Jump to content

Menu

Should clergy members actually be worried about the supreme court ruling?


kentuckymom
 Share

Recommended Posts

FTR, though I'm theologically ambiguous at best about the rightness or wrongness of homosexual relationships, I think yesterday's supreme court decision was both inevitable and right. I don't think the religious belief of a minority of citizens (religious conservatives) should stop another minority (homosexuals) from having the benefits of legal marriage. 

 

Most of the posts on my Facebook feed have been happy and celebratory, and some have expressed disagreement but in a non-hateful way. However, a small handful have been extremely negative and posited a world in which their pastors are forced to officiate at weddings they think are wrong.

 

So my question is, could this actually happen? I was always under the impression that a clergyperson could refuse to officiate at a wedding for religious reasons of many kinds. For instance, if the couple were not believers, or if one was and one was not. Or if they were unrepentantly having "marital relations" before the wedding. If this is true, doesn't it follow that they could continue exactly as they always have, only officiating weddings they agree with? Am I wrong about this? Can a clergy member actually be legally required to officiate at any wedding? Is this just a panic reaction or is there actual reason for concern?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not concerned about clergy and churches but I *AM* concerned about religiously-affiliated organizations that are not direct church ministries. Things like schools & colleges, hospitals, adoption agencies, charities, religious media outlets, etc. They've already been under attack and this ruling will just embolden efforts to force them to choose between their affiliated religion and their work.

  • Like 28
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally do not see it ever bleeding over into an individual church's decision.  What I do see as a possibility of happening at some point, is that a church ceremony may not be acceptable as a legal marriage event anymore.  This is actually how it is in a lot of countries already.  My daughter who lives in Central America had a church wedding, but was also required to have a court ceremony before a judge in order to make it official.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clergy members can refuse to marry people for pretty much whatever reason. They may have problems with their own church hierarchy, but they won't face legal prosecution. They can refuse because the people are too young, are divorced, are of different races, have a history of abuse, have a different view of what marriage is than the church's position, etc.

 

Clergy members may face discipline in their own churches, though. They may lose Members, or face public criticism.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure it's really simple.  In my church, the pastors will only marry members of the church who go through pre-marital counseling.  It is unlikely that a gay or lesbian couple would become members of the church, because of denominational rules.   So it is probably not a huge concern.

 

I have heard of some more complicated situations though, for example (and I can't remember where I read this so no citation, sorry) a church in which a gay couple were members but denom, rules would not let the pastor marry them. So there is a lawsuit.  I don't know why anyone would join a church that had doctrine/rules that they did not agree with.  The only reason I can think of is to challenge those rules.  But maybe there are other reasons.

 

That said, I think there will be some people who will attempt to force the issue.  I had a friend who said she would be happy to challenge a church even if she knew she would lose the lawsuit. But she proclaims a hatred of Christianity and has said she would love to see the Christian church "disappear."  (I never knew how she thought that would come about.)  Fighting a lawsuit is expensive and difficult, so even if a person had no chance of winning, it would still be a huge problem for a church to deal with. She is just one person with no power, of course.  But if I came across someone who thinks that way, there are surely others who share her feelings. Enough to cause a problem?  I don't know.  

 

So, I don't think there is a reason for panic but I also don't think the answer is a simple "no" in all cases.

 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forced to marry LGBQT, no.

 

If they rent out facilities to non-members...then they could face that.

 

If a minister is associated with a court as a service...then they could face that (and that has also happened. You agree to contract with a court system, then that is your choice, but it must follow the law).

 

More concern would be with military chaplains. Though military chaplains are supposed to be able to act within the guidelines of their particular faith, I believe this will be a fine line and people are going to see where they can push it. 

 

Tax exempt status might be another issue. Often, strings can be attached. It's why some churches have rejected tax exempt status for their church and others are heading that way. I know that some are against churches having such anyhow. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see this ruling as a victory for religious freedom for clergy. My religion (Unitarian-Universalism) has been performing religious same-sex marriages for thirty years or more. The Christian denomination I grew up in (United Church of Christ) has supported same-sex marriage for a long time. So have a number of non-evangelical Protestant denominations. So have some Reform and Reconstructionist Jewish clergy.

 

For many years, these clergy have been told that they don't have the religious freedom to perform legal marriages for all the couples they believe should be allowed to marry. Now, ministers of my denomination are finally allowed to express their religious beliefs about marriage! There are excited ministers all over my FB feed.

