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

[Brittain33]

I think the rap is that church premises would have to be made available for gay unions, not that ministers would be forced to officiate. Involuntary or indentured servitude became beyond the pale some time ago. Is there any validity to the church premises rap? Certainly not for the sanctuary itself in my view, but perhaps more in play are ancillary church facilities that are sometimes rented out to third parties, which gets into equal protection and discrimination issues.

Hope this helps.

There's a case where a Methodist church in Ocean Grove, NJ, had a large oceanfront pavilion they used for some occasions, which they rent out and which they also took state money to fix up and restore. This community began as a Methodist summer retreat. After the pavilion was restored, they tried to exclude a same-sex couple from renting it and lost because of a state anti-discrimination law and the $ issue. That's the most common case cited by conservatives for how pastors are going to have to rent out their churches, which elides the fact that it a) wasn't a church, but a property owned by the church they rented out for other uses, and b) they took state $.

I bring this up because I saw this, I think on RedState.com, as "a Methodist church was sued and forced to rent their facility to a gay couple."

[Brittain33]

Has that EVER happened?  Anywhere?  Has anyone ever advocated that?

All of these Democratic announcements note that they don't support that, but shouldn't it go without saying?  Isn't it time to stop the inane fearmongering (lying)?

There have been lawsuits over failure to provide services or facilities to same-sex marriages and commitment ceremonies, so the concern is hardly far-fetched.  

Were any of the lawsuits targeted at religious groups for religious facilities?

I know of the Ocean Grove pavilion case and the photographer in New Mexico who was sued, but not of churches sued to open their facilities to same-sex couples.

Do you know of cases where a Catholic church was sued by a non-Catholic heterosexual couple to rent out their facility to them, or a similar cross-faith, opposite-sex wedding? In theory, that's the same situation. Has that happened? If so, what was the outcome? If not, what does that mean about the precedent for same-sex couples?

[Brittain33]

I don't think so. Catholic/Protestant couples don't really see the church's attitude towards them as a human rights issue.

Neither do same-sex couples, generally.

Many of them would like their religions to recognize them—I know some long-suffering Catholics like that—but they are the ones who aren't going to sue so they can hold their weddings in a facility which is operating under court order.  

[Brittain33]

No, I just mean that's why I doubt there have been any cases with straight wedding hall rentals.

I was raised Jewish and I can vouch that for as long as it was an issue, Jews did consider social exclusion from facilities on religious grounds to be a human rights issue. And yet you probably can't find a case of Jews suing for St. Patrick's Cathedral to host a Jewish wedding.

I find myself in conflict with religious groups who fight to keep civil marriage defined to my exclusion. But I could not give a damn about how they define marriage within their own traditions, since America has a diversity of faiths and they have a 1st amendment right to define it for their own adherents as they please. (As should the religions who recognize same-sex marriage...)

This distinction may not have been clear, but a lot of anger at the Mormon Church in 2008 centered on their efforts on behalf of Proposition 8 to define marriage for all Californians and not their practices within their own faith.

[Brittain33]

Facts matter don't they? Who knew?

I'm prickly about the idea that gays are are going to pursue litigation beyond what's needed for equality out of spite.

I've been thinking a lot lately about how different things look now from when I was married 9 years ago. Back then, I wouldn't say it was a hostile environment, but many people did respond as if it were a self-indulgent or deliberately provocative act. I know why they felt that way, but for me, it just wasn't - we got married for the same reasons straight people did, for the celebration and to announce our commitment. It couldn't help but be political. And I wasn't naive, I know how people viewed it, I just filtered out the awkwardness and made the best of it among our friends and family who were truly part of our happiness.

Now that we're on the verge of something big, I just can't be impersonal about this. No, we are not doing this because we're on a jihad against religious groups. We are not unreasonable. This is a conservative agenda if there ever was one. We just want equality.

[Brittain33]

Has that EVER happened?  Anywhere?  Has anyone ever advocated that?

All of these Democratic announcements note that they don't support that, but shouldn't it go without saying?  Isn't it time to stop the inane fearmongering (lying)?

Maybe not yet, but it's perfectly possible. If a two-man/two-woman union is considered a marriage, eventually there will be some couple that will want to get their marriage license at a church, and if they are denied, they will complain about how they aren't really equal because they don't get the church wedding they want.

Lots of things are perfectly possible, but we can't legislate solely around the unlikely or improbable in order to justify injustice.

It's perfectly possible that an inter-faith couple could sue the Catholic Church or a local church for not performing their wedding. And yet, it's never happened, or if it did, it got thrown out. Even if that interfaith couple felt really strongly about it.

[Brittain33]

Doesn't virtually every gay marriage bill also include some manner of religious exemption for churches? Has a gay couple ever forced a church to perform a ceremony against its wishes?

A problem isn't really a problem if it doesn't exist.

An issue right now is that the Illinois bill apparently doesn't, unlike the others.

[Brittain33]

Being a pharmacist is a non-religious position that is licensed by the state.

Arguments about faith for a pharmacist could pose a worse slippery slope... Claims of faith preventing someone from doing their job require confirmation or else it becomes an opening for fraud. It is one person's judgment--to say a Catholic pharmacist can't fill a birth control prescription for a Jewish patient requires, at best, a highly personal interpretation.

A priest is NOT a secular position with a highly individual definition of his faith. Not only that, but there is an extensive tradition of a 1st amendment shield around religious leaders and institutions performing religious duties.

[Brittain33]

Mike, do you support same-sex marriage with a written exemption for a religious institution's freedoms?

If you don't, then it might not be worthwhile to debate only on that point.

[Brittain33]

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?