[karajorma]

You still can't force a church to carry out a marriage it disagrees with.

no one is going to force maraiges that go against a given church to be performed by that church.

And FYI, priests and pastros are free to refuse to marry whoever the **** they don't want to.

Who wants to bet this will no longer be the case in five years?

I'll bet you two month's exclusive coding time on a feature the winner wants right now.

[Mr. Vega]

There are, in fairness, some wrinkles that need ironing out, I've heard people talking about the 'Gay Cake' issue (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-32913283), which is a bit of a two-edged sword in my eyes, I would not, for example, go into a Muslim cake-shop and ask for Baklavas with little icing suicide bombers on them, but then, I wonder how 'often' the store defines its Christianity, if it had been called something like 'Gods Christian Cakeshop', would the customers have looked elsewhere for service? Sometimes keeping your religion under the counter like a shotgun can lead to confusion if you are going to use it as a part of the terms and conditions of service.

That said, Churches and Priests are different, they are the very epitome of those religious beliefs and you wouldn't be able to force them to conduct gay marriage, it would be illogical to the point where it's like saying a jobless, penniless person could sue a bank manager for refusing to give them a loan because it's 'discrimination' against the poor...

If you only marry people of your community, like a Jewish synagogue, obviously you wouldn't be affected by this. But many churches let themselves be open wedding venues that anyone can use for a wedding. If they're going to do that but turn down a gay or lesbian wedding, sorry, we've caught you with your hand in the cookie jar.

[Ghostavo]

I constantly feel the need to remind people pulling religion into this topic, as a means to say that marriage should be this or that based on religion, that marriage predates religion.

[Mongoose]

*looks outside*  Huh...no fire and brimstone raining from the heavens, no earthquakes or tidal waves or Godzilla invasions.  Who knew?

Ah, you're too impatient.  Wait one generation and look outside again.

I'm not exactly going to hold my breath over it.

[Goober5000]

Name A SINGLE JURISDICTION ON THIS PLANET where, after gay marriage was introduced, a law forcing priests to marry everyone regardless of the requirements of their religion was later introduced.

A. SINGLE. ****ING. ONE.

This slippery slope argument is bull****.

Y'see, I said "five years from now", not "at the present time".  If five years have elapsed and this hasn't come true, feel free to start ranting.

I'll bet you two month's exclusive coding time on a feature the winner wants right now.

Considering that both of us are rather starved for coding time, that may not be a very valuable bet.

But sure, and I'll make it a little more specific.  Within five years of the Supreme Court decision (provided the decision has not been overturned by another decision or a constitutional amendment), there will have been at least one court order in the USA for a priest, minister, or pastor to marry a gay couple against his will, or for a gay wedding to take place in a church building against the wishes of the church custodians.

[The E]

Name A SINGLE JURISDICTION ON THIS PLANET where, after gay marriage was introduced, a law forcing priests to marry everyone regardless of the requirements of their religion was later introduced.

A. SINGLE. ****ING. ONE.

This slippery slope argument is bull****.

Y'see, I said "five years from now", not "at the present time".  If five years have elapsed and this hasn't come true, feel free to start ranting.

There are a few countries out there that have successfully established gay marriage rights. None of them have taken any steps in the direction you say is inevitable for the US. As a result, I am extremely skeptical that your fears are in any way founded in reality.

So, I am asking you for indicators or precedents for this happening. If there are any, I will gladly stop ranting. If there aren't, I definitely want to know the reasoning behind your very firm sounding statements.

[Goober5000]

There are a few countries out there that have successfully established gay marriage rights. None of them have taken any steps in the direction you say is inevitable for the US.

It's not inevitable.  I would be very happy to lose this bet.  I just don't expect that I will.

As a result, I am extremely skeptical that your fears are in any way founded in reality.

So, I am asking you for indicators or precedents for this happening. If there are any, I will gladly stop ranting. If there aren't, I definitely want to know the reasoning behind your very firm sounding statements.