  • Like 36
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally do not see it ever bleeding over into an individual church's decision. What I do see as a possibility of happening at some point, is that a church ceremony may not be acceptable as a legal marriage event anymore. This is actually how it is in a lot of countries already. My daughter who lives in Central America had a church wedding, but was also required to have a court ceremony before a judge in order to make it official.

IIRC, dh and I had to get a marriage license from my local city government and have the Reverend design it and submitted back to the city before we were considered legally married. So this is all ready the case in some areas.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Religious denominations and institutions have broad discretion to make these kinds of decisions and to set their own policies. Consider the clergy members whose personal beliefs on the issues of homosexuality and marriage equality differ from the official positions of their denominations' governing bodies. For many years, some clergy who believed in their hearts that same-sex marriages should be permissible have not been allowed to perform such marriages because the leadership of the denominations they served prohibited them from doing so, even if the specific church that clergy person served happened to be in a state in which same-sex marriages were legal.

 

This really isn't any different.

 

As others have pointed out, although divorce is legal, we don't force Catholic priests to perform marriages for people who have been divorced. Some denominations require couples to be of the same faith in order to be married. Others require pre-wedding counseling or that both people provide documentation of certain kinds of religious observance. Churches also choose who they will baptize, who is allowed to partake of communion, etc. None of that is governed -- or affected -- by secular law. 

 

And, as is already true and has been for some time, couples who either can't find a religious institution willing to marry them or who simply have no interest in a religious marriage can be married by a justice of the peace or other government official. 

 

The SCOTUS decision affects only the civil/secular/legal marriage and who has access to that status. Each denomination will continue to make its own rules about the circumstances under which they will allow people to be married in that church.

  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IIRC, dh and I had to get a marriage license from my local city government and have the Reverend design it and submitted back to the city before we were considered legally married. So this is all ready the case in some areas.

 

I believe it's the case pretty much everywhere in the U.S.

 

In order to be legally married, couples need a marriage license from the state or local government. This license can then be signed and filed by a number of different officials, both secular and religious. 

 

For many years, some religious institutions have been performing wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples. However, because those couples were prevented by law from obtaining a marriage license from their local governments, those religious ceremonies were not legally binding. Being married in a church doesn't make you legally married unless the civil/secular stuff is taken care of, too.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure it's really simple.  In my church, the pastors will only marry members of the church who go through pre-marital counseling.  It is unlikely that a gay or lesbian couple would become members of the church, because of denominational rules.   So it is probably not a huge concern.

 

I have heard of some more complicated situations though, for example (and I can't remember where I read this so no citation, sorry) a church in which a gay couple were members but denom, rules would not let the pastor marry them. So there is a lawsuit.  I don't know why anyone would join a church that had doctrine/rules that they did not agree with.  The only reason I can think of is to challenge those rules.  But maybe there are other reasons.

 

That said, I think there will be some people who will attempt to force the issue.  I had a friend who said she would be happy to challenge a church even if she knew she would lose the lawsuit. But she proclaims a hatred of Christianity and has said she would love to see the Christian church "disappear."  (I never knew how she thought that would come about.)  Fighting a lawsuit is expensive and difficult, so even if a person had no chance of winning, it would still be a huge problem for a church to deal with. She is just one person with no power, of course.  But if I came across someone who thinks that way, there are surely others who share her feelings. Enough to cause a problem?  I don't know.  

 

So, I don't think there is a reason for panic but I also don't think the answer is a simple "no" in all cases.

 

This happened in a United Methodist Church.  The minister actually wanted to marry them and hasn't performed ANY marriages in the sanctuary since in protest.  He has done some off-site and blessing ceremonies for both same and opposite sex couples.  The whole issue is causing a HUGE divide among the UMC.  Many, especially in certain areas of the country, want to be able to perform same sex marriages and want the official stance to be changed.  I'm pretty sure there's quite a few UMC ministers around the country performing same sex wedding ceremonies of some sort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not concerned about clergy and churches but I *AM* concerned about religiously-affiliated organizations that are not direct church ministries. Things like schools & colleges, hospitals, adoption agencies, charities, religious media outlets, etc. They've already been under attack and this ruling will just embolden efforts to force them to choose between their affiliated religion and their work.

 

Well, as someone who really does hope (and work for) the separation of church and state in the form of removal of tax exemptions, I can't see how clergy would be in danger. We have a long history of protecting the rights of religious institutions to discriminate even against federally protected groups (RCC does not have to hire women priests, for example). I don't think that's going to change simply because I don't think there's wiggle room in the Constitution to make a persuasive enough argument to change that. Part of living in and supporting a free society is protecting religious freedom. I wouldn't want the state to be the heavy hand in either direction (support religion or suppress it), because that goes against the virtues of liberty and freedom upon which our nation was founded. So I think you religious people are safe with regard to your churches being in control of the expression of their faith, and this ruling won't change that. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the religious issues are going to be twofold.

