Louisiana won't Recognize Same-Sex Marriages

[DocM]

That may be how you wish things were but its not the case see Katzenbach v. McClung

That only applies to interstate transactions or customers or goods that have moved in interstate commerce, which is what the Feds have jurisdiction over.

Locally provided goods or services are another matter, and in fact Michigan and other states provide no such protection because sexual orientation isn't in their civil rights statutes.

[FloatingFatMan]

I'm in two minds about refusal of service.  On the one hand, any business should be allowed to refuse service without having to give a reason.  On the other, if they have free reign on that, some will stop serving anyone who isn't a 6 ft white, blue eyed, bible carrying, Christian, and that just isn't acceptable.  

 

TBH, if you're running a business, then you must be pretty slow in the head to refuse custom just because your personal beliefs don't tally with your customers.

 

Perhaps the best way to manage all this is to negate ALL reasons for refusal of service except for reasons of abuse, damage or theft; things which are directly actionable by the police.

[TPreston]

That only applies to interstate transactions or customers or goods that have moved in interstate commerce, which is what the Feds have jurisdiction over.

And there also state anti discrimination laws.

 

Locally provided goods or services are another matter, and in fact Michigan and other states provide no such protection because sexual orientation isn't in their civil rights statutes.

Still voids his claim that discrimination is covered by freedom of religion.

[FloatingFatMan]

Still voids his claim that discrimination is covered by freedom of religion.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the freedom of religion amendment literally just mean that the state cannot promote one faith over another?  In which case, discrimination shouldn't really come into it at all...

[DocM]

And there also state anti discrimination laws.

See my second paragraph below: many state laws do not include sexual orientation as protected classes. Michigan is one of them.

Still voids his claim that discrimination is covered by freedom of religion.

In the case of RFRA, just because gays can marry doesn't mean opposed clergy can be forced to do the ceremony. City Hall is that-a-away -->

(and for the record: I'm doing devils advocacy here as I don't care who you marry)

[FloatingFatMan]

See my second paragraph below: many states do not include sexual orientation as protects classes.

In the case of RFRA just because gays can marry doesn't mean opposed clergy can be forced to do the ceremony. City Hall is that-a-away -->

(and for the record: I'm doing devils advocacy here as I don't care who you marry)

 

When SSM was legalised in the UK, our gov built in special protections into the law so that no vicar etc could be forced to perform the ceremony; it's completely voluntary and no discrimination charge can be brought if refused.  The only ones that can't refuse are the county registrars, who do the non-religious ceremonies.

 

That said, there are plenty of churches around who are perfectly happy to perform a religious ceremony for same sex couples.

[DocM]

Exactly. I'm Evangelical Lutheran and it does gay marriages, has gay clergy etc. Same goes for the Presbyterians etc.

[TPreston]

See my second paragraph below: many state laws do not include sexual orientation as protected classes. Michigan is one of them.

That wasn't his claim, His claim was that

 

If you own a business you can refuse service to anyone on ground guaranteed through the constitution.  (religious freedom)

 

[DocM]

For services that could be true if the person asking for the service is not a protected class in the civil rights statute. Or if the goods were not involved in interstate commerce under federal law.

In many States LGBT's are not a protected classes.

[TPreston]

For services that could be true if the person asking for the service is not a protected class in the civil rights statute. Or if the goods were not involved in interstate commerce under federal law.

In many States gays are not a protected class.

And that will change following this ruling, But the argument that religious freedom covers discrimination is a non starter, it doesn't.

[DocM]

No - it won't change under this ruling, which was narrowly focussed on the subject of gay marriage. Other items are still as they were.

[TPreston]

No - it won't change under this ruling, which was narrowly focussed on the subject of gay marriage. Other items are still as they were.

Please at this pace id give it no more than 5 years being conservative.

[DocM]

What, SCOTUS? Just remember that any appointments have to get through the Senate and the most likely justices to leave are its most liberal ones.

If, for example, Justice Ginsberg had to step down because of her health, which is poor, the Senate could refuse to approve a new justice until after the 2016 presidential election. That would leave 8 justices and one less liberal vote.

Also; any Senator can kill an appointment from their home State. Example: if Obama appointed a very liberal candidate justice from Texas, Ted Cruz could kill the appointment.

[ATLien_0]

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/oagnews/release.php?id=5144

 

Looks like the Texas Attorney General is allowing state officials to refuse to marry if they feel their religious beliefs are being harmed. 

Oh the comments on his facebook announcement are great, Texans are tearing this guy a new one and requesting he resign for putting religion above his job and the law. 

 

I just don't get why its so hard for these guys to see a non Christians point of view on this issue. If your religious views were that violated you need to step aside and let someone else who can uphold the constitutional laws do the job. 

[TPreston]

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/oagnews/release.php?id=5144

 

Looks like the Texas Attorney General is allowing state officials to refuse to marry if they feel their religious beliefs are being harmed. 

