The government can't establish or prohibit the free exercise of religion. Are churches that don't want to perform a gay marriage safe from this ruling or are we in for a wedding cake fight on this?
It is clear to me that the states would have eventually gotten to this point anyway as public opinion shifts so I don't think the ruling is a big deal, other than it is a big deal to same sex couples. The republic will survive and Adam and Steve can now enjoy the same marriage rights as Adam and Eve. I think that's good.
I think if you get into "forcing" churches to perform a service public opinion will not be on your side.
The government can't establish or prohibit the free exercise of religion. Are churches that don't want to perform a gay marriage safe from this ruling or are we in for a wedding cake fight on this?
It is clear to me that the states would have eventually gotten to this point anyway as public opinion shifts so I don't think the ruling is a big deal, other than it is a big deal to same sex couples. The republic will survive and Adam and Steve can now enjoy the same marriage rights as Adam and Eve. I think that's good.
I think if you get into "forcing" churches to perform a service public opinion will not be on your side.
Churches should absolutely not be impacted by this ruling.
Given the constitution is a thing that exists, neither the federal government nor the states should ever have been involved in deciding who* can/can't enter into a contractual agreement providing the mutual "benefits" that we commonly understand as characteristic of marriage.
*considering basic contract stuff here - consenting adults of sound mind, no coercion involved, etc.
Churches will be sued following this ruling. It might take a while, years perhaps, but it will happen. And a federal district court somewhere will find for the plaintiff.
Churches shouldn't be forced to perform the ceremony if it contradicts their beliefs. Or if they just wanna be dicks. That's their prerogative.
But I think this is a non-issue. The gays aren't gonna get married in a stuffy old church that doesn't want them. Plenty of other options for event space. The churches won't get any money from those weddings. And so they have to decide if being an asshole is worth hurting their wallet.
Churches shouldn't be forced to perform the ceremony if it contradicts their beliefs. Or if they just wanna be dicks. That's their prerogative.
But I think this is a non-issue. The gays aren't gonna get married in a stuffy old church that doesn't want them. Plenty of other options for event space. The churches won't get any money from those weddings. And so they have to decide if being an asshole is worth hurting their wallet.
Capitalism!
In general, yes. But some activist fags are gonna try to force them into it at some point, and file suit when told "No."
Churches shouldn't be forced to perform the ceremony if it contradicts their beliefs. Or if they just wanna be dicks. That's their prerogative.
But I think this is a non-issue. The gays aren't gonna get married in a stuffy old church that doesn't want them. Plenty of other options for event space. The churches won't get any money from those weddings. And so they have to decide if being an asshole is worth hurting their wallet.
Capitalism!
In general, yes. But some activist fags are gonna try to force them into it at some point, and file suit when told "No."
This. There are plenty of places to buy a fucking wedding cake too.
When gays try to get married at a mosque I'll pay attention. But they won't. Nor do they target Muslim bakers.
Churches shouldn't be forced to perform the ceremony if it contradicts their beliefs. Or if they just wanna be dicks. That's their prerogative.
But I think this is a non-issue. The gays aren't gonna get married in a stuffy old church that doesn't want them. Plenty of other options for event space. The churches won't get any money from those weddings. And so they have to decide if being an asshole is worth hurting their wallet.
Capitalism!
In general, yes. But some activist fags are gonna try to force them into it at some point, and file suit when told "No."
They'll probably lose. If you look at what this Court has done WRT religious freedom and the free exercise clause, I can't see them extending the strict scrutiny-type analysis they did on civil marriage to private religious institutions.
For those who never took Constitutional Law, the government is subject to strict scrutiny when it takes discriminatory action WRT a "fundamental right", which the Court just said civil marriage is. Private actors may discriminate, although businesses which are open to the public and "common carriers" may not use racial, ethnic, sex, or age as a discriminatory factor unless they can assert a compelling interest.
Comments
His whole dissent is an interesting read.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/269769999/Scalia-Dissent
It is clear to me that the states would have eventually gotten to this point anyway as public opinion shifts so I don't think the ruling is a big deal, other than it is a big deal to same sex couples. The republic will survive and Adam and Steve can now enjoy the same marriage rights as Adam and Eve. I think that's good.
I think if you get into "forcing" churches to perform a service public opinion will not be on your side.
Given the constitution is a thing that exists, neither the federal government nor the states should ever have been involved in deciding who* can/can't enter into a contractual agreement providing the mutual "benefits" that we commonly understand as characteristic of marriage.
*considering basic contract stuff here - consenting adults of sound mind, no coercion involved, etc.
But I think this is a non-issue. The gays aren't gonna get married in a stuffy old church that doesn't want them. Plenty of other options for event space. The churches won't get any money from those weddings. And so they have to decide if being an asshole is worth hurting their wallet.
Capitalism!
When gays try to get married at a mosque I'll pay attention. But they won't. Nor do they target Muslim bakers.
For those who never took Constitutional Law, the government is subject to strict scrutiny when it takes discriminatory action WRT a "fundamental right", which the Court just said civil marriage is. Private actors may discriminate, although businesses which are open to the public and "common carriers" may not use racial, ethnic, sex, or age as a discriminatory factor unless they can assert a compelling interest.