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

[afleitch]

Muon, the problem is you’re hypothesising. Same sex marriage is simply an extension of marriage law which has been changed over time. First cousin marriage was legal in all states before the civil war and then because marriage started to become more and more about exercising public morality, bans started to creep into state law. Laws were then extended to include interracial marriage and to make divorce and the re-marriage of divorcees easier. Yet the Catholic Church can still refuse to marry divorcees, churches can refuse to marry a couple if one of them is of a different religion and so on.

Echoing earlier sentiments in this thread, can you name an example whereby an opposite sex marriage has legally challenged a religious body to marry them against that churches will and succeeded? Or do you accept that marriage law allows all forms of religious marriage, religious refusal to marry and marriage by a registrar to co-exist. Why demand a religious exemption for same sex marriage only when one isn’t currently needed to allow millions of marriages to take place already?

So what happens if you do include one? Benj pointed out in an earlier thread that in New Hampshire where there is an exemption, there is now a pending suit that is trying to force a priest to perform an interfaith marriage. It claims that the law's inclusion of a religious exemption allowing priests to refuse to perform same-sex marriages on religious grounds made an implication that there was no exemption for refusing to perform any other type of marriage.

There is no need to complicate what really is a very simple matter to legislate.

[afleitch]

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?

[afleitch]

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?

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 different denomination reception without being forced to close their doors to all other groups not directly related to the school or church?

If you think these are also adequate concerns too then say so, and point out where current marriage and discrimination law doesn't address these concerns. If you don't think these are valid objections then say so. If however you think the only problem is with same sex marriage and anti-discrimination protections for LGBT citizens then say so.