 

One is that organizations that oppose this change are likely to lose their tax exempt status.  If you read the decision in the Bob Jones case, it's obvious that the same logic would apply here.  

 

The other is that yet another set of attempts to restrict that constitutionally fundamental freedom of religious expression to clergy acting in houses of worship will ensue--and that is quite frightening from a civil rights standpoint.  The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.  Unfortunately we have forgotten that, as a nation, to a large extent.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the religious issues are going to be twofold.

 

One is that organizations that oppose this change are likely to lose their tax exempt status.  If you read the decision in the Bob Jones case, it's obvious that the same logic would apply here.  

 

I'm not sure which case you're referring to. Do you have a link to information or the decision, itself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not concerned about clergy and churches but I *AM* concerned about religiously-affiliated organizations that are not direct church ministries. Things like schools & colleges, hospitals, adoption agencies, charities, religious media outlets, etc. They've already been under attack and this ruling will just embolden efforts to force them to choose between their affiliated religion and their work.

 

If the are religiously affiliated and operating privately they will not have any issues (and keep in mind racial discrimination is still legal for any private institutions, example: country clubs).  If they are accepting public money, they are already agreeing to operate under federal and state equal access laws.  This currently doesn't matter at the federal level (sexual orientation is not a protected class), but some states do provide protections based on sexual orientation.  This has affected some religious groups who wanted to use public money to discriminate - I believe a Catholic group in Illinois lost state aid for refusing to allow gay couples to adopt.  Keep in mind that the Catholic organization was NOT forced to arrange gay adoptions, but they did lose state funding for refusing to do so.  The general principle these groups will need tot use public to keep in mind is that they cannot use public money to discriminate.

  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a narrow ruling that specifically exempted churches and other purely religious organizations.

The arguments have shifted a lot further since the 1970's.  Clearly we are headed this way.  In fact, there was a question about that in the argument of this case, and the lawyer indicated this.  He could easily have cited the earlier case's restrictions as likely to be upheld, but did not do so.  That is very telling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The arguments have shifted a lot further since the 1970's.  Clearly we are headed this way.  In fact, there was a question about that in the argument of this case, and the lawyer indicated this.  He could easily have cited the earlier case's restrictions as likely to be upheld, but did not do so.  That is very telling.

 

Objection!  Assuming facts not in evidence.

If you believe that to be true, please cite one court decision made against a church or purely religious institution that forced them to adhere to federal or state equality statutes.  Just one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you believe that to be true, please cite one court decision made against a church or purely religious institution that forced them to adhere to federal or state equality statutes.  

The 'that' that I said was that we are 'headed this way'.  Evidence includes the arguments made by the executive branch lawyers in the Hobby Lobby case and in this particular Supreme Court case.  Those arguments would not even have been floated 15 years ago.  And public opinion shifts are running that way, which obviously has tremendous influence on Supreme Court decisions, like it or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 'that' that I said was that we are 'headed this way'.  Evidence includes the arguments made by the executive branch lawyers in the Hobby Lobby case and in this particular Supreme Court case.  Those arguments would not even have been floated 15 years ago.  And public opinion shifts are running that way, which obviously has tremendous influence on Supreme Court decisions, like it or not.

 

But the Hobby Lobby ruling actually increased (incorrectly imo) religious protections, to the extent that they can be forced on other parties.

 

I think you may be a bit surprised at the various arguments that have been floated before the SCOTUS over the years. You might make yourself feel better if you did some actual research on previous cases and the precedents that have been set regarding protecting religious expression.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 You might make yourself feel better if you did some actual research on previous cases and the precedents that have been set regarding protecting religious expression.

I feel fine, thank you.  I don't appreciate your condescension.

 

I am aware of those precedents, but I am also aware of what a seachange it is for the POTUS to be arguing against freedom of religious expression.  It's a very high level shift.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel fine, thank you.  I don't appreciate your condescension.

 

I am aware of those precedents, but I am also aware of what a seachange it is for the POTUS to be arguing against freedom of religious expression.  It's a very high level shift.

 

Where has anyone argued against the freedom of religious expression?  The Hobby Lobby case was about whether corporations (who aren't people) have a right to religious expression, and on a related note, if so do they have a right to enforce that expression via the benefits guaranteed to their employees under a federal law?

