was a business. A church/business makes things a little tricky. So which one is it really? I am sure there will be more cases similar to this one in the future as the country tries to figure out what legalizing same-sex marriage really means and where the line is drawn between discrimination and infringement on other's rights.
ReplyDeleteI agree in the fact that it was a business. But I don't believe that the authorities that pressed charges did so because it was a business. I think they did it to shove it down a religions throat. I believe they did it because it was religiously motivated.
DeleteMy view on same-sex marriage is this: I don't care. Just don't be up in my face about it with the gay right parades. Just don't be a sore winner. I agree that churches have the right to refuse to marry a same-sex couple. They can just go get married at the court house. I feel that if they want a specific church to marry them it's saying that we won you lost and now you have to marry us. That is what I don't like.
ReplyDeleteYes, marriage could be considered a business. However, in this case, religion trumps business, because there are also laws about the rights of a religious group. Although sometimes it seems like a tangle of a legal mess, the trick of a good government is to find the balance between what makes different groups completely satisfied. This is a new thing to our country, and it's going to take awhile to work out the kinks. And hopefully someday we will succeed!:)
ReplyDeleteIn our Country, religions will never be forced to perform marriages they don't believe is right. Separation of church and state. Don't worry so much that gay people can get married, if we're going to worry about marriage, worry that most straight people don't get married and divorce rates are as high as ever, who cares if gay people get married? Most were living together anyway. There is no legal justification that can stand that can prohibit a gay couple from marrying, preventing the marriages from being recognized was a civil rights infringement.
ReplyDelete