Do Pastors Have the Right to Refuse Conducting A Gay Wedding

[jgh7]

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?

[jgh7]

[Replying to post 30 by Jashwell]

I'll try to make a final analogy that shows my problem. I will conclude by stating what our fundamental difference in opinion is.

Here's two similar analogies.

1) A hair stylist chooses only to style hair long. A person comes in demanding them to style their hair short. They refuse. There is nothing wrong with this.

2) That same hair stylist chooses not to style someone's hair solely because they are gay. There is definitely something wrong with this and it is illegal.

The true difference in our opinion is that you do not view the church as a business like a professional hair stylist at their place of work. You view it as an individual at their home. In that case, both analogy 1 and analogy 2 would be lawfully allowed for the hair stylist.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 30 by Jashwell]

I'll try to make a final analogy that shows my problem. I will conclude by stating what our fundamental difference in opinion is.

Here's two similar analogies.

1) A hair stylist chooses only to style hair long. A person comes in demanding them to style their hair short. They refuse. There is nothing wrong with this.

2) That same hair stylist chooses not to style someone's hair solely because they are gay. There is definitely something wrong with this and it is illegal.

The second analogy doesn't work, your hair length has very little to do with being gay. With providing a hetero-only marriage ceremony, they aren't necessarily doing it on the sexual orientation of the individuals - they will almost always be doing it on the orientation of the marriage (i.e. they'd probably let a homosexual woman and a homosexual man marry each other). This would match the first and not the second - the fact that most homosexuals want homosexual marriages would be similar to if gays almost never wanted long hair styles (in the analogy).

This almost certainly isn't practical, but if there were another hair stylist next door that provided the same services, and did serve gays, I'd see no problem with allowing that person to discriminate (or alternatively, if there were another stylist in the salon, one descriminates - but also points people to the other who doesn't).

The true difference in our opinion is that you do not view the church as a business like a professional hair stylist at their place of work. You view it as an individual at their home. In that case, both analogy 1 and analogy 2 would be lawfully allowed for the hair stylist.

I don't necessarily view it as an individual's home, more like shared (among the group) private property.
I don't see why anyone's entitled to the church, or what makes it a business.

[bluethread]

I don't see why anyone's entitled to the church, or what makes it a business.

One thing that makes this situation clear is denominations that do not apply for marriage licenses or submit contracts to the state. In those cases, there is a ceremony without a "marriage", as defined by the state. Is such a denomination required to provide that ceremony to anyone who happens to walk through the door?

[DanieltheDragon]

This is just silly.

Is a golf club allowed to be prejudice and deny black people from entering? I mean, it's a private club so they should be able to do what they want right?

The answer is no. It's illegal.

Hate to break it to you but where I grew up and to this day this golf club and this school deny service and membership to the Black community.


http://morganacademy.com

http://www.selmacountryclub.com

And yes it is legal. These two institutions do not offer public accommodation.

[FinalEnigma]

I think Jashwell made a solid distinction.

Churches do not refuse to hold weddings for homosexual people. they refuse to hold homosexual weddings.

now, if the church was willing to hold homosexual weddings for their straight congregants but not their homosexual congregants, that would obviously be discrimination - and also very strange.

I think that one can argue a difference here between providing a cake for a homosexual marriage and performing the actual wedding for a homosexual marriage.

When providing a cake, you are doing the exact same thing as you would be for a straight couple, and you are not being forced to participate in the event.
If you are actually performing the service, there is a GREAT difference. you would be actually being required to do something which is against your religion - marry a homosexual couple, whereas the baker is only being required to do the same thing they normally do (provide a cake).
I think that actual participation in the ceremony is a reasonable line to draw.

I will observe that if they provide the space for weddings at their church for members only, and the gay couple are not members of their church, then they have done nothing wrong. If they provide space for weddings for members of their church, and they allow a gay couple to be members of their church, but refuse to allow the wedding to take place in their church...that is more questionable.
If the gay couple pretends not to be gay so that they can become members of the church which does not allow gay members in order to use the space for their gay wedding...I would find no fault in refusing them.

[Excubis]

[Replying to post 1 by jgh7]

In my opinion totally acceptable to refuse to conduct a religious ceremony since it is of religion. There is nothing wrong with stating a belief it is another thing entirely to fight against another over a freedom a person already enjoys. Religious ceremonies have nothing to do with marriage in today's day and age, only to those of a religion. If you are a gay christian that is a choice to be christian and therefore the repercussions of that choice falls on your shoulders good and bad, whether you are gay or not. Those who choose not to be christian do not need to follow same relevancy as those of a religion.

It should be accepted by even christians nearly all cultures conducted marriage type ceremonies it is not unique to the christian doctrine.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 1 by jgh7]

It should be accepted by even christians nearly all cultures conducted marriage type ceremonies it is not unique to the christian doctrine.

Nor are such ceremonies a concern of the government, save the government requiring they be licensed. Civil marriage was not instituted as a means of legitimizing all ceremonial marriages. Civil marriage was instituted to delegitimize certain ceremonial marriages.

[Excubis]

[Replying to post 1 by jgh7]

It should be accepted by even christians nearly all cultures conducted marriage type ceremonies it is not unique to the christian doctrine.

Nor are such ceremonies a concern of the government, save the government requiring they be licensed. Civil marriage was not instituted as a means of legitimizing all ceremonial marriages. Civil marriage was instituted to delegitimize certain ceremonial marriages.

Agree but say delegitamize I would not agree just that at one time people could only get married in a Protestant/Catholic/Lutheran church or by clergy of said faiths, which is entirely unfair to those who do not believe in that specific deity/faith. This is of course a First Nation/Canadian outlook. This was first propagated on the non believers from the churches first.

[help3434]

[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.

Asking you to apply the same standards to different situations is not straw manning. What you seem to be doing is special pleading.

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.

The owners of a private golf course that is not open to the public for business can deny people access solely based on prejudice, just the same as an owner of a house can choose not to invite certain people solely based on prejudice.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 18 by jgh7]

Yikes. If there is one thing that is a greater threat to freedom than right-wing authoritarianism it is left authoritarianism. You can't use the power of the state to make a Church marry people that they don't want to marry. This is not special treatment for religions, organizations like the Rotary Club and other private clubs are not treated like businesses open to the public either. If your policies were made law you would basically be making the fear-mongering propaganda put out by the likes of "Yes to Prop 8" about the freedom and religion crushing "gay agenda" come true.