 

Based on that statement alone, I still feel justified in suggesting you read a few rulings going back through about 1965.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally do not see it ever bleeding over into an individual church's decision. What I do see as a possibility of happening at some point, is that a church ceremony may not be acceptable as a legal marriage event anymore. This is actually how it is in a lot of countries already. My daughter who lives in Central America had a church wedding, but was also required to have a court ceremony before a judge in order to make it official.

That's very common around the world where church and state are separated. You get a marriage license and get married civilly and then go get married at the church, often on a separate day. My parent were civilly married in December but their church wedding was in January.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, they have reason to worry. Even if they only do ceremonies with members and members agree to a membership statement that includes scriptural adherence to various points of theology, they could still be sued for discrimination if they wont officiate a wedding. The case would likely be lost in court, but it would be an expensive headache.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FTR, though I'm theologically ambiguous at best about the rightness or wrongness of homosexual relationships, I think yesterday's supreme court decision was both inevitable and right. I don't think the religious belief of a minority of citizens (religious conservatives) should stop another minority (homosexuals) from having the benefits of legal marriage. 

 

Most of the posts on my Facebook feed have been happy and celebratory, and some have expressed disagreement but in a non-hateful way. However, a small handful have been extremely negative and posited a world in which their pastors are forced to officiate at weddings they think are wrong.

 

So my question is, could this actually happen? I was always under the impression that a clergyperson could refuse to officiate at a wedding for religious reasons of many kinds. For instance, if the couple were not believers, or if one was and one was not. Or if they were unrepentantly having "marital relations" before the wedding. If this is true, doesn't it follow that they could continue exactly as they always have, only officiating weddings they agree with? Am I wrong about this? Can a clergy member actually be legally required to officiate at any wedding? Is this just a panic reaction or is there actual reason for concern?

 

it's already happening in other countries - and in the US.  a simple search will find there ARE clergy who are being prosecuted/arrested/sued for preaching against homosexuality/notperforming ssms.  oh - and this has been happening for over 10 years.

 

sweden - http://chalcedon.edu/research/articles/swedish-pastor-faces-jail-for-preaching-against-homosexuality/

http://www.selahministries.net/subpage638.html

canada -  http://christiannews.net/2013/02/28/canadian-supremes

spain - http://www.courageouspriest.com/bishop-prosecuted-defending-churchs-teaching-homosexuality

england - http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/preacher-arrested-for-calling-homosexuality-a-sin.html

 -- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7668448/Christian-preacher-arrested-for-saying-homosexuality-is-a-sin.html

 - -- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7668448/Christian-preacher-arrested-for-saying-homosexuality-is-a-sin.html

and in the US - http://christiannews.net/2014/11/19/homosexuals-file-complaint-against-minister-for-not-marrying-them/

 

people who think churches which have a historical religious objection to ssm will not be punished for not toeing the party line are naive.   I wll not say the world-wide known politician's name - but he has now stated churches need to change their beliefs/teachings on ssm.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't think they would be forced to do a wedding because some pastors can refuse if they are not members of the church, they don't go through counseling, they just think the marriage is a bad idea, etc.  

 

 

I am not sure it's really simple.

I have heard of some more complicated situations though, for example (and I can't remember where I read this so no citation, sorry) a church in which a gay couple were members but denom, rules would not let the pastor marry them. So there is a lawsuit.  I don't know why anyone would join a church that had doctrine/rules that they did not agree with.  The only reason I can think of is to challenge those rules. 

 

http://christiannews.net/2014/11/19/homosexuals-file-complaint-against-minister-for-not-marrying-them/  

they are members and sued their church to change its teachings to accomodate them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's already happening in other countries - and in the US.  a simple search will find there ARE clergy who are being prosecuted/arrested/sued for preaching against homosexuality/notperforming ssms.  oh - and this has been happening for over 10 years.

 

sweden - http://chalcedon.edu/research/articles/swedish-pastor-faces-jail-for-preaching-against-homosexuality/

 

And after due process it was held by the highest court in the land that he had the right, under our free speech laws, to say what he said. Just like in the US we have due process here. Just like in the US this case was a test case and the court found in favour of the clergy.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, they have reason to worry. Even if they only do ceremonies with members and members agree to a membership statement that includes scriptural adherence to various points of theology, they could still be sued for discrimination if they wont officiate a wedding. The case would likely be lost in court, but it would be an expensive headache.