Here's one I found:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/20/idaho-citys-ordinance-tells-pastors-to-marry-gays-/

Coeur d‘Alene, Idaho, city officials have laid down the law to Christian pastors within their community, telling them bluntly via an ordinance that if they refuse to marry homosexuals, they will face jail time and fines.

“On Friday, a same-sex couple asked to be married by the Knapps, and the Knapps politely declined,” The Daily Signal reported. “The Knapps now face a 180-day jail term and a $1,000 fine for each day they decline to celebrate the same-sex wedding.”

This was eight months ago.  I'm actually surprised that it happened this early; I didn't expect it for another two years or so.

[The E]

Right. Followup question: Was that statute upheld in court?

Edit: Surprise, it didn't even get that far. Who would have thought. http://boisestatepublicradio.org/post/coeur-dalene-says-hitching-post-exempt-gay-rights-law

Edit 2: Also, it's interesting how the article you quoted and the article linked to above have differing perspectives. In your source, it sounds as if a gay couple was threatening to sue the owners of that wedding chapel; the one I found says

"The city has been embroiled in controversy ever since the owners of the Hitching Post sued the city. They say a city anti-discrimination law threatened to force them to marry same-sex couples now that gay marriage is legal in Idaho."

Then the city looked at the ordinance in question, checked with the people who passed the ordinance, and determined that as a religious organization, that wedding chapel was exempt from the ordinance.

Now, to rephrase my previous question, can you find an example of something like this happening and being upheld in court?

[NGTM-1R]

Who wants to bet this will no longer be the case in five years?

Christian Identity is a recognized religion in some places; at least enough it manages to get tax-exempt status as such. Their pastors refuse to perform interracial marriages because they're, well, Christian Identity, of white racist fame. Identity goes back to the '70s at the least, which is after Loving v. Virginia struck down laws against the subject.

Their right to do this has never been seriously challenged. People like the Southern Poverty Law Center have come at various Identity ministers and figures with every civil rights violation under the sun. They have never attempted to attack them on these grounds because it's a nonstarter. It's been thirty years and more, and even at the height of the fight against Identity when Aryan Nations was running around murdering people in the early '90s nobody considered that approach.

This comment of yours is ridiculous. Your arguments for it have been not only ridiculous but disingenuous.

[Goober5000]

Now, to rephrase my previous question, can you find an example of something like this happening and being upheld in court?

Well now that's just moving the goalposts.  Originally you asked for "indicators or precedents".  The example I cited is a precedent.  The example Flipside cited is a precedent.  They are not instances of the thing happening at the current time, but they are indicators that it may happen in the future.

This comment of yours is ridiculous. Your arguments for it have been not only ridiculous but disingenuous.

So it's ridiculous to wait five years to see whether something will happen within five years?

K.  We'll just save time by declaring that we know exactly what will happen.

[Scotty]

The ridiculous part is your baseless fearmongering over something that does not actually affect you in any way, shape, or form.

[MP-Ryan]

The SCOTUS decision does not affect First Amendment rights.  Regular readers of Popehat will know that means that, while this forces the states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, officiants who refuse their services to same-sex couples, particularly on religious grounds, are still protected by the First Amendment.

Also, Canada - your northern neighbour, for the geographically challenged - has had nationwide same-sex marriage for a DECADE and no one here has been thrown in jail for refusing to marry a same-sex couple (or anyone else, for that matter). The sky is not falling.

And no, marriage is not even remotely a religious institution.  Religions embrace all kinds of marriages, but the concept of marriage pre-dates all modern religions.

[Bobboau]

Actually, I take it back, someone is definitely going to try. They will fail.

[The E]

Now, to rephrase my previous question, can you find an example of something like this happening and being upheld in court?

Well now that's just moving the goalposts.  Originally you asked for "indicators or precedents".  The example I cited is a precedent.  The example Flipside cited is a precedent.  They are not instances of the thing happening at the current time, but they are indicators that it may happen in the future.

That's fair. But now that you have found a precedent, it's necessary to look at that incident to determine what it was actually a precedent for, and as it turns out, it was a precedent for religious rights being upheld. The scenario you were conjuring up didn't come to pass and there seems to be a clear line for judicial argument that is evolving here, which states that if you are a religious organization, you are not bound by equality laws.

