Do Pastors Have the Right to Refuse Conducting A Gay Wedding

jgh7 · Post by **jgh7** » Sun Sep 13, 2015 12:32 pm

So legal authorities in the state have to issue gay marriage licenses.

But what about the actual wedding? What if there's a Christian religious gay couple, and the only pastor in their town refuses to participate as the speaker/conductor in their wedding. The religious gay couple wants the pastor to conduct it so that they have a proper Christian wedding.

Are or should there be laws forcing pastors to conduct the wedding and not refuse based on their beliefs/prejudices?

Jashwell · Post by **Jashwell** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 3:27 pm

jgh7 wrote: [Replying to post 19 by Jashwell]

I love how people take what you say, and then they take it to the utter extreme and equate you to a fascist. Here's an idea, let's not see how far I'm willing to go. How about instead you just take it for what it is at face value and not try to straw man me into an utter fascist nazi who believes we need to control people's friends and relationships.

I asked you yes-no questions. Literally the purpose was for you to answer yes or no. Asking questions is not straw-manning. You could've replied "no, no, and no", and then that would be that. But since you (I assume, you didn't actually answer the questions) think it should be allowed for people to discriminate (e.g. be racist) when it comes to their friends and loved ones - what if someone only allows their friends into their organisation... and happens to be a racist? What if someone is hiring a kissogram, a hostess, a prostitute or something similar... and happens to be racist? (In the latter, they're be sexist too if they weren't bisexual or asexual.)

Thinking that racist (or sexist, or homophobic, etc) groups shouldn't be allowed to exist is literally a form of fascism. I didn't call you a nazi, they obviously had different ideas of which groups aren't allowed.

As to your actual argument, you seem to equate a church to completely private property just the same as someone's house is. I don't view a church that way at all. Like I said, the best analogy I can give is to view it like a golf course, and the law prevents golf courses from denying people access based solely on prejudice. But to each his own.

Not if it's a privately owned golf course.

What are you going to do when churches become private property? They'll do exactly the same thing they do now, function exactly the same, have literally no difference in behaviour. Is your entire annoyance at the fact that they might not be classified as private property? I doubt it.

The whole idea with the analogy of a party in your house with your friends is this:
Your house could literally be a church.
Your friends could be whoever you wanted, on whatever basis you wanted.
The party could be a wedding - you can discriminate all you like when it comes to what's allowed at the party.

bluethread · Post by **bluethread** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 3:42 pm

jgh7 wrote:
bluethread wrote:
jgh7 wrote:
Yes, the ceremony is not a state requirement and I find this to be bad. I'm saying the state should take an act in preventing prejudice among ceremonies. Whether it be refusing people to have a ceremony at a certain place due to them being gay, or refusing to conduct a ceremony because they are gay. These are both prejudices and are not right. Why do we say this is okay simply because of wanting to cling on to seperation of church and state?
So, you believe that a Buddhist temple should be required to perform weddings for Catholics, or Mormons should be required to provide Temple weddings to non Mormons? Should a synagogue be required to perform a ceremony for neo-Nazis?
No that is not what I am saying at all. I am speaking strictly about gay prejudice, and only about gay prejudice.

I am not speaking about denying marriage ceremonies because of completely different religious ideologies. But denying someone a marriage ceremony even if they have the same religious ideology except with the one caveat that they believe in gay equality- that is completely wrong. It is equivalent to prejudice and the churches should be bound by the law of prejudice just as the rest of the state is. There should not be seperation of church and state in that regard.

Don't try and strawman me.

No straw man, that is a completely different religious ideology. If someone was completely Torah observant except for that little commandment regarding not eating pork, I definitely would not let them bring anything to oneg(the Shabbat meal), let alone accept the requirement that we throw a pork banquet in their honor.

The same goes for your golf analogy. It is exactly what you are requiring. People can play golf according to all the rules of golf with a baseball bat, if it weren't for those club "prejudices".

jgh7 · Post by **jgh7** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 4:11 pm

[Replying to Jashwell]

If your entire thesis is to label me as a type of fascist then fine, do it. I don't care. Edit: and if you simply wanted a yes/no answer, then no no no. Happy?

I understand your house party analogy. As I said, I don't view a church the same way I view a house. I view it the same way as I view a business. In the same way a business can't refuse to service its clients because they are gay, a church shouldn't be allowed to refuse to service its clients because they are gay. Churches should allow their gay members to have weddings at their church. It is wrong for them to deny a wedding at the church solely because they are gay.

You view churches like personal houses. I do not.

bluethread · Post by **bluethread** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 4:13 pm

Jashwell wrote:
Thinking that racist (or sexist, or homophobic, etc) groups shouldn't be allowed to exist is literally a form of fascism. I didn't call you a nazi, they obviously had different ideas of which groups aren't allowed.