No, they can't. Church officials have always been allowed to officiate weddings on religious grounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's already happening in other countries - and in the US. a simple search will find there ARE clergy who are being prosecuted/arrested/sued for preaching against homosexuality/notperforming ssms. oh - and this has been happening for over 10 years.

 

sweden - http://chalcedon.edu/research/articles/swedish-pastor-faces-jail-for-preaching-against-homosexuality/

http://www.selahministries.net/subpage638.html

canada - http://christiannews.net/2013/02/28/canadian-supremes

spain - http://www.courageouspriest.com/bishop-prosecuted-defending-churchs-teaching-homosexuality

england - http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/preacher-arrested-for-calling-homosexuality-a-sin.html

-- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7668448/Christian-preacher-arrested-for-saying-homosexuality-is-a-sin.html

- -- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7668448/Christian-preacher-arrested-for-saying-homosexuality-is-a-sin.html

and in the US - http://christiannews.net/2014/11/19/homosexuals-file-complaint-against-minister-for-not-marrying-them/

 

people who think churches which have a historical religious objection to ssm will not be punished for not toeing the party line are naive. I wll not say the world-wide known politician's name - but he has now stated churches need to change their beliefs/teachings on ssm.

1.) The. link you cited for the U.S. was in regards to a couple filing a complaint within their own church. I have no idea what you think that has to do with our legal system.

2.) Why are you trying to use examples of countries with other laws to show what will happen here? Can I cite executions of gays in Muslim countries as reason to fear the religious bigotry directed at homosexuals in the U.S.?

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, they can't. Church officials have always been allowed to officiate weddings on religious grounds.

Yes, they can. It doesn't mean the suit would be won, but in a country without tort reform that hardly matters. You can devastate someone with even a weak case, if you have more legal funds available than they do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should clergy be worried? Yes, I think so.

 

Not because of some "tax exemption status" or fear of the government forcing them to officiate marriages. No, not that.

 

What they will need to confront are their stands on moral issues. Including showing kindness, compassion, and a respect for human dignity. 

 

So yes they should be worried. They will face tests and decisions that will have to be made in the coming days. Which side are you on? I'm sure this will be easy for some, and painful for others. But avoidance will no longer be a viable option. Love? Hate? Choices to make.

 

Bill

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This happened in a United Methodist Church.  The minister actually wanted to marry them and hasn't performed ANY marriages in the sanctuary since in protest.  He has done some off-site and blessing ceremonies for both same and opposite sex couples.  The whole issue is causing a HUGE divide among the UMC.  Many, especially in certain areas of the country, want to be able to perform same sex marriages and want the official stance to be changed.  I'm pretty sure there's quite a few UMC ministers around the country performing same sex wedding ceremonies of some sort.

 

See, I don't get this.    Why don't these pastors leave the church and go someplace where they can agree? 

 

BTW my husband is a part-time, bi-vocational pastor.  If the time ever came that he couldn't agree with the basic doctrines of the church, he would have to quit.  It's that simple.  Isn't it? 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, as someone who really does hope (and work for) the separation of church and state in the form of removal of tax exemptions, I can't see how clergy would be in danger. We have a long history of protecting the rights of religious institutions to discriminate even against federally protected groups (RCC does not have to hire women priests, for example). I don't think that's going to change simply because I don't think there's wiggle room in the Constitution to make a persuasive enough argument to change that. Part of living in and supporting a free society is protecting religious freedom. I wouldn't want the state to be the heavy hand in either direction (support religion or suppress it), because that goes against the virtues of liberty and freedom upon which our nation was founded. So I think you religious people are safe with regard to your churches being in control of the expression of their faith, and this ruling won't change that. 

 

The question is how narrow the definition of "religious institution" that will be allowed to qualify for exemptions. Houses of worship and their governing bodies are on strong 1st Amendment grounds to qualify for exemptions but only a subset of religiously-affiliated organizations are direct church ministries. An elementary school run by a house of worship is likely to get an exemption but what about all the colleges affiliated with a particular faith but not run as a direct church ministry? What about hospitals, adoption agencies, media outlets, etc.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, they have reason to worry. Even if they only do ceremonies with members and members agree to a membership statement that includes scriptural adherence to various points of theology, they could still be sued for discrimination if they wont officiate a wedding. The case would likely be lost in court, but it would be an expensive headache.

