Supreme Court Denies Review of Same-Sex Marriage Wins

[sailor]

See, I think that's the question -  is it a store, or is it something else.

You cannot force an artist to create something they find abhorrent.  A freelancer has the right to not take a contract for whatever reason, including simply being too damn busy or wanting a day off.  A church has the right to set any requirements they want, including a height requirement at the door if they feel like it.

So - is it a church, where they have the right to make these choices, or is it a storefront, where you pay your money and you get your service?  Or is it freelancing, where you can get the church but not necessarily the pastor?  Or what?

If it's more like drive-through Elvis wedding than anything else, no, you don't get to pick and choose all of a sudden.  If it's more like a church and there have already been considerations other than "is the date booked" it's DIFFERENT.

Now - that could well be that they have to subcontract out an officiant for gay weddings.  THAT would fill all the requirements.  But I think compelling someone to bless a marriage they cannot in good faith bless ... tricky.

 
Actually you can force an artist to create work they find abhorent.  Depending what you mean by "free lance" a free lance artist might be able to get out of it, but yeah, that case was already decided that artists for general hire can be forced to create art they abhor.

Are the Elvis wedding chapels religious in any sense of the word?  or are does Nevada allow non-clergy who register with the state to perform marriages as a profession?  (noting that some states allow a person to be authorized to solomize a single marriage without being clergy).  

The couple in this case, from the VC link, I think are clergy.  Four Square Gospel if I remember correctly.  (I'm at sea and don't want to spend the 10 minutes it takes to load a new tab).  

I'm curious is there anybody on the list that does art for hire?  I'm not thinking of folks who make say knitted stuff and then sell what they happen to make. But rather would knit what a customer ordered?  Embrodery at the mall with a machine, custom t-shirts, to order knitting, etc rather.

To bring in the bakery case from last year or so.  When the CRA was passed in 1965 (or was it 1964), in many places if you wanted to buy a loaf of regular bread you went to a bakery.  If a Jew who was light skinned, like my mother, went in there was no way to tell she was Jewish if all she bought was some bread, some donuts, muffins or coffee cake.  A custom cake, even as simple as Happy Birthday, would have required a name and That woud have been a give-away.  

A Black, or even very dark skinned person, might not get served and be unable to buy off the shelf bread, etc. that ony needed the clerk to reach behind themselves and pass the bread and make change.

[MadZealot]

But I think compelling someone to bless a marriage they cannot in good faith bless ... tricky.

 
And this is why I'll never be in the marriage business.

[Altair]

It's all compelled speech, by for profit groups, to meet the needs or desires of a customer.

This is the classic Libertarian argument. Which is fine...as long as you're prepared to live in a society that takes that all the way. The majority of Americans have already decided that we don't want to. As others have already mentioned, we don't want to see people turned away from businesses because they're Jewish, or black, or (in Coeur d'Alene) gay.

And I'll be damned if I'll give folks the right to turn me away because I'm gay if I don't have the same right to turn them away because as a gay man I find their religious bigotry offensive. That will make for some real *awful* heterosexual weddings, if the world's gay florists and wedding planners refuse to provide services to a wedding of, say, Mormons because of that church's anti-gay bigotry.

It's all or nothing.

[Altair]

See, I think that's the question -  is it a store, or is it something else.

You cannot force an artist to create something they find abhorrent.  A freelancer has the right to not take a contract for whatever reason, including simply being too damn busy or wanting a day off.  A church has the right to set any requirements they want, including a height requirement at the door if they feel like it.

So - is it a church, where they have the right to make these choices, or is it a storefront, where you pay your money and you get your service?  Or is it freelancing, where you can get the church but not necessarily the pastor?  Or what?

If it's more like drive-through Elvis wedding than anything else, no, you don't get to pick and choose all of a sudden.  If it's more like a church and there have already been considerations other than "is the date booked" it's DIFFERENT.

Now - that could well be that they have to subcontract out an officiant for gay weddings.  THAT would fill all the requirements.  But I think compelling someone to bless a marriage they cannot in good faith bless ... tricky.

This article may clarify things:

Want to deny same-sex couples, ministers? Then don't sell deluxe wedding packages for profit

http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2014/05/want-to-deny-same-sex-couples-ministers-then-dont-sell-deluxe-wedding-packages-for-profit.html

The key passage:
"In a fair and reasonable debate, this would be a really straightforward matter that would actually help us drive home key points about civil marriage, public accommodation, and the fair reach of religious freedom. If he wants to be exempt like a church, then he needs to operate like a church; if he wants to operate as a business that purports to serve all of the intended couples who are qualified to marry in the state, then he's going to have to accept the laws of the state/city"

[Skyth]

This article may clarify things:

Want to deny same-sex couples, ministers? Then don't sell deluxe wedding packages for profit

http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2014/05/want-to-deny-same-sex-couples-ministers-then-dont-sell-deluxe-wedding-packages-for-profit.html

The key passage:
"In a fair and reasonable debate, this would be a really straightforward matter that would actually help us drive home key points about civil marriage, public accommodation, and the fair reach of religious freedom. If he wants to be exempt like a church, then he needs to operate like a church; if he wants to operate as a business that purports to serve all of the intended couples who are qualified to marry in the state, then he's going to have to accept the laws of the state/city"

I'm amused that all of a sudden, they only do Christian weddings...who cares that in the past they did any sort of wedding. http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2014/10/caught-ya-far-rights-latest-marriage-victim-edited-website-to-make-more-solid-legal-case.html

[HeartShadow]

This article may clarify things:

Want to deny same-sex couples, ministers? Then don't sell deluxe wedding packages for profit

http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2014/05/want-to-deny-same-sex-couples-ministers-then-dont-sell-deluxe-wedding-packages-for-profit.html

The key passage:
"In a fair and reasonable debate, this would be a really straightforward matter that would actually help us drive home key points about civil marriage, public accommodation, and the fair reach of religious freedom. If he wants to be exempt like a church, then he needs to operate like a church; if he wants to operate as a business that purports to serve all of the intended couples who are qualified to marry in the state, then he's going to have to accept the laws of the state/city"

 
Yes, that's what I was thinking - if you're a church, you get to choose.  If you're a business, act like one.

