Churches that take state funds must play by the rules on gay marriage

[Swede]

As it should be.


A bill legalizing same-sex marriage for couples in New York State is at a standstill over the issue of exemptions for religious organizations and individuals. The reach of these religious protections is wide-ranging -from whether Catholic adoption agencies may reject same-sex couples, to the right of religious caterers to refuse services for gay weddings. In New York State’s Marriage Equality Act, should there be exemptions for religion? What should happen when equal rights for gay citizens and the right to religious free exercise clash?

No house of worship should be required to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony (or indeed any ceremony it doesn’t want to perform). But taxpayer-funded agencies – including “faith-based” providers – should treat everyone equally. Otherwise qualified same-sex couples should have the same access to public services as opposite-sex couples. Churches that don’t want to obey non-discrimination rules are free to stop participating in publicly funded adoption programs.

The same principles of fairness and equal access should apply in the business sector. Businesses that hold themselves out as public accommodations should be willing to serve everyone. Anything else is discrimination.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/post/churches-that-take-state-funds-must-play-by-the-rules-on-gay-marriage/2011/06/22/AGAxTkfH_blog.html

[NYC Liberal]

1. Good. Churches/religious orgs. that operate on their own

can do what they want. But they can't have it both ways.

[robcon]

2. This is the same exemption that some institutions get on abortion.

For example, Catholic hospitals do not have to perform abortions.

[patrice]

3. Too bad paved streets, water/sewer/refuse, police & fire protection aren't considered state or city

funds.

[customerserviceguy]

4. Get equality first

Go after the bigots later.

[ohheckyeah]

5. While I certainly understand

the position on faith-based providers, I just hope people are prepared for the backlash. I think it will be like none we've seen.

[bonzotex]

7. I fear you are right... n/t

[JI7]

10. backlash for what ? they have the right to go by their own rules if they want

by not taking state funds

[ohheckyeah]

11. It won't matter.

They are used to taking the federal and state handouts and doing exactly as they please. When you start messing with that you are going to get a huge, HUGE backlash.

[bonzotex]

6. that's cool, but....

This is going to be a magnet for lawsuits by the religious groups. I'm still pissed that there is any such thing as a taxpayer funded "faith-based" public services.

Still, this is a big win and hopefully, eventually, will be followed State by State across the country.

[FreeJoe]

8. No exemptions

I don't think that churches should be exempt from taxes. Their "charity" work should be, but not their standard religious activities. With that, however, I don't think they should be forced or coerced into performing marriages for anyone. Freedom sometimes means letting people be bigoted jerks. There will be plenty of places that will perform the weddings.

[Retrograde]

9. Churches already can and do decide who they'll marry

If Mr. Retrograde and I asked a Catholic priest to marry us next week he'd refuse on the grounds that we're not Catholic, and a Mormon bishop would say the same thing if we wanted a Temple marriage. So what's the big fuss now?

Jeesh, just cut to the chase and only recognize civil marriages from now on. If people want to go the whole church route for whatever reasons, fine, they can do that in addition.