 

Has this been happening in this country?  Catholic priests don't get sued for not performing marriage ceremonies for non-Catholics, do they?  Have you any knowledge of that happening? Is there a long history of Rabbis being sued in US courts for not performing ceremonies for people who are not Jewish?  Are non-Mormons suing the Mormon church to allow them to use a Temple for their non-Mormon wedding ceremony? What about any Muslim Imams being forced to perform a marriage for non-Muslims? 

 

On what are you basing this strong assertion? What is the legal precedence in the United States?

 

 

And just because I am curious, have there been any US court cases of a same sex couple suing a church, not a state, to perform their marriage ceremony?  The first US state to legalize same sex marriage was Massachusetts in 2004. In the past 11 years has that happened anywhere in the US in a state where same sex couples could get a legal civil marriage? How about in a state where they could not get a legal civil marriage?

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question is how narrow the definition of "religious institution" that will be allowed to qualify for exemptions. Houses of worship and their governing bodies are on strong 1st Amendment grounds to qualify for exemptions but only a subset of religiously-affiliated organizations are direct church ministries. An elementary school run by a house of worship is likely to get an exemption but what about all the colleges affiliated with a particular faith but not run as a direct church ministry? What about hospitals, adoption agencies, media outlets, etc.?

Colleges will vary on how strongly the education is based on religion. If they wish to discriminate for educational reasons (and you can in certain care) they will need to provide a compelling reason. The more secular the institution, the less likely they would be allowed to do so. A good example would be a Bible college which is clearly acting as religious instruction, versus say Notre Dame which accepts federal money. Of course at this time sexual orientation is not a protected class at the federal level so it currently isn't an issue.

 

At the state level, the framework is clear for adoption agencies. Accept state money = follow state rules.

 

Media outlets don't operate as a public accommodation.

 

Religious hospitals will be much more like colleges. The more involved they are with public money, the less control they will have.

 

Long story short, if you want to act as a religious institution it is best to not expect to do so with public money.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, they can. It doesn't mean the suit would be won, but in a country without tort reform that hardly matters. You can devastate someone with even a weak case, if you have more legal funds available than they do.

It isn't nearly as devastating as you think when the cases get tossed summarily. And why are you convinced there are plans to sue clergy members when it is well established they are not required to marry just anyone?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rod Dreher writes here.  A very short snippet:

 

Indeed, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito explicitly warned religious traditionalists that this decision leaves them vulnerable. Alito warns that Obergefell â€œwill be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy,†and will be used to oppress the faithful “by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.â€

 

So, while as of today, Obergefell cannot force a minister to perform a SSM, two justices are saying that the case will be the tool to make dissenters conform.  There are lots of ways of making people conform--silence them (like the newspaper in PA that said it will not print any opinions against SSM post Obergefell), take away protections (tax-exempt status), deny opportunity (take away jobs, like Brendan Eich lost his).

 

and here http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/democracy-is-dying-persecution-is-coming/

 

here are thoughts by Jonathan Last on where we are headed.

 

Here is more from Rod Dreher:

 

"For a few years now, I have used a concept I’ve dubbed the Law of Merited Impossibility to characterize the doublespeak many LGBT activists and their allies have used to advance the cause. Here’s the Law: It will never happen, and when it does, you bigots will deserve it.

The Law is about bait-and-switch rhetoric among LGBT activists and their allies. It has to do with assurances they give to anxious skeptics of this or that gay-rights claim, telling the fraidy cats to relax, the worst-case scenario will never happen. And then when the very thing the supposed paranoids happens, the activists say that haters had it coming." 

The whole article is here.   

There are many other voices other than Rod Dreher that can explain how the next thing down the pike is clamping down on the free exercise of religion, but he is a succinct one.  See also Ryan Anderson and David French at the National Review.  Also, thefederalist.com.  

***

I'm choosing to link articles and make references to authors who are much clearer writers on this subject than I am.  Hopefully it will be food for thought for all--those who celebrate the ruling and those who do not.  As a Christian with a traditionalist view of marriage, I do not believe that the general LGBTQ movement is interested in me preserving the exercise of my beliefs.  I don't believe it because of what was done to Brendan Eich, cake bakers, photographers, civil servants who don't want to participate in SSM ceremonies, people who own venues that can be rented out for weddings, people who write dissenting editorials to newspapers, major companies threatening to pull out of Indiana because of the RFRA, calling people bigots to get their pizza business shut down, policies of major corporations like J.P. Morgan who prefer employees not use the word husband or wife anymore, Gordon College almost losing its accreditation, but certainly losing its standing in the community around it, Prominent lawyer Paul Clement arguing for DOMA and is now a pariah, here and here.  

