Join 3,512 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Gay marriage makes it okay?
January 26, 2012 3:11 PM   Subscribe

The granting of gay marriage rights in New Hampshire seemed to be a step in the right direction. However recently there is a push back to refuse service in public places to the gay community based on religious objections, seemingly against earlier legislation written to stop this exact type of discrimination.

You may or may not remember a similar story featuring an upstate New York town clerk (NYT).
posted by aloiv2 (65 comments total) 2 users marked this as a favorite

 
Christ, what a bunch of assholes.
posted by darkstar at 3:22 PM on January 26, 2012 [3 favorites]


How could this work? I'm pretty sure you're not allowed to discriminate based on sex or race in public accommodations even if your religion says you have to. Would I be allowed to discriminated against Christians staying at my hotel if my religion said it was okay or even necessary for me to do so?
posted by rtha at 3:23 PM on January 26, 2012 [1 favorite]


From the New York town clerk link:

A Protestant who worships at several area churches, Ms. Belforti read to a reporter a passage from the first chapter of Romans, which she says condemns homosexual activity, offering it as an explanation for her stance.

“This is about religious freedom,” she said. “This is not about trashing gay people.”


I think what you got there is a twofer.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 3:25 PM on January 26, 2012 [12 favorites]


I am a Christian. I am a lesbian. I have run into a lot of religious people who have objections to homosexuality. I have never, ever, *ever* heard of a genuine religious argument which prohibits providing a commercial service to someone on the basis of particular personal sins. Personal arguments, yes. But not ones with any genuinely-held religious basis. This is the difference between free exercise and discrimination. Marrying a couple in the church involves giving a religious blessing to the practice. Catering, for example, involves bringing them food. They aren't the same.
posted by gracedissolved at 3:27 PM on January 26, 2012 [28 favorites]


You know what I hate? Clicking through to an article, reading and scrolling down to the comments (I know, I know...) and finding a relative-in-law has commented in support of the...well, hate.

Live Free Or Die...But Only If You're Straight.
posted by squasha at 3:28 PM on January 26, 2012 [4 favorites]


Oh New Hampshire, our little neighbor to the South. Keep staying classy.
posted by Marie Mon Dieu at 3:29 PM on January 26, 2012


Upon review it actually looks more reasonable than the headline leads on. This would only apply to weddings and receptions really, saying businesses cannot be forced to be involved in the event. I can see a sensitivity to those that don't agree with it for religious reasons, hence don't want to be a part of it.

It would be like forcing a vegan, under penalty of law, to work the brisket tray at a barbecue.
posted by Descent at 3:34 PM on January 26, 2012


what gracedissolved said a million times.

while i don't agree with the idea that homosexuality is a sin, i at least understand the people who say "it's a sin, like any other sin, and discriminating against people because they're sinners is antithetical to christ's position."

jesus would never enter a mega-church and you'd be more likely to find him down on castro rather than at a NOM meeting.

taking a religious exception to doing your fucking job is such bullshit. that goes to caterers and pharmacists alike.
posted by nadawi at 3:36 PM on January 26, 2012 [10 favorites]


Upon review it actually looks more reasonable than the headline leads on. This would only apply to weddings and receptions really, saying businesses cannot be forced to be involved in the event. I can see a sensitivity to those that don't agree with it for religious reasons, hence don't want to be a part of it.

Where do you see this as applying only to weddings and receptions?

The second link in the FPP explicitly says the proposed bill would exempt public accommodations, which are already covered by non-discrimination law.

Even taking accommodations out of the picture, this is bullshit. Would you be okay with a catering business refusing to serve a black couple getting married?
posted by spitefulcrow at 3:44 PM on January 26, 2012


Christ, some of your followers are assholes.
posted by symbioid at 3:44 PM on January 26, 2012 [50 favorites]


Descent: There is no legal protection for food preference. If you take a job handling food and refuse to do so, your employer is legally in the right to fire you.
posted by saeculorum at 3:45 PM on January 26, 2012 [3 favorites]


squasha: "You know what I hate? Clicking through to an article, reading and scrolling down to the comments (I know, I know...) and finding a relative-in-law has commented in support of the...well, hate.

Live Free Or Die...But Only If You're white, male, over 21 and own property, Straight.
"

3 down... 1 to go.
posted by symbioid at 3:47 PM on January 26, 2012 [1 favorite]


<--- FAIL - forgot to close after "property".
posted by symbioid at 3:47 PM on January 26, 2012


A Protestant who worships at several area churches, Ms. Belforti read to a reporter a passage from the first chapter of Romans, which she says condemns homosexual activity, offering it as an explanation for her stance.