Besides, there's still an option - if gay weddings REALLY freak you out, subcontract out the officiation to someone that doesn't mind.  Sure it costs more, but you're following the law AND getting out of the ones that you cannot feel you can do.  Covers both sides.  But of course, that costs MONEY. :p

[sailor]

Yes, that's what I was thinking - if you're a church, you get to choose.  If you're a business, act like one.

Besides, there's still an option - if gay weddings REALLY freak you out, subcontract out the officiation to someone that doesn't mind.  Sure it costs more, but you're following the law AND getting out of the ones that you cannot feel you can do.  Covers both sides.  But of course, that costs MONEY. :p

 
No reason for it to cost much money.  Building fee is $95, honorarium for the ceremony is $5. (made up numbers).  Unless you are going to force them to do weddings off site?

Still raises the question.  What makes the difference between a church and a for-profit business if many or most of the marriages are not done for regular attendees / members of that specific church or even at least that denomination?

[HeartShadow]

No reason for it to cost much money.  Building fee is $95, honorarium for the ceremony is $5. (made up numbers).  Unless you are going to force them to do weddings off site?

Still raises the question.  What makes the difference between a church and a for-profit business if many or most of the marriages are not done for regular attendees / members of that specific church or even at least that denomination?

 
You can't force them to do weddings off site, that's not a sensible question.

I'm not saying the people getting married have to subcontract, I'm saying the people running the facility need to.  It's THEIR money, and it costs whatever it costs to get someone to come in and DO it for them.

As far as what makes the difference, that's not a new question.  There have been problems before with churches that were willing to rent out their space for weddings and gotten in trouble by trying to pick and choose.  I don't know what the law specifically is, but I DO know there is law somewhere in the States that covers that.

[Altair]

This article may clarify things

And as right-wing sites continue to try to make this non-issue into a cause celebre, this graphic is illuminating:

[sailor]

And as right-wing sites continue to try to make this non-issue into a cause celebre, this graphic is illuminating:

 
Ah, so the DA is blackmailing them under the color of law then?

[Altair]

Likely a hiccup.

A ruling unfavorable to same-sex marriage came down yesterday, against LGBT couples challenging the marriage ban in Puerto Rico. As the above was a hiccup, this is likely more of a speed bump than a setback.

Quoted from the ruling (via my fave gay blog, joemygod.blogspot.com):

The plaintiffs have brought this challenge alleging a violation of the federal constitution, so the first place to begin is with the text of the Constitution. The text of the Constitution, however, does not directly guarantee a right to same-gender marriage, for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States.” Without the direct guidance of the Constitution, the next source of authority is relevant Supreme Court precedent interpreting the Constitution. On the question of same-gender marriage, the Supreme Court has issued a decision that directly binds this Court.

The petitioners in Baker v. Nelson were two men who had been denied a license to marry each other. They argued that Minnesota’s statutory definition of marriage as an opposite-gender relationship violated due process and equal protection – just as the plaintiffs argue here. The Minnesota Supreme Court rejected the petitioners’ claim, determining that the right to marry without regard to gender was not a fundamental right and that it was neither irrational nor invidious discrimination to define marriage as requiring an opposite-gender union. [snip]

Baker, which necessarily decided that a state law defining marriage as a union between a man and woman does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, remains good law. Because no right to same-gender marriage emanates from the Constitution, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico should not be compelled to recognize such unions. Instead, Puerto Rico, acting through its legislature, remains free to shape its own marriage policy. In a system of limited constitutional self-government such as ours, this is the prudent outcome. The people and their elected representatives should debate the wisdom of redefining marriage. Judges should not.

Actually, that last line sums up where this opinion errs. Not only is it proper for judges to consider the constitutionality of laws that burden an unpopular minority; in our system of government, with constitutional protections built in, **it's their job to do so.**

[Altair]

Ah, so the DA is blackmailing them under the color of law then?

 
Sorry, I don't know what you mean by "blackmailing them under the color of law."

[sailor]

And as right-wing sites continue to try to make this non-issue into a cause celebre, this graphic is illuminating:

 
The graphic is outdated and apparently a moot point.  They are a religious corporation.



http://www.adfmedia.org/files/KnappCityAttorneyLetter.pdf

[sailor]

Sorry, I don't know what you mean by "blackmailing them under the color of law."

 
He is using the threat of the ordinance, under his power as DA to prosecute under that law, to get them to do something. The cost of fighting the case is the punishment even if the couple wins the case they might be bankrupt.

[sailor]

Actually, that last line sums up where this opinion errs. Not only is it proper for judges to consider the constitutionality of laws that burden an unpopular minority; in our system of government, with constitutional protections built in, **it's their job to do so.**

 
Circuit courts also have to follow precedent from their circuit and from the Supreme Court.  The only SSM precedent from the USSC is against SSM.  And there hasn't been a SSM case in their circuit

You should be rooting for this judge and for this circuit to uphold him.  That will create a circuit split which would require the USSC to make a ruling.