To the original poster:  Your statement followed by your question was (forgive me, I'm having trouble using the in-app quote feature), "However, a small handful have been extremely negative and posited a world in which their pastors are forced to officiate at weddings they think are wrong. So my question is, could this actually happen?"

Well, it will not happen at my church now OR later.  Shortly prior to the Obergerfell decision my pastor has said that he is no longer performing civil marriages at all.  He will perform a religious ceremony in our church; the couple will then need to go apply for a civil license should they desire one.  Also, we have stated that church policy is that our church can't be used for any non-church event.  So no one can claim they have a right to rent the building for their non church event.  

But, in the future, could our church lose its tax exempt status if our employment policies did not reflect the new LGBTQ doctrine?  

Yes.  Of course.  It's just a few litigations away.  See the question that Alito posed during the arguments for Obergefel and the answer of the attorney.  It's not just me, average home-schooling  mom saying this.  

Could our church be targeted in a public smear campaign as a bigoted place?  Sure.  It's just one mean blogger, one LGBTQ principled business that won't serve so-called traditionalist bigots, one LGBTQ principled landlord who won't rent building space to a small "bigoted" traditionalist church away from happening.  But quite frankly, I don't think I would want to legally force a business to have to rent to us.  Other churches or parachurch organizations that have accepted federal funds to do good works in the community will not be able to keep taking federal funds to do so if their policies do not conform to the new policy.  Some will bow to the policy.  Some, like this Wyoming Catholic college will not.  Religious schools that do not have strong ties to an overarching church structure are going to have to bow to the coming pressure.  Shall we talk about the financial burden that dealing with discrimination charges is going to bring on churches, schools, private individuals?  Even if the traditionalist could win, it would come at a high cost.  

Obergefell  will be used as an inciting tool to make traditionalists conform.  

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it amusing Alito and Roberts made such a warning during their temper tantrums/dissents, yet didn't cite any legal precedents for those concerns.

Losing the privilege of federal funding because you want to discriminate isn't being villified. I don't have time sort through your link salad on my phone, but will address those later. A few of them are a bit laughable and do nothing to further your point. (Example: a newspaper is not obligated to print your letter/editorial. Ever.)

 

Quick question: at least one link addressed targeting a business with boycotts due to the beliefs of the owners. True or false: conservative Christians and churches have done the same thing.

 

Goose. Gander.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it amusing Alito and Roberts made such a warning during their temper tantrums/dissents, yet didn't cite any legal precedents for those concerns.

Losing the privilege of federal funding because you want to discriminate isn't being villified. I don't have time sort through your link salad on my phone, but will address those later. A few of them are a bit laughable and do nothing to further your point. (Example: a newspaper is not obligated to print your letter/editorial. Ever.)

 

Quick question: at least one link addressed targeting a business with boycotts due to the beliefs of the owners. True or false: conservative Christians and churches have done the same thing.

 

Goose. Gander.

 

If you are calling my post a link salad and doing so in a derogatory way, I think that is not a good way to promote thoughtful dialogue.  I actually spent a lot of time on it and did so because I often see posters here saying that a dissenter didn't post any reasons.  If you meant it in a joyful way, because, hey, who doesn't love an expensive organic fruit salad, then, well, thank you very much.

 

I provided initial links to writers who contribute to thoughtful essays and analysis on conservative websites because, well, Huffpo and MSNBC doesn't typically publish writings of dissent on SSM.  Please don't find it necessarily a reason to dismiss the whole thing.  When linking events, I used a variety of random news places.  NYTimes, WashPo, Huffpo, CNN, Foxnews, etc.   

 

My overall point was that I do believe Obergefell will be used as one tool of many to make religious traditionalist begin to acquiesce.  It might be useful to debate hypocrisy over boycotts in another place, but that was not my particular intention in this post.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are calling my post a link salad and doing so in a derogatory way, I think that is not a good way to promote thoughtful dialogue. I actually spent a lot of time on it and did so because I often see posters here saying that a dissenter didn't post any reasons. If you meant it in a joyful way, because, hey, who doesn't love an expensive organic fruit salad, then, well, thank you very much.

 

I provided initial links to writers who contribute to thoughtful essays and analysis on conservative websites because, well, Huffpo and MSNBC doesn't typically publish writings of dissent on SSM. Please don't find it necessarily a reason to dismiss the whole thing. When linking events, I used a variety of random news places. NYTimes, WashPo, Huffpo, CNN, Foxnews, etc.