Oh the comments on his facebook announcement are great, Texans are tearing this guy a new one and requesting he resign for putting religion above his job and the law. 

http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20091015/ARTICLES/910159860?tc=ar

[Jub]

Looks like the Texas Attorney General is allowing state officials to refuse to marry

 

Would be awesome if they also refused taxes from gay people. 

[DoctorD]

MMM Yeah....., Something tells me this guy doesn't understand that he is a public servant and his personal views stop at the door.   Apparently he wants to be the litmus test on violating federal laws and being removed from office.

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/oagnews/release.php?id=5144

 

Looks like the Texas Attorney General is allowing state officials to refuse to marry if they feel their religious beliefs are being harmed. 

Oh the comments on his facebook announcement are great, Texans are tearing this guy a new one and requesting he resign for putting religion above his job and the law. 

 

I just don't get why its so hard for these guys to see a non Christians point of view on this issue. If your religious views were that violated you need to step aside and let someone else who can uphold the constitutional laws do the job. 

[A Real American!]

Would be awesome if they also refused taxes from gay people. 

 

 

         

[soniqstylz]

How does one define a heterosexual interfaith marriage that is not recognized by either religion?

 

Also, the Bible supports polygamy all the way back to Genesis 4, why is this illegal?

[Emn1ty]

MMM Yeah....., Something tells me this guy doesn't understand that he is a public servant and his personal views stop at the door.   Apparently he wants to be the litmus test on violating federal laws and being removed from office.

 

This is one of the issues SCOTUS brought up when they were talking about this ruling, whether or not religious institutions would be forced to perform ceremony as representatives of the State in matters of marriage. What may come of this is that religious groups will lose the right to marry if they do not agree with same sex marriage (a big paradigm shift and a logistical nightmare for many people).

 

And this doesn't even touch what it means for anti-gay marriage non-profit organizations. When they put a stop to the interracial marriage bans for being white supremacy any non-profit that disagreed with that notion lost their tax exemptions (due to it being a political position). Now that same sex marriage is a political matter they may be heavily restricted in what they can and cannot do regarding the topic. If they can't campaign on it that may mean they can't preach on it... and thus non-profit churches may end up losing a lot of tax-exemptions as a result if they have as a part of their core beliefs and must preach it (assuming preaching is considered "campaigning"). This sort of puts a nail in the coffin at the idea that same sex marriage doesn't hurt anybody, it may very well hurt thousands of people and/or organizations.

 

The difference between the UK and the US is the that the UK worked out the laws before passing them. Right now there's no rules, just a ruling.

[TPreston]

This is one of the issues SCOTUS brought up when they were talking about this ruling, whether or not religious institutions

Government isn't a religious institution.

 

If they can't campaign on it that may mean they can't preach on it... and thus non-profit churches may end up losing a lot of tax-exemptions as a result if they have as a part of their core beliefs and must preach it (assuming preaching is considered "campaigning").

So basically things are going to be exactly as they have been before. What we have here is an attempted power grab by christian conservatives.

[DefyTheOutcome]

MMM Yeah....., Something tells me this guy doesn't understand that he is a public servant and his personal views stop at the door.   Apparently he wants to be the litmus test on violating federal laws and being removed from office.

 

He is sadly not the only one:

 

* Roy Moore's Group Vows To Defy Gay Marriage Decision In Alabama

Roy Moore is the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. Fun fact, in 2003, he was removed from his position after defying a federal ruling

* Huckabee Urges Governors To Defy Supreme Court Marriage Ruling, Says Marriage Equality Violates The First Amendment

Mike Huckabee, Former Arkansas governor

Kinda pathetic coming from elected officials

[Emn1ty]

Government isn't a religious institution.

 

So basically things are going to be exactly as they have been before. What we have here is an attempted power grab by christian conservatives.

 

Government being religious or not has nothing to do with them granting power to marry to priests and other religious figures. The documentations is still state documentation, it's just that you can do it at some churches. But now, that power may be stripped from many churches making the process of marriage to go to a courthouse. If more people are going to government facilities they could get crowded (especially now in states where their infrastructure isn't meant to handle it). You can't just handwave away the problems with making the changes  by saying "It shouldn't have been that way". Well sorry but it is that way. They are still problems.

 

And I have no idea what you mean by the the "power grab" statement. How does a non-profit having tax exemption indicate a power grab? You really like to pull issues out of thin air TPreston.

[-T- Member]

Can't be bothered reading this whole thread but is this mostly dumb people cherry picking parts of the bible to deny the rights of others, while ignoring the parts of the bible they violate constantly?

[ATLien_0]

Churches, priests and other religious figures shouldn't be forced to marry gay couples. Thats a church matter and if they feel they need protection from that, then maybe that will be a separate issue that needs to be talked about. 

This would be like a church being told to marry an orthodox jewish couple or vise versa. It just doesn't happen unless its been approved or talked about with the church or synagogue . But as someone who is Jewish, there are many things I see Christians do that don't follow my religion, but I don't try to tell them what to do through laws.