If I'm a baker, should I be forced to make a wedding cake for a black couple? How about for a mixed-race couple? Is this a different issue? If so, how exactly? I know I'm asking, not answering - but I think it's worth making the comparison. It wasn't that long ago that these were relevant questions too.
absolutely. And for the record - the issue of providing services - I am 99.9% all about service to all. (maybe a cake for a hate group would be the .1% where I would decline and risk the lawsuit) But I wonder - what about the marriage ceremony? Should a minister be compelled to perform what they believe is a sacred ordinance? (I'm trying to imagine a gay couple demanding marriage at the hand of some one who doesn't believe in gay marriage - but that's some of the weird fear-based language I hear around)It wasn't that long ago that these were relevant questions too.
Understood. Imagine you're a minister from 50 or 100 years ago, and you don't believe you should have to marry a black man to a white woman, on purely religious grounds. Was that minister right or wrong? In his time, it would not even have been a question, but seen in today's eyes, it's different. What will the world look like in another 100 years? Who would Jesus allow to get married?
This is a GREAT question. And I'll give you my honest answer: Anyone should be able to marry any other consenting adult. But I really believe that a minister shouldn't be forced to marry anyone that violates the doctrine of his/her church. But I think that sounds like hate speech to some people.Who would Jesus allow to get married?
This is a whole other can of worms, but I think you just endorsed plural marriage, dude ;-)Anyone should be able to marry any other consenting adult.
I agree with you - but there are legal entanglements and advantages/obligations conferred by marriage (mostly tax-related) that need to be clearly sorted out.
The best argument I've ever heard is that marriage should be abolished as a civil institution and all tax and citizenship benefits should be transferred to civil unions, which are wholly separate from marriages. "Marriage" should be whatever you and/or your church want it to be; "civil union" should be between two consenting adults.
It's a wholly semantic issue. Marriage is part of law, because marriage is a cultural thing, and a human thing; religion simply codified it. Pair-bonding is older than humanity. The problem being, of course, many people believe not only that religion invented 'marriage,' but their religion in particular. I agree with you. They're wrong, as a matter of fact. But if it makes them less antagonistic, let them have it. I value people more than words.
Jumping in here, it doesn't sound like hate speech to me. The line I draw is between requiring someone to believe something and requiring them to do something. A church is a non-public institution providing services to its members. As such, the church is not expected to provide services, including membership and marriage services, to whomever requests them. A metaphor might be a private country club. I can't play golf there, and a hay couple can't have a wedding with a catholic priest. When a gay couple orders a wedding cake, they are not asking the baker to approve of their wedding. The baker provides services to the public as a whole; they aren't a non-public institution. Therefore (to me, a non-religious person), the baker should be expected to provide the service, barring any non-protected reason preventing them (e.g. if they're booked solid, so be it). The baker is expected to do but not expected to believe.
I think it really depends on if the minister offers marriage services to the public, or only to his congregation. If the latter, then okay, discriminate away, and ban those sinners from your church - but if those services are offered to the public (for profit or not), then such discrimination should not be allowed.
I don't think so. The argument I gave in a different area is the idea that you cannot selectively give service to X group, but not Y. However, in this case, the "service" is the people in some way. A religious ceremony is tied to belief, and tied to the church, the moral system, and so on. To mandate they act a certain way, within a church, isn't right. So long as the state will provide a courthouse and a secular leader to mandate the marriage, and gay people are allowed to form their own churches that can perform the ceremonies, then I think this is fine to allow discrimination on. Should a minister be compelled to perform what they believe is a sacred ordinance?
It depends whether it is a religious or a civil ceremony. If the minister carries out religious ceremonies exclusively within their own religion, then fine. They can discriminate. I wouldn't expect some orthodox Jewish rabbi to preside over my atheist or christian or whatever wedding.
I would like to think that we live in a world where such behavior would be laughable. But I don't think a wedding service is exactly like a normal marketable product, that happens to be sold by people who could be antagonistic to gay marriage.Should a minister be compelled to perform what they believe is a sacred ordinance?
I wonder if this is a point... in our church - the ministers are all completely unpaid. I wonder if collecting a fee for the service would/could be a distinction in a case such as this. I'm glad you think so too. It felt like such a straw man argument: "BUT THEN THEY WILL DEMAND THAT WE MARRY THE GAY PEOPLES". I just shook my head. It felt so fear-mongering.that happens to be sold by people
such behavior would be laughable
I think you should make the cake. If it's just a regular cake that you usually make. I don't think you should be required to make a cake and paint the statement "KKK 4ever!" or "NAMBLA rules!" on it. When it comes to your own personal art and craft, you should be able to refuse any design. No one would have an issue with a landscape painter refusing to paint a portrait, or to paint in a different style, or with different media. It's their artistic choice. I see painting a slogan - or taking specific request for design that you may not want to do - as part of that. As a comparison: let's say the baker was asked to make a "joke cake" with a chocolate turd on it. The baker doesn't want it to end up all over social media tagged with his business name. Does that make him a humourless piece of work? So be it. It's his choice what he does with his brand. If a baker doesn't want to make a cake with "gay weddings rule!" on it, or whatever else, that's his choice. Does it make him a bigot? Likely. But it's choice to have a bigoted brand.