 

My overall point was that I do believe Obergefell will be used as one tool of many to make religious traditionalist begin to acquiesce. It might be useful to debate hypocrisy over boycotts in another place, but that was not my particular intention in this post.

I for one appreciate the time you spent both writing carefully and assembling some links. It IS very time consuming and most of us just don't bother because of that, not because of weak or unsubstantiated arguments.

 

Your efforts and communication are both very appreciated!

 

:grouphug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are calling my post a link salad and doing so in a derogatory way, I think that is not a good way to promote thoughtful dialogue.  I actually spent a lot of time on it and did so because I often see posters here saying that a dissenter didn't post any reasons.  If you meant it in a joyful way, because, hey, who doesn't love an expensive organic fruit salad, then, well, thank you very much.

 

I provided initial links to writers who contribute to thoughtful essays and analysis on conservative websites because, well, Huffpo and MSNBC doesn't typically publish writings of dissent on SSM.  Please don't find it necessarily a reason to dismiss the whole thing.  When linking events, I used a variety of random news places.  NYTimes, WashPo, Huffpo, CNN, Foxnews, etc.   

 

My overall point was that I do believe Obergefell will be used as one tool of many to make religious traditionalist begin to acquiesce.  It might be useful to debate hypocrisy over boycotts in another place, but that was not my particular intention in this post.

 

It is a link salad.  Let's take this one for example.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/27/newspaper-faces-firestorm-after-attempted-crack-down-on-anti-gay-marriage-op/

 

Exactly what does that link do to prove your point? Newspapers are not required to print any letters or editorials.  They do so at their discretion and they have the right to do so.  This is no different than the numerous Christian media outlets which do the same thing from the other side.  (And yes, I completely support their right to do so.)

 

When you add extraneous links like that one which have nothing to do, even remotely, with the federal government restricting freedom of religious expression, then yes, you are simply throwing a bunch of links together to make your opposition appear stronger. 

 

The boycott issue is central to your position.  We live in a free market society where groups have the right to boycott those they disagree with.  Engaging in boycotts to make your point isn't hypocritical.  Thinking that only your group should be allowed to boycott is, and that hypocrisy is central to the angst that is coming from fundamentalists as they are slowly realizing that their beliefs are no longer the default position of American society.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Colleges will vary on how strongly the education is based on religion. If they wish to discriminate for educational reasons (and you can in certain care) they will need to provide a compelling reason. The more secular the institution, the less likely they would be allowed to do so. A good example would be a Bible college which is clearly acting as religious instruction, versus say Notre Dame which accepts federal money. Of course at this time sexual orientation is not a protected class at the federal level so it currently isn't an issue.

 

Religiously-affiliated colleges that grant spousal privileges to heterosexual married students & staff (living in on-campus married student housing, adding the spouse to a family health plan, etc.) but not homosexual ones in legally recognized unions are almost certainly going to face lawsuits, probably on sex discrimination grounds ("you're discriminating against me because of the gender of my spouse!")

 

If we as a society don't want persecution of religiously-affiliated organizations for following the tenets of their affiliated religions, we're going to need to pass laws that offer a broad rather than a narrow definition of who qualifies for a religious liberty exemption because we cannot count on the courts to use a common-sense definition (e.g. having the religion right in the name of the organization).

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, I don't get this.    Why don't these pastors leave the church and go someplace where they can agree? 

 

BTW my husband is a part-time, bi-vocational pastor.  If the time ever came that he couldn't agree with the basic doctrines of the church, he would have to quit.  It's that simple.  Isn't it? 

 

I don't know.  I assume people choose the denomination they minister for a variety of reasons.  UMC is pretty "take what works for you and leave the rest" in general.  There is talk about splitting the church but I would assume such a large step isn't something taken lightly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I for one appreciate the time you spent both writing carefully and assembling some links. It IS very time consuming and most of us just don't bother because of that, not because of weak or unsubstantiated arguments.

 

Your efforts and communication are both very appreciated!

 

:grouphug:

 Thank you.

 

I have not posted on many of the threads on this topic, though I have been doing a lot of reading since April.  The links I put down today amount to a tremendous amount of material and it would take a person quite a while to wade through all of that.  It's more than salad..it's a huge meal. I do offer an apology on that.  I do want to post now, though, because I want to share some positive thoughts about the traditional view and give understanding about where we are likely headed as a society.  There may be those of the LGBTQ community who are moderate or conservative in their approach to liberty and may not necessarily be on the side of silencing the dissent.  They may not be in favor of forcing artisans to create for SSM ceremonies.  They may not want to call a traditionalist a bigot.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...