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

[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.