Same-Sex Marriage Laws Jeopardize Religious Freedom, Experts Say
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP) --- While a pastor's right to preach against same-sex "marriage" may not be threatened by its legalization, many other religious activities may be in jeopardy, the general counsel for the American Jewish Congress told National Public Radio.
"What if a church offers marriage counseling? Will they be able to say, 'No, we're not going to help gay couples get along because it violates our religious principles to do so'?" asked Marc Stern. "What about summer camps? Will they be able to insist that gay couples not serve as staff because they're a bad example?"
In states where same-sex "marriage" has been legalized, homosexual couples have won consistently when they lodged discrimination complaints against religious groups, Stern said.
Stern cited several examples: Yeshiva University, a conservative Jewish university in New York City, which was ordered to allow same-sex couples to live in its married student housing. Catholic Charities decided to discontinue adoption services in Massachusetts after they were ordered to place children with same-sex couples. A lesbian couple prevailed in their complaint against a psychologist in Mississippi who refused to counsel them. A Methodist retreat center in New Jersey lost the tax exemption on a building when they declined to allow a lesbian couple to hold their "marriage" ceremony at the facility.
If the popular culture in the United States and laws in various states continue to move toward recognizing same-sex "marriage," religious groups and companies owned by believers will be forced to come to terms with the fact that their customers will include homosexual couples, Georgetown University professor Chai Feldblum told NPR.
"They need to start thinking now, proactively, how they want to address that," Feldblum said. "Because I do think that if a gay couple ends up being told their wedding cannot be filmed, five couples will not sue, but the sixth couple will."
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
I am that sixth couple. Religious groups cant dance the dance then get off the dance floor. Times have changed, this is not the era that we stone women for committing adultery, nor do we send people to jail for having a red dress, or speaking in public, or eating shell fish, all of which the bible condemns in one form or another. Yet the religious groups seem to feel fit to dictate what those who are not a member of their group can or can not do. I am not a christian and would NOT try to force a religious group to bend to my ways. But why do they try to force me to bend to theirs?
My religion accepts all forms of life styles, gay, bi, transgendered etc, yet we do not deny them the right to use our facilities to have a social function. No gay person would force a church who doesn't want them to be married in their church to do so. That would be a very unhappy event under any circumstances for the couple getting married. Its when its NOT a religious group that prohibits the rights of the individual the access to the facilities that would then violate the law . Such as the shrink who was forced to provide council. But who would want to go to a person who took an oath to do no harm, and is doing harm by refusing to except the facts! He should have his license revoked!
Persons who are in gay relationships have the same right to freedom that straight couples have. The right to marry, the right to pay tax's, the right to visit loved ones in the hospital, the right to inheritance, and survivor benefits. Yet Civil unions , and domestic partnerships do NOT give these benefits at any level. Is that fair? No its not.
Under definition of law , a civil union is any union of marriage performed by a civil magistrate,,,or a judge. A domestic partnership is a partnership of a father son or mother daughter for the purpose of business. How then do those laws allow for survivor benefits , they don't. That is what gay people want. We really don't give a rats butt about the wording marriage or what ever. We only want to be treated equally and fairly, not special.
Oldfoxbob.
You say, "No gay person would force a church who doesn't want them to be married in their church to do so"
and yet from the article
"A Methodist retreat center in New Jersey lost the tax exemption on a building when they declined to allow a lesbian couple to hold their "marriage" ceremony at the facility."
?
I have been told, the only place to hold such a ceremony was at the community building...The word here that draws attention is "Community building" ! Any group or organization that has a Community building has one for the WHOLE community. Not just for who they want to use it. That was the basis of the law suite that had been filed. The Lesbian couple did NOT want to use the church at all. I suggest you do some research into that law suite before spouting off about how it was a church. After all it was NOT the church who had to refuse the ceremony but the use of the community building.
And yet if the building is owned by the methodist retreat then doesn't it classify under code as a church owned building? It may have been in the "community building" but it's a methodist community.
And I DO apologize oldfoxbob that someone "told" you that it had to be held in that building. Too bad I don't have access to that source. I could have looked up the specific court case but I fell victim to reading the article and basing my response to what it said.
The facility in question was granted tax exempt status because it was to be a public building that anyone could use. Once the Church revoked that "everyone can use it" part the government revoked the "tax exempt" part.