The flip-side of same-sex marriage [Frightening Implications!]

LA Times ^ | May 03rd 2009

[Steelfish]

The flip-side of same-sex marriage Those who object on religious grounds need legal protection too.

By Robin Wilson

May 3, 2009 As a growing number of states stand poised to pass same-sex marriage laws, they should consider this: It's possible to legalize gay marriage without infringing on religious liberty. But it takes careful crafting of robust religious protections. And no state has gotten that right yet.

The country is deeply divided on same-sex marriage. But once it is recognized legally, all kinds of people -- clerks in the local registrar's office, photographers, owners of reception halls, florists -- might not have the legal right to refuse to provide services for same-sex weddings, even if doing so would violate deeply held beliefs.

Religious organizations could be affected too. For example, a Catholic university that offers married-student housing might have to rent to married same-sex couples or risk violating state law.

These are not imagined or speculative concerns. Flash-points over same-sex unions are already occurring across the United States. In Iowa, the state's attorney general told county recorders that they must issue licenses to same-sex couples or face criminal misdemeanor charges and even dismissal.

New Mexico's Human Rights Commission fined a husband-wife photography team more than $6,000 because they declined to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony. In New Jersey, authorities yanked the property tax exemption of a church group that denied requests by two lesbian couples to use the group's boardwalk pavilion for their commitment ceremonies.

[gridlock]

One of the flash points over Proposition 8 in California was the fact that the California same-sex marriage law would require schools to teach that homosexual marriages were the equivalent of heterosexual marriages.

[EagleUSA]

As long as the left has a deathgrip on Washington the i8ssue will remain one-sided. Remember, it is all about power. Not people.

[mathurine]

Wierdos do flash easily.

[stylin19a]

The country is deeply divided on same-sex marriage.

since when ? POLL

[BlueStateBlues]

The bakeries will just have to stock up on Ken and Ken dolls, not to mention Judy and Judith’s.

[Nam Vet]

Damn libs desecrate anything and everything they get near. Pure scum. They care not for anyone's feelings and convictions but their own.

Nam Vet

[Verginius Rufus]

It’s worse in Canada—a “human rights commission” regularly levies heavy fines on people for saying something which offends a homosexual (and it doesn’t have to be a one-on-one conversation). The New Mexico case is a warning sign that the same thing could happen in the US, given the intolerance of the Obamaphiles for any views differing from their own.

[L,TOWM]

There are many in this country that will not be happy until actual biblical christianity is practiced underground in homes and basements, with the practioners ruthlessly hunted down and prosecuted by the authorities. Just like the old USSR or the PRC and Cuba today.

The hollow luke warm social clubs of many mainline Protestant churches or the “progressive” Catholics will still be permitted to openly meet, but why would anyone bother supporting “churches” with beliefs that changes with the wind direction?

[gridlock]

It is becoming clear that any religious institution that does not want to be ordered around by the Federal Government must completely avoid any Federal funding at all. As soon as they take one thin dime, the Feds will own them.

That is why the Faith-Based Initiatives of GWB were so wrong-headed. The FedGuv is not to be trusted.

[narses]

+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.

Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment

Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”

[gridlock]

“Deeply Divided” is Lib-Speak for “We’re getting our butts kicked in the polls”...

[SECURE AMERICA]

The country is deeply divided on same-sex marriage. But once it is recognized legally, all kinds of people — clerks in the local registrar’s office, photographers, owners of reception halls, florists — might not have the legal right to refuse to provide services for same-sex weddings, even if doing so would violate deeply held beliefs.

moght not have a legal right?
The homofascist have already sued and closed business that refused to cater to their needs.

[OpeEdMunkey]

New Mexico's Human Rights Commission fined a husband-wife photography team more than $6,000 because they declined to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony

Huh?

In one of my other lives I'm a photographer. Unless these people are the only photographers for 100 miles I don't see how this could happen. Far as I know I can chose to accept or decline any job as I see fit.

[Fred Hayek]

I would choose to shut down my business and resort to flipping hambergers at McDonalds - just enough to get by, but pay an absolute minumum in taxes.

[Tax-chick]

Far as I know I can chose to accept or decline any job as I see fit.

Not in New Mexico.

[KrisKrinkle]

Doesn’t matter if the split is 50/50 or 98/2. The divide between the two sides is still deep.

[Mr. Blonde]

Punishing people for refusing business is dumb. The lowered income should be punishment enough. The photographer down the road will make that much more by being open to photos of any marriage. Of course the fact that there are probably a variety of places open to serving gay couples won’t matter. The goal will be to make sure all of these businesses do.

I would guess the countdown is on for the Supreme Court weighing the free exercise of religion vs. freedom from discrimination for homosexuals. It will be interesting to see how Kennedy rules as I think the other eight are kind of a given. A quick glance at his Wikipedia page says he wrote the decision to invalidate Colorado’s ban on gays bringing discrimination claims. So it would appear that based on the current makeup (and expected future makeup) that this case will not end in the desired way.

[DakotaRed]

And for how many years has the left tried to convince us that same-sex marriage affects no one else?

They won’t stop until they have totally destroyed the moral fabric of American society.

On another thought, being a non-legal minded person, since the first amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” could some slick attorney build an argument of how same-sex marriage violates this as currently being passed?

It would seem to me that these same-sex marriage laws and ramifications of them against religious people violates their “free exercise of.”

Then again, it might be difficult today to find a federal judge that actually believes in the constitution.

[NYer]

Vatican Document On Homosexual Unions

“Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition. Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race. The possibility of using recently discovered methods of artificial reproduction, beyond involving a grave lack of respect for human dignity,(15) does nothing to alter this inadequacy.”
CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

Catholic Ping List
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list