I fully understand your point. For that reason, I beg your indulgence as I make an important correction.

What you are referring to is Tyranny, because you are talking about personal private practice. Fascism is when the government dictates to private business, what they must do. For example, the wedding cake thing is fascist, the private party thing is tyrannical. Proceed.

bluethread · Post by **bluethread** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 4:30 pm

Sorry, double post

bluethread · Post by **bluethread** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 4:31 pm

jgh7 wrote: [Replying to Jashwell]

If your entire thesis is to label me as a type of fascist then fine, do it. I don't care. Edit: and if you simply wanted a yes/no answer, then no no no. Happy?

I understand your house party analogy. As I said, I don't view a church the same way I view a house. I view it the same way as I view a business. In the same way a business can't refuse to service its clients because they are gay, a church shouldn't be allowed to refuse to service its clients because they are gay. Churches should allow their gay members to have weddings at their church. It is wrong for them to deny a wedding at the church solely because they are gay.

You view churches like personal houses. I do not.

Churches are not in the wedding business. They do weddings as a service to their membership. The public chapel down the street is in the wedding business. The public chapel provides a service for a fee.

jgh7 · Post by **jgh7** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 4:32 pm

bluethread wrote:
No straw man, that is a completely different religious ideology. If someone was completely Torah observant except for that little commandment regarding not eating pork, I definitely would not let them bring anything to oneg(the Shabbat meal), let alone accept the requirement that we throw a pork banquet in their honor.

The same goes for your golf analogy. It is exactly what you are requiring. People can play golf according to all the rules of golf with a baseball bat, if it weren't for those club "prejudices".

The one difference in ideology rests solely on something that is prejudice against sexual orientation with regards to getting married. The state has ruled that gay marriage is lawful. If a church refuses to allow a gay Christian couple that are members of that church to have a marriage ceremony in that church solely because they are gay, then their rules for a service they provide to their members are prejudice and wrong. They should be forced to allow gay members to use their church as a marriage facility, just the same as they would allow non-gay members to do.

jgh7 · Post by **jgh7** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 4:37 pm

bluethread wrote: Churches are not in the wedding business. They do weddings as a service to their membership. The public chapel down the street is in the wedding business. The public chapel provides a service for a fee.

Churches definitely often do charge fees for their wedding services. And the only difference between a church and a chapel in this case is that the chapel is not being prejudice towards allowing marriage services to their gay members while the church is.

bluethread · Post by **bluethread** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 4:42 pm

jgh7 wrote:
bluethread wrote:
No straw man, that is a completely different religious ideology. If someone was completely Torah observant except for that little commandment regarding not eating pork, I definitely would not let them bring anything to oneg(the Shabbat meal), let alone accept the requirement that we throw a pork banquet in their honor.

The same goes for your golf analogy. It is exactly what you are requiring. People can play golf according to all the rules of golf with a baseball bat, if it weren't for those club "prejudices".
The one difference in ideology rests solely on something that is prejudice against sexual orientation with regards to getting married. The state has ruled that gay marriage is lawful. If a church refuses to allow a gay Christian couple that are members of that church to have a marriage ceremony in that church solely because they are gay, then their rules for a service they provide to their members are prejudice and wrong. They should be forced to allow gay members to use their church as a marriage facility, just the same as they would allow non-gay members to do.

Ah, there's the important caveat. If a church permits homosexuals to be members and they do not require acceptance of a heterosexual only marriage tenet, then you are correct. However, that is a practically nonexistent situation. Talk about your straw man arguments.

Jashwell · Post by **Jashwell** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 4:46 pm

[Replying to post 23 by jgh7]

Could someone set up private property, and a group around it, such that it exactly mimics a church's behaviour, appearance, etc?
I don't understand what the big difference would be, and why you'd need different policies.

As far as I know (it may differ in the US) churches aren't the only places allowed to give out marriage certificates. Presumably you can apply or file for a marriage without going through a church (if you have to go through a church, that's awfully weird). There's also no law preventing the non-religious from having ceremonies, and churches haven't got valid copyright on weddings.

The only issue, as you've mentioned, is people of specific denominations who want weddings with said denominations despite it contradicting their beliefs. That's really not something the denomination should expect to provide for - the couple isn't entitled to that denomination's ceremonies. I don't believe all groups should be made to accomodate for anyone, or should exist to serve others' demands.

As another, less extreme example - imagine a meat eating buddhist went to a vegan school of buddhism that provided food (for whatever reason or occasion), and demanded they provide meat for him to eat.