do gay rights compromise religious rights?

How are they public institutions?

 

By virtue of them not being private. By virtue of their ability to perform state functions that shift tax status. By virtue of them being "non-partisan" community actors with a mission for social betterment. You don't get to pick and chose the society you serve in this regard, and yet still maintain your privileged monetary position in the community. You must adjust yourself to your surroundings if your goal really is to serve in a non-biased, tax exempt status. Conversely, churches are perfectly free to become private and exclusive, and cater to their distinct members only...and of course, pay taxes like all the other organizations in the community.

Here is what will happen in the next 5-10 years: Churches will continue to perform religious marriage ceremonies. But the state itself will only recognize civil unions, which affect inheritance, tax status, and asset distribution for "partners," just to name a few items. This relieves the churches from the burden of going against their supernatural beliefs in their ceremonies, but also removes their state function relating to the legal issues of wills, next of kin, etc. In other words, the religious ceremonies will only be relevant to the religious. Civil unions will be the fiduciary arrangements recognized by the government via legal contract.

And if I were to tangent off into an interesting future hypothesis, to expand the premise out to 15-20 years, these arrangements would not necessarily be limited to two individuals, along the European Enlightenment ideas of romantic love and family units, but rather be more akin to business mergers and acquisitions. Thus, entire communities could feasibly enter into these arrangements for financial reasons, considering the laws remain the same. This is the logical path of the current evolutionary trend, all things remaining equal.

For example, the entire city of Charlotte could arrange itself into a civil union and then pay its taxes jointly, reaping the benefits collectively. Wouldn't that be special?? So romantic.

 

I'm assuming that in the adoption case the church is in some way licensed or approved by the state so I can sort of see why a case could be made. I don't agree with the motives of those bringing legal action but I can see how.

 

A church can decide not to perform a wedding for lots of reasons and they do. I don't see how that argument could ever be made.

 

If I were gay I would force that I hate Fags church to do my wedding.:fu8:

 

I totally agree. The doctor and the adoption firms were clearly being discriminated against.

 

And exactly how does that square with the phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

 

Have you ever actually read the Constitution?

 

He makes me look like a strict constructionist.

 

"I can't discriminate against you so you must be discriminating against me" isn't a valid argument.