Wedding Chapel Sues After Idaho Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by rdowns, Oct 20, 2014.

  1. rdowns, Oct 20, 2014
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2014

    rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #1
    If you don't like not discriminating, go back to marrying people at your church.


    http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/10/20/3581733/idaho-marriage-chapel-adf/
     
  2. Naimfan macrumors 68040

    Naimfan

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    #2
    They are welcome to reorganize as a church . . .
     
  3. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #3
  4. SLC Flyfishing Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #4
    If the owners can show that doing so would be in violation of their religious beliefs then I imagine they would.
     
  5. rdowns thread starter macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #5
    From the article.

     
  6. tgara macrumors 6502a

    tgara

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2012
    Location:
    Somewhere in the Delta Quadrant
    #6

    I have not looked at the details, but this appears to be factually similar to the Hobby Lobby case, e.g., a closely-held corporation that operates to some degree under the religious principles of its owners, and a broad ordinance comes into conflict with those principles and operation of the business.

    Federal RFRA says that government shall not substantially burden a person’s (a.k.a. a closely-held corporation or other private business) exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability (such as this ordinance) unless there is a compelling government interest AND the government is using the least restrictive means to achieve that interest.

    Just checked, and it appears that Idaho has a state RFRA that is nearly identical to the federal RFRA.
     
  7. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #7
    If they are state employees then they shouldn't be able to refuse to marry same-sex couples, but since it appears that they aren't the State shouldn't force them to change their religious beliefs.
     
  8. Technarchy macrumors 604

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #8
    Force a local Pakistani eatery to serve pork and get back to me.
     
  9. Southern Dad macrumors 65816

    Southern Dad

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    Location:
    Georgia
    #9
    First, why would any LGBT couple want to be married by such bigots? If they are so set in their beliefs that they won't serve the LGBT community, then they deserve to lose out on that revenue. Ignore them. Don't give them any publicity. The LGBT community should just avoid this place so that they have no standing for a lawsuit. Screw them. Let them wither in place. There will be ten places glad to take their money.
     
  10. Moyank24 macrumors 601

    Moyank24

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    in a New York State of mind
    #10
    Is pork a protected class now? :D

    I agree with you - no LGBT couple wants to be married by bigots. And I'm sure they'll all take their money elsewhere now that they know about this particular place.

    That said, anti-discrimination laws have to be enforced to be effective. If they aren't enforced, what's the point?
     
  11. Southern Dad macrumors 65816

    Southern Dad

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    Location:
    Georgia
    #11
    The problem is they are wanting a test case so they can sue. Their little two bit business hits the front page of many newspapers. Screw them. avoid them like the plague.
     
  12. Moyank24 macrumors 601

    Moyank24

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    in a New York State of mind
    #12
    So you believe that we should pick and choose which businesses should have to adhere to the law?
     
  13. Southern Dad macrumors 65816

    Southern Dad

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    Location:
    Georgia
    #13
    I don't think we should give them the test case they are looking for... Screw them. Instead of them refusing to marry LGBT which gets them front page headlines, how about the LBBT boycotts them?
     
  14. Moyank24 macrumors 601

    Moyank24

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    in a New York State of mind
    #14
    From the OP:

    Looks like they're creating their own headlines.

    And no matter who instigated this situation, if anti-discrimination laws aren't enforced, they are useless. LGBT groups will boycott these companies ANYWAY once they make it clear they don't want their business. However, these laws still need to be enforced.

    Do you not believe in enforcing the law?
     
  15. lannister80 macrumors 6502

    lannister80

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #15
    Is eating pork a protected class now?
     
  16. Southern Dad macrumors 65816

    Southern Dad

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    Location:
    Georgia
    #16
    Right, so they get a ton of free publicity. What I'm saying is the LGBT community can do more by just quietly boycotting this company. Give them no violation because they won't have reason to violate. Then there will be no standing for a lawsuit.

    Focus on publicizing the marriage places that are marrying LGBT.
     
  17. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #17
    From the OP

    It looks like they are smart enough to learn from past history that while the majority of Same Sex couples will just not go to places that don't want to marry them there are always a few that will try to go and punish people for following their beliefs. So it seems like they are just trying to preempt a lawsuit that would be coming before too long anyway.
     
  18. Moyank24 macrumors 601

    Moyank24

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    in a New York State of mind
    #18
    When fighting for equal rights, quiet is the last thing you should be.

    Or, you know, they could just follow the law.

    Forget about punishing people for following "their beliefs", how about punishing people for breaking the law?


    I'll say again, anti-discrimination laws (no matter who is being discriminated against) are only effective if they are enforced.
     
  19. Southern Dad macrumors 65816

    Southern Dad

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    Location:
    Georgia
    #19
    All they want is free advertising.

    That is just it, they haven't broken the law, yet. They are putting this information out there so that LGBT couples will come there, then they can refuse and get a citation which gives them standing to sue, making front pages everywhere.

    Do you really see a win making them marry LGBT couples against their will?
     
  20. Moyank24 macrumors 601

    Moyank24

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    in a New York State of mind
    #20
    It appears as if you don't understand the concept of anti-discrimination laws.


    We could have had this discussion 50 years ago, except replace LGBT couples with black men and women and replace marriages with sitting down at a counter to eat.

    How did that turn out? Was it a "win" in your book?
     
  21. iBlazed macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #21
    I do. Allowing them to discriminate against these couples would effectively allow a religious motel owner to do the same, why not a religious restaurant owner too? What about someone who is an Atheist but still doesn't like gay people and wants to discriminate against them? Does he have less right to do so than the religious folks? Why should anyone get that right?
     
  22. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #22
    That is an absurd - and invalid - comparison

    Can you force McDonalds to serve foie gras and Champagne? Can you force a Buffalo Wild Wings to serve vichyssoise and creme brûlée? You can't.

    You can force McDonalds and Buffalo Wild Wings to serve people of every race who walk in the door.

    You can't force a business to change what is on the menu. But you can prevent a business from illegally discriminating against people.

    If you open a Halal restaurant you can serve whatever food you like. But you cant discriminate against Jews, Christians, Druids or atheists who walk in the door.

    The Wedding Chapel people have Weddings on their Menu. They can't discriminate against people of mixed races, different religions, or because they are of one gender or the other.
     
  23. edk99 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 27, 2009
    Location:
    FL
    #23
    Absurd? Using your analogy you are saying it is OK for a BBQ joint to not offer a Vegan alternative. So if I'm a Vegan I would never go to that place because it doesn't offer me what I want to eat. How is that so different than a wedding chapel just having a menu option for opposite sex marriages? If I'm a same sex couple wanting to get married I wouldn't go there if that choice was not on the menu.
     
  24. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #24
    You're right, you shouldn't be able to force a business to change what they offer from offering opposite sex marriages to same sex ones.
     
  25. Technarchy macrumors 604

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #25
    Their "menu" doesn't offer gay wedding services, so the state will force them to. This product is not on their shelves. It's something they don't want to sell, so the state is going to make them.

    Sounds legit...I will expect some slow roasted swine at my local Halal shop next. If they don't, I will expect the municipality to knock down this clear discrimination.
     

Share This Page