Why do Republicans pretend ministers will be forced to perform gay marriages?

[muon2]

Torie has touched on tolerance in handling the issue of gay marriage. Here's a related article on the topic from John Kass, a prominent Chicago Tribune columnist, and orthodox Greek. My apologies if this is still behind the paper's subscriber wall. In case it is here's the core of the article.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[muon2]

Forcing someone to officiate over a wedding to which they take religious exception clearly violates the First Amendment in my view - and should. Period. That lawsuit in NH should go nowhere I would think.

Of course it won't go anywhere. So if such challenges will go nowhere, why is there a push amongst some to codify a religious objection in law for same sex marriage only?

Last year the IL courts overturned a administrative rule that required religiously objecting pharmacists from dispensing morning-after pills. That creates a precedent for one type of religious objector who would otherwise be forced to comply or go out of business.

Is there a parallel then for a photographer who objects to same sex marriage, but could be forced out of business by the state if services are denied on that basis?

Is there a parallel for a church that runs a school and allows community groups to use the gymnasium for a fee (or donation) from barring a same sex marriage reception without being forced to close their doors to all other groups not directly related to the school or church?

The IL bill is written in such a way as to keep the IL courts from deciding these cases in the same way it did for the pharmacists.

[muon2]

Forcing someone to officiate over a wedding to which they take religious exception clearly violates the First Amendment in my view - and should. Period. That lawsuit in NH should go nowhere I would think.

Of course it won't go anywhere. So if such challenges will go nowhere, why is there a push amongst some to codify a religious objection in law for same sex marriage only?

Last year the IL courts overturned a administrative rule that required religiously objecting pharmacists from dispensing morning-after pills. That creates a precedent for one type of religious objector who would otherwise be forced to comply or go out of business.

Is there a parallel then for a photographer who objects to same sex marriage, but could be forced out of business by the state if services are denied on that basis?

Is there a parallel for a church that runs a school and allows community groups to use the gymnasium for a fee (or donation) from barring a same sex marriage reception without being forced to close their doors to all other groups not directly related to the school or church?

The IL bill is written in such a way as to keep the IL courts from deciding these cases in the same way it did for the pharmacists.

The pharmacy issue is a false equivalency as was already stated by brittain. My point still stands. To take your examples how about these scenarios;

Is there a parallel then for a photographer who objects to interracial marriage, but could be forced out of business by the state if services are denied on that basis?

I believe that decisions based on race are held to a higher constitutional standard, and interracial marriage is not analogous to same sex marriage for purposes of state law.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I know of a number of churches that have barred groups from sufficiently different religions from using facilities for their ceremonies. I know of no repercussions from their actions in that regard.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even though my faith has no objection to same sex marriage, I feel there should be a balance point where personal and institutional religious belief deserves protection, beyond the protection of just the priest and the sanctuary. As I noted the pharmacist case is now decided law in IL, and they can be protected when their job clashes with faith, but I don't know whether the licensing functions of the state should have an equal parallel with other businesses, licensed or not. I am putting out examples to get feedback so that I might see why they either make sense or not as examples of balanced protection.

[muon2]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Back in the States Muon2? How was Paris? 

If we are talking about a clerk having religious objections to gay marriage, handing out the license, that is a very minor matter, no?  And if an Illinois court case held that reasonable accommodations to religious practices need to be afforded to employees, surely that applies to government employees no? If so, that issue is already dealt with. I have trouble believing frankly any clerk performing such a ministerial function would object to handing out a piece of paper he is duty bound to give out in any event.

Am I missing something here? 

Steve

I don't see a problem with the government clerk. If it is state law than state or local offices must provide the service. How that service is delivered is implementation at the office level.

My question is about private self-employed businesses. The individual proprietors in the pharmacist case were granted the ability to object to providing certain services on religious grounds. Should private sole proprietors be granted the same ability to refuse services for same sex weddings based on religious grounds? The question is relevant because as the bill is drafted, the IL court would likely reach a different conclusion than they did with the pharmacists.

[muon2]

Is your concern about vendors not affiliated with a religious group, like a florist or a photographer, or religious organizations as vendors of churches and wedding services? 

I asked two questions, because I see each of them creating situations that require some thought. One question is about private vendors who are personally religious but not part of a religious organization. The other question is about religious organizations that provide services as missions beyond worship services.