Paul the Apostle says you should shut the hell up.

A woman [or wife] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[or her husband] she must be quiet.

So go back to your religiously mandated state of quiet before the rest of your true believers stone you.
posted by Talez at 3:48 PM on January 26, 2012 [23 favorites]


... i at least understand the people who say "it's a sin, like any other sin, and discriminating against people because they're sinners is antithetical to christ's position."

True to some extent. But there's got to be conscience protection for people whose job function, if carried out, could mean they were actively participating in a sin. (I'm thinking of a hotelier not wanting to rent one room to two homosexuals or pharmacists denying girls the morning-after pill, etc.)

We have conscientious objectors in the military, for example, who don't kill because they believe it's wrong, maybe even sinful, whatever. We don't make them fight.

If you say you disagree with those people's positions because what they're refusing to do isn't a sin, sin doesn't exist, etc., well, then you'll just have to agree to disagree.
posted by resurrexit at 3:48 PM on January 26, 2012


True to some extent. But there's got to be conscience protection for people whose job function, if carried out, could mean they were actively participating in a sin. (I'm thinking of a hotelier not wanting to rent one room to two homosexuals or pharmacists denying girls the morning-after pill, etc.)

We have conscientious objectors in the military, for example, who don't kill because they believe it's wrong, maybe even sinful, whatever. We don't make them fight.

If you say you disagree with those people's positions because what they're refusing to do isn't a sin, sin doesn't exist, etc., well, then you'll just have to agree to disagree.


I reiterate what I said above: people used to use religion as an excuse for refusing to serve mixed-race couples. That's accepted as illegal discrimination these days. Please explain to me how this is at all different.
posted by spitefulcrow at 3:52 PM on January 26, 2012 [13 favorites]


To many--most?--people, race isn't the same as sexual orientation. So, that's different. But I know where you're coming from.
posted by resurrexit at 3:56 PM on January 26, 2012


As a gay, I am totally, utterly, 100% fine with a law that permits people and private businesses to refuse to participate in gay marriage ceremonies or weddings based on religious objections. More than fine. I prefer it.

I have no interest in making any private party do anything that contradicts his religious or moral beliefs.

I reiterate what I said above: people used to use religion as an excuse for refusing to serve mixed-race couples. That's accepted as illegal discrimination these days. Please explain to me how this is at all different.

It's not. I'm fine with religious exemptions for that, too.
posted by eugenen at 3:57 PM on January 26, 2012 [4 favorites]


pharmacists denying girls the morning-after pill

A pharmacists job is to dispense medicine and counsel patients on the effects. If a pharmacist can't do their job for religious reasons, then yes I think they should not have taken that job.

Let's say I am a Jainist. Should I be able to take a job as an exterminator or a meat-packer, and then refuse to perform the functions of that job, without getting fired?

Practically, business owners discriminate against whomever they want - I think many people of color and gay people have stories about small, personal, non-actionable discriminations (how does a mixed-race couple prove that a wedding venue refused their booking due to race?) But to have such discrimination encoded into law is a dangerous precendent.

It's not. I'm fine with religious exemptions for that, too.

Sooo... basically you disagree with federal law as it currently stands?
posted by muddgirl at 3:59 PM on January 26, 2012 [14 favorites]


saeculorum: My analogy about vegans and brisket was not a legal analogy (I know vegans don't fall under any non-discrimination definitions). It was an analogy to point out the law's intent regarding sensitivity. Intent, however, admittedly is not always translated into how the law is applied.

spitefulcrow: being black has never been argued to be a sin
posted by Descent at 4:00 PM on January 26, 2012


Sooo... basically you disagree with federal law as it currently stands?

Basically. I mean, I'm not going to agitate for it or anything.
posted by eugenen at 4:00 PM on January 26, 2012


spitefulcrow: being black has never been argued to be a sin

Excuse my first comment. Being black and marrying a white person has been argued to be a sin. Wikipedia: In 1958, the Christian fundamentalist preacher Jerry Falwell, at the time a defender of segregation, in a sermon railed against integration, warning that it would lead to miscegenation, which would "destroy our [white] race eventually.".
posted by spitefulcrow at 4:02 PM on January 26, 2012 [1 favorite]


In related news, Vermont would like to thank New Hampshire for sending much needed tourism dollars across the border to help them rebuild post Irene.
posted by mrzarquon at 4:03 PM on January 26, 2012 [2 favorites]


It was an analogy to point out the law's intent regarding sensitivity.

But as I mentioned, private businesses silently discriminate against people for their race, gender, or perceived sexuality all the time. They even hang a sign: "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." Why, in this case, should it be legally enshrined? Isn't the usual method to just say, "Sorry, we're booked those weekends"?
posted by muddgirl at 4:06 PM on January 26, 2012


Yay, Christians! Way to show the world what "Love thy neighbor as thyself" is all about! *high fives*
posted by xedrik at 4:07 PM on January 26, 2012 [4 favorites]


segregation academies were created to get around forced integration and in court battles they often pointed to religious beliefs against mixed race marriages. to say that there's no religious component of the civil rights fights seems to be a pretty naive view of history.
posted by nadawi at 4:08 PM on January 26, 2012 [4 favorites]


Well, at least you find out who and what businesses not to give your money to.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:16 PM on January 26, 2012


being black has never been argued to be a sin

Just the result of sin:
The explanation that black Africans, as the "sons of Ham", were cursed, possibly "blackened" by their sins, was advanced only sporadically during the middle ages, but became increasingly common during the slave trade of the 18th and 19th centuries.[41] The justification of slavery itself through the sins of Ham was well suited to the ideological interests of the elite; with the emergence of the slave trade, its racialized version justified the exploitation of a ready supply of African labour.
posted by nooneyouknow at 4:17 PM on January 26, 2012 [11 favorites]


Well, at least you find out who and what businesses not to give your money to.

Exactly. I'm not sure people realize what a bad move this would be for 95% of US businesses. Which itself speaks volumes about how far we've come.
posted by eugenen at 4:18 PM on January 26, 2012 [1 favorite]


You know what I hate? Clicking through to an article, reading and scrolling down to the comments (I know, I know...) and finding a relative-in-law has commented in support of the...well, hate.

Ugh, yeah, the Facebook Graph API integration makes that kind of thing awkward.

But I'm actually happy to see most of the FB comments on the WMUR page are almost all entirely against this discrimination. I realize FB trends much younger, and tying real names to online comments will discourage some of the more hateful comments, but it still gives me hope.
posted by formless at 4:19 PM on January 26, 2012


spitefulcrow: being black has never been argued to be a sin

Being black has been argued to be the result of a sin. In the Hamitic Myth, race theologians argue that Ham, the son of Noah, sinned in seeing his father naked, and his descendants as a race were condemned to have dark skin and live as servants to their brother races (the descendants of Shem and Japheth), forever.
posted by toodleydoodley at 4:21 PM on January 26, 2012 [2 favorites]


Wow, phone typing delay. Nooneyouknow, I owe you a coke
posted by toodleydoodley at 4:22 PM on January 26, 2012 [1 favorite]


But there's got to be conscience protection for people whose job function, if carried out, could mean they were actively participating in a sin.

Yes. That protection is the fact that you are allowed to leave your job if you think it's sinful. The reason there has to be something different in the military where there is conscription is because you cannot just quit the military.
posted by jeather at 4:28 PM on January 26, 2012 [7 favorites]


I always thought of it as a threat...live free or die. But from the few times I've visited New Hampshire, as far as I can tell it's a reference to how cheap they are.
posted by gimonca at 4:28 PM on January 26, 2012



I think this is a wonderful idea, and the people in New Hampshire are only flawed in not going far enough.

Instead of a mere prohibition on firing people for not doing their jobs to gay people for religious reasons, they should prohibit firing people for not doing their jobs at all for religious reasons.

Then I will form a religion whose only sin is working.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 4:28 PM on January 26, 2012 [5 favorites]


the mormons have believed some pretty fucked up things about black people. 1, 2

it'd be pretty hard to argue they didn't think the color of someone's skin was the result of being damaged by sin. they held a lot of this until 1979. and even after the priesthood was granted to black men, they never said they were wrong about the mark of cain/lamanite stuff.
posted by nadawi at 4:32 PM on January 26, 2012 [2 favorites]


spitefulcrow: being black has never been argued to be a sin

It could absolutely be argued that a religious exemption allows racial discrimination. Say hello to the (only changed in 1978) Mormon/LDS church:

2 Nephi 5:21
"And the Lord had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them."

Alma 3: 6
"And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men."

3 Nephi 2:14-15
" And it came to pass that those Lamanites who had united with the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites; And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites."

Moses 7:22
" And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them."

Abraham 1:21-24,27
"Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth. From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land."

"The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden; When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land."

"Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry"
posted by jaduncan at 4:36 PM on January 26, 2012 [2 favorites]


Note: I would not agree with this *at all*; I merely note that an argument could and indeed probably would be made.

Or, of course, the defendant could just be religiously affiliated to the Aryan Brotherhood's local priest.
posted by jaduncan at 4:38 PM on January 26, 2012 [1 favorite]


given that some Christians pretty much feel that the only pure people are white males it just struck me as odd they also thing white males getting it on with white males should be a sin.
posted by edgeways at 4:39 PM on January 26, 2012 [4 favorites]


arg, yes - 78, not 79. i always remember that wrong.
posted by nadawi at 4:39 PM on January 26, 2012


Seems like this short-sighted law could cripple New Hampshire's brunch-based economy.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 4:46 PM on January 26, 2012 [6 favorites]


It appears I violently shook this string of topic.

The crux is obviously that with religion as an excuse, you could "legally" discriminate the nuts off your neighbors dog, or any other damn thing you feel like doing in the name of religious freedom.

That's why we have reasonable, level headed people writing laws. Okay I almost got that written before laughing at myself. Let me restate, that's why we have discourse before signing proposed legislation into law.
posted by Descent at 4:50 PM on January 26, 2012


Speaking as a vegan who has worked in the food service industry, it never occurred to me to to refuse to do my job simply and solely because other people did not share the same beliefs that I did. Now that I have read this thread ... that still seems pretty ridiculous.
posted by kyrademon at 5:02 PM on January 26, 2012 [2 favorites]


I have sold flowers to adulterers and don't feel I sinned. For that matter ihave sold flowers to many a lesbian for their girlfriends and had no problem with it. As long as you don't ask me to specifically violate my convictions what is the problem?
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 5:20 PM on January 26, 2012 [5 favorites]


The conservative agenda in New Hampshire? Insane cruelty.
posted by EatTheWeak at 5:26 PM on January 26, 2012 [1 favorite]


It would be like forcing a vegan, under penalty of law, to work the brisket tray at a barbecue.

No, it would be like a vegan taking on a job that required her to issue hunting licenses; and then refusing to issue hunting licenses. She doesn't get to pick and choose in that case what laws to obey.
posted by mach at 5:28 PM on January 26, 2012 [5 favorites]


Wait, it doesn't say anywhere which water fountain I should use.
posted by kamikazegopher at 5:58 PM on January 26, 2012 [2 favorites]


That passage from Romans begins: Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. One way to read that is that God permitted those shameful lusts. Another way is that God made a big stink about being against such "unnatural" acts, but he was curious to see how his creatures might take to it. Gay-curious, you might say.
posted by anothermug at 6:18 PM on January 26, 2012


There are people who actually think this is okay? That putting into law the capacity for businesses to deny services to someone based solely on their sexual orientation is somehow a defensible position to take here, this far into the 21st Century?

Remind me again about how wonderful life is in the liberal elite enclave of New England? Because the last thing we need are Jim Crow style laws coming back into fashion.
posted by hippybear at 6:26 PM on January 26, 2012 [4 favorites]


As bad as this is, it's still just a bill being debated at this point. From what I've seen of US state legislatures they get all kinds of whackjob bills proposed but thankfully not many get passed. Hopefully this is one of them.
Even if it does get passed I can't imagine it surviving its first constitutionality challenge.
posted by rocket88 at 6:46 PM on January 26, 2012


Yes. That protection is the fact that you are allowed to leave your job if you think it's sinful. The reason there has to be something different in the military where there is conscription is because you cannot just quit the military.

THANK YOU REASONABLE PERSON!!!

I have no idea why this topic brings out the stupid, but man, does it. The whole "vegan short-order cook" thing falls flat on its face if you take, literally, 10 seconds to think about this.

If you take a job where you know, ahead of time, that you're regularly going to be asked to do something against your beliefs, you have the choice of not taking that job. You don't have the choice of sporadically deciding on your own when and if to perform your job AND STILL BE EMPLOYED.

Because that's what the analogy leads to, again, if you take 10 seconds to think about it. You're a vegan. You accept a job offer to be "lead pig-cooker" or something, and, what, you show up and get a check everyday but you don't actually do shit? Just stand there all day?
posted by odinsdream at 6:48 PM on January 26, 2012 [7 favorites]


I have no idea why this topic brings out the stupid, but man, does it. The whole "vegan short-order cook" thing falls flat on its face if you take, literally, 10 seconds to think about this.
Yeah.. I mean, you actually can force a vegan to cook barbecue if they get a job as as a cook at barbeque resturant. I realize the law changed, it's like they got a job at a walmart that decided to add BBQ or something, so while she could do her job without violating the law in the past and now she can't. Boohoo.

Also, people saying racial discrimination should be allowed for 'religious' reasons? Are you fk'n serious? The entire south would have become "religious" in an instant if that exception would have been allowed. It also goes way beyond what people are even complaining about today: They don't want to discriminate against gays overall, the woman just doesn't want to personally issue the license, but apparently some people in this thread think it would be OK to bring back segregation as long as you claimed it was for "religious" reasons? Wtf?
posted by delmoi at 8:11 PM on January 26, 2012 [4 favorites]


For every x number of persons, there's got to be one that's an absolute asshole.

Guess who gets all the attention?
posted by BlueHorse at 8:12 PM on January 26, 2012


The key phrase, generally, is "reasonable accommodation." A BBQ place might be legally obligated to permit certain forms of religious dress or let a person adjust their schedule around religious observance. Refusing to perform one of the key duties of the job description generally isn't considered to be reasonable.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 8:23 PM on January 26, 2012 [1 favorite]


Religious accommodation doesn't extend so far as to demand a rewrite of essential parts of the job description. If you're a pacifist in the Postal Service, your job is going to include handling Selective Service cards. If you're a worker in a BBQ place, your job is going to include a fair bit of pork. If you're a town clerk, you give the wedding licenses in accordance to state law regardless of your personal feelings regarding same-sex, interracial, interfaith, or second marriages. And if your employer is covered by anti-discrimination law, you don't put your employer in the position of violating that law.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 9:11 PM on January 26, 2012 [4 favorites]


The truly Christian thing to do would be to dissuade everyone from marrying, unless they just can't keep their horrid lust to themselves:

"To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion."
1 Corinthians 7:8-9
posted by Nahum Tate at 9:35 PM on January 26, 2012 [1 favorite]


unless they just can't keep their horrid lust to themselves

Eponysterical?
posted by michaelh at 10:08 PM on January 26, 2012 [2 favorites]


It's somewhat shocking to me that so many people in this country are putting themselves on the wrong side of this question, and in a position to be judged by history. This is no different from denying rights to people based on the color of their skin, and I'm telling you right now that people who stand against equality based on sexual orientation right now are going to be looked upon with the same wonderment and disgust as those who stood against equality based on race 60 years ago are today. Because it's happening. There is no turning back the clock. So swim with the tide or suffer the consequences.

This is also not a religious question. Despite what many evangelical Christians would like to see, we have separation of church and state in this country. This means not only that the church can't tell the state what to do, but also vice-versa. In other words, any religion that doesn't want to open its congregations or perform services for any kind of person at all -- be that members of a certain race, or ethnic or socioeconomic group, or sexual orientation, or whatever -- is fully within its rights to do so. No law is going to force a church to perform a religious marriage of a same-sex or different-race couple. However, outside of that context, people have to obey the law and their religious convictions outside of the religious setting shouldn't come into play. If we think it's okay for a restaurateur to refuse to accommodate the reception following a same-sex wedding on religious or "moral" grounds, then we necessarily think it would also be okay to refuse to accommodate people with a non-preferred skin color or whatever else, so long as some tenuous claim could be made of "religious or moral grounds." It's nothing less than an attempt to legitimize discrimination.
posted by slkinsey at 5:34 AM on January 27, 2012 [3 favorites]


As a gay, I am totally, utterly, 100% fine with a law that permits people and private businesses to refuse to participate in gay marriage ceremonies or weddings based on religious objections. More than fine. I prefer it.

And you live in a large city where there are enough other options -- people who don't care, and pro gay people -- that this stance is easy for you.

On the other hand, New Hampshire.
posted by heatherann at 5:47 AM on January 27, 2012 [3 favorites]


As the owner of a wedding facility in New Hampshire, this legislation is wonderful. More business for me.

Oh New Hampshire, our little neighbor to the South. Keep staying classy.

Meh, I would lump both cases into the same cubby as the Oklahoma law banning fetuses in food: when you have the largest legislative body in the world, you get Weekly World News-worthy bills once a week. I think there are two state rep plates down the street in what's not a particularly nice part of town.
posted by yerfatma at 6:25 AM on January 27, 2012


In other words, any religion that doesn't want to open its congregations or perform services for any kind of person at all -- be that members of a certain race, or ethnic or socioeconomic group, or sexual orientation, or whatever -- is fully within its rights to do so. No law is going to force a church to perform a religious marriage of a same-sex or different-race couple. However, outside of that context, people have to obey the law and their religious convictions outside of the religious setting shouldn't come into play.

In an interesting twist to all this, a New Jersey court recently ruled that a Church-owned bit of property which is open for public use