And you thought that birth control business was crazy...

[uberreiniger]

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.

Comments

[featherynscale.livejournal.com]

I don't know. I generally think that as a provider of a non-essential service (i.e. not related to basic needs), you ought to be able to refuse service to anybody, on pretty much any grounds.

I don't think that applies to the medical field, or to emergency services (fire, police, etc.), but a wedding photographer? Sure. You don't want queer money, don't take it. That couple can give their money to somebody else.

I always used to be keen on businesses openly saying that they didn't serve pagans; as soon as that came out, I knew who I shouldn't be giving my custom, and who to tell my friends to avoid. Much rather that than to hire somebody to do something for me who secretly didn't like me and was going to overcharge me, fuck up what they were doing for me, or be totally obnoxious to me in the process.

[sihaya09.livejournal.com]

I can see where you're coming from here, but I have to draw a parallel-- by your reasoning, any establishment should be able to deny service due to race, or disability, or ethnicity. Which is blatantly discriminatory. If you accept that sexual preference is something inherent and unchangeable (as I do), it should be treated the same as those things.

[triadruid.livejournal.com]

But generally speaking, private citizens CAN refuse to provide service or goods based on any criteria they see fit.

[sihaya09.livejournal.com]

Businesses in most states cannot lawfully discriminate due to religion, race, ethnicity, or disability.

[chaeri.livejournal.com]

they can except for protected classes including race, sex and religion. i can refuse to serve someone because they have shifty eyes but i can't refuse to serve someone because they are black.

[yogamary.livejournal.com]

I agree. I will also say that by those standards people with differing sexual orientations should also have full rights everywhere. Unfortunately, they don't. It's a good parallel to draw, but a tough one at the same time.

[sihaya09.livejournal.com]

I totally agree with you. I think that certain religiously-oriented groups should be allowed to apply for certain exemptions based upon doctrine, but the general population should be totally free of discrimination.

[uawildcatgrl.livejournal.com]

I thought the photographer was stupid to begin with...she told them why? WTF? If you really just don't want to do it tell them you can't due to a scheduling conflict.

[uberreiniger.livejournal.com]

Maybe she remembered that lying is a sin. In which case I at least give her credit for trying to be internally consistent with her ethos.

[uawildcatgrl.livejournal.com]

Good call! Hadn't thought of that.

[chaeri.livejournal.com]

i agree with you. i am definitely not in favor of forcing a private organization, such as a church, to act in way that is against their creed. they are a private organization, they can be as bigoted as they want for whatever reason.

[germsama.livejournal.com]

You would think these people would be grateful for a surge of new business in a failing economy, regardless of where it's coming from.

Whatever. The open minded reap the rewards, I suppose.

[nightshade-7976.livejournal.com]

Jeez, if it's not one thing it's another! *shakes head*

[ravenbrenna.livejournal.com]

I agree with you on the top one. I've never thought that any church should be forced to marry anyone they don't want to. It's THEIR church therefore THEIR decision!

That sucks though that they stopped adoptions altogether though. The poor babies!

One from the crazy CA Girl...

[rosered32.livejournal.com]

I believe that if a religious group wants to offer their church area to people who only believe their way, well that is their choice. Religious groups state they believe a certain way. You know that from the get go. They shouldn't HAVE to change just because the law does. Just don't go to their services or sites unless you want to do things their way.

A County Offical however is not able to change the law to suit their religious beliefs. You can quit your job if you don't like it. It is that simple. It is not a county clerk's job to regulate what people feel is right for them. It is their job to do paperwork and officate over non-religious ceremonies. Hence if you don't like it, leave. The people coming to a county clerk are not doing so to find spirital blessings. Why do County Clerks get to push their beliefs on people?

So silly.

[chade66.livejournal.com]

Okay, let's start with the county clerks. In my opinion as public servants, they don't have the right to refuse. State says that its legal, the right papers are filed, fees are paid, my personal beliefs have nothing to do with it. Clerks who refuse should be suspended without pay or fired.

Now, Catholic Charities is a different kettle of fish, we work with them all the time. The reason "they" can tell Catholic Charities what to do is due to the fact they receive millions and millions of dollars in public money (federal and state). If they want to refuse all public money and go with private donations only, then it would be no problem for them to refuse whoever they wanted. But they want to receive federal money and discriminate.

As for the photograph, why would I want someone to photograph my wedding/committment ceremony if they didn't want too? Could I force them? Maybe, but why, they will just be resentful and do a lousy job. I'm sorry there are too many good photographers out there to waste time with this. She should have been allowed to refuse for whatever reason or no reason.

I don't think that churchs should be tax exempt in the first place. That aside, I don't think they should be required to perform marriages that go against their beliefs. Again, why would I want to begin my committment to my loving partner surrounded by people who wished us ill. There is enough ugliness and evil in the world that will find you, without seeking it out on purpose.

[uberreiniger.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that's why I say the Catholic charity is a whole conversation on its own, getting into funding and whatnot. I just think it's a travesty that they would chose to cease their adoption services over this. Better to screw over all the children then see a few go to sinners, apparently. Like heterosexual parents don't sin.

I don't think the photographer should have to do business with people she'd rather not, but her reason for not doing business seems senseless to me. If it's purely because she disagrees with the lifestyle, then she could probably find something sinful in the lifestyle of just about everyone she's ever done business with.

[chade66.livejournal.com]

I agree that its stupid and having run my own business in the past, last thing you want to do it send business away for any reason (you never know who will send a fantastic account your way based on the job you did for them). But I think she had the right to do it. I think it was a stupid business decision, though.

I think Catholic Charities is posturing to see if they could get the governing body to cave if they threatened. I don't think they will actually do it. But if they do, that opens up a market niche for someone else, with a lot of funding attached to it.

[donkeyjon.livejournal.com]

This pretty much represents how I feel about homosexuality in general. I believe it's a sin, but something being a sin is no cause for the government to tell people what they can or can't do. So, make gay marriage legal, but let churches refuse to marry people if they want.

Let homosexual couples adopt if they want, but don't tell religious organizations that they must adopt children to gay couples. There are SO MANY different groups that will gladly provide adoption services, that couples can easily just go to another group.