As gay marriage begins in California, so does the question of whether or not people can cite religious grounds for refusing services to gay couples.We all saw this coming, right?
Of the situations the article cites I am actually willing to take the side of the Methodist group that lost its tax exemption after refusing to rent out its boardwalk for the gay commitment ceremony. The government shouldn't be able to coerce religious groups into holding services on their property with which the religion disagrees. That's as much a violation of the Establishment Clause as anything else, I would think.
The other examples cited, I don't have much sympathy for. The wedding photographer who got all uppity about photographing a gay couple? For all she knew, the heterosexual couples she photographed into the swinger scene, or committing adultery, or abusing each other or their children. Christianity frowns on those things too. If she were to analyze the lives of every couple she photographed she wouldn't have many customers left. Peoples' sins are their business, taking photographs is hers.
The case with Catholic Charities is just sad. Rather than be forced to adopt babies to homosexual couples they stop providing adoptions altogether. Who was right or wrong, Catholic Charities or the state of Massachusetts would be a conversation in itself. Ultimately it doesn't matter because it ended up with no one winning and children in need of adoption completely losing.
I would be in favor of granting exemptions to religious organizations, but not to individuals. If you're going to go into business providing a service to the public, then you'd better be prepared to provide that service all of the public, not just the public that you like. If the name at the top of the marriage license is the State of California then county clerks and doctors should simply render unto the State of California what is the State of California's.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
