Originally Posted by Bestworking:
Where do people who oppose same sex marriages draw the line? If it is based on thinking it's wrong, or an 'abomination', or all the other things you hear about gay people, why only oppose them on a few things? Shouldn't you be refusing to treat them medically? Refusing to educate them? Shouldn't you be refusing to rent/sell homes to them? Shouldn't you be refusing to hire them? Shouldn't you be refusing to sell food to them, etc? Or is the problem with that is that it's against the law to refuse those things? Contendah, is your opinion/feelings based on religious reasons, or do you simply not like homosexuals? I know the contempt you have for them, and I remember one of your posts about 'brucesie"(? sp). So, where is the line?
----
Apples and oranges, Best. Red herring also. You say:
"Where do people who oppose same sex marriages draw the line? If it is based on thinking it's wrong, or an 'abomination', or all the other things you hear about gay people, why only oppose them on a few things? Shouldn't you be refusing to treat them medically? Refusing to educate them? Shouldn't you be refusing to rent/sell homes to them? Shouldn't you be refusing to hire them? Shouldn't you be refusing to sell food to them, etc?"
You need to understand the differences here, Best. Let's just look at one of your examples, medical treatment for homosexuals. The providing of such treatment does not entail the conscription of a second party for services that involve or that imply approval or disapproval , on religious or other grounds, of the sexual preferences of the person receiving treatment . By contrast, a same-sex wedding ceremony conducted by a minister of religion is a service that is inherently religious in nature. By performing such a service for a same-sex couple, the minister clearly implies that his action is in accordance with his religious convictions concerning marriage, an institution that he regards as one ordained by God. He must set aside his sincerely held religious convictions to perform that ceremony. No such demand obtains in the case of a health care professional who provides medical services to a homosexual person. Similarly, no endorsement of homosexuality is implied in providing education to homosexuals or in selling or serving food to them.
The law in Idaho provides appropriate exceptions in such cases as this one. Here is the text from the Idaho Religious Freedom Restoration Act to which the attorney writing in the Washington Post referred:
TITLE 73
GENERAL CODE PROVISIONS
CHAPTER 4
FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION PROTECTED
73-402. FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION PROTECTED. (1) Free exercise of religion is a fundamental right that applies in this state, even if laws, rules or other government actions are facially neutral. (2) Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.
(3) Government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is both:
(a) Essential to further a compelling governmental interest;
(b) The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
(4) A person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. A party who prevails in any action to enforce this chapter against a government shall recover attorney's fees and costs.
(5) In this section, the term "substantially burden" is intended solely to ensure that this chapter is not triggered by trivial, technical or de minimis infractions.
History:
[73-402, added 2000, ch. 133, sec. 2, p. 353.]
Note (Section (4) above) that if the ministers prevail in their suit, the City of Coeur d'Alene will be required to pay the ministers' legal fees. No such requirement is imposed upon the plaintiffs (the Knapps) should the city prevail.
I suspect that the city will have to pay through its municipal nose.
My opinion is indeed based on religious grounds. As to religious aspects of marriage, I would suggest that the Knapps, should they fail to prevail in court, might substantially discourage requests for same-sex wedding ceremonies by routinely incorporating into their services this wording from Romans 1:
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
If the engaged same-sex couple does not like this aspect of the services offered by the Knapps, they can seek assistance elsewhere.