[Goober5000]

The ridiculous part is your baseless fearmongering over something that does not actually affect you in any way, shape, or form.

So, is it necessary for someone to be personally affected by an issue in order to have an opinion on it?  I shall be interested to hear you inform your straight allies that their assistance in the court of public opinion is not welcome.

That's fair. But now that you have found a precedent, it's necessary to look at that incident to determine what it was actually a precedent for, and as it turns out, it was a precedent for religious rights being upheld. The scenario you were conjuring up didn't come to pass and there seems to be a clear line for judicial argument that is evolving here, which states that if you are a religious organization, you are not bound by equality laws.

I hope so.  But I'm not optimistic.  We shall see.  I've been wrong before.

I found another article on the subject, this time regarding marriage ceremonies in Denmark:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/9317447/Gay-Danish-couples-win-right-to-marry-in-church.html

The country's parliament voted through the new law on same-sex marriage by a large majority, making it mandatory for all churches to conduct gay marriages.

[...]

Under the law, individual priests can refuse to carry out the ceremony, but the local bishop must arrange a replacement for their church.

So there is an individual exception, but not a church exception.  I wonder what would happen if the entire local bishopric refused the ceremony.

[Bobboau]

yeah, they don't have the first amendment. Those countries are also having a rash of blasphemy laws, the same mechanism that makes that sort of thing hard to implement here will also protect religious organizations rights to do whatever they want. keep in mind before this religious organizations in the US which supported gay marriage could not perform them. this only strengthens the first amendment and the protection it instills upon all religions/lack-there-of.

[NGTM-1R]

So it's ridiculous to wait five years to see whether something will happen within five years?

If I tell you the world will end due to the bunnies gaining sentience and overthrowing mankind in five years, should you be required to accord that statement some kind of respect or weight until five years are passed?

Statements that go against the fundamental governing principles as we understand them, whether it be the First Amendment exercise of religion as enhanced by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or the idea that you can teach rabbits intelligence and the overthrow of mankind in a relatively short timescale, are not meaningful statements. They should not be taken seriously unless extraordinary evidence has been presented.

Not only did you fail to present such evidence, what you actually did was disingenuously present a case where the exact opposite of what you were arguing for happened.

[Bobboau]

to be fair, he only said someone would try.

[The E]

to be fair, he only said someone would try.

Yes, and there's nothing wrong with that. The point isn't whether or not someone would try to do this, it's whether or not they succeed. And it seems highly unlikely that that would happen.

[Luis Dias]

Religious communities / peoples in the US are actually being frightened that this scenario will play out. And it's no good to say that they are just scared of some weird slipping rope argumentation that is stupid and will bear no fruit, when all these changes that seemed impossible just a few years ago just turned out true.

The future is fought and built for every single day, and this achievement only makes that point even truer than ever before. I can indeed see how some fringes will eventually try to sue churches who do not marry gays for discrimination. It's not as if people were not up in arms a month ago about some bakers who refused to bake a gay wedding cake, and sued them for that exact same thing IIRC (or at least that was the argument). I do not believe most gays will even think of trying to do that, because of the simple fact that it is an assholeish thing to do. If a church has a definition of marriage that is heterossexual only, why would you force a priest doing something he really believes to be a farce?

Nevertheless, I can totally see a case or two propping up, due to very specific circumstances of some curious backstory or something to that effect. It's bound to happen. And the Christians are totally expecting it to happen and they are also expecting all sorts of media campaigns against their "bigotry" when it happens. It will be ugly to watch. Reasonable people won't do this, of course, but these campaigns are not leveled by reasonable people. And if some random judge happens to rule against one church or two, mayhem will occur. "Culture Wars" will rise to a whole new meaning.

It's a scenario that I for one have no desire to watch being played out, so I really hope reasonableness and common sense may prevail in the future, and all incidents of this sort may defuse and be treated eloquently and sensibly without stepping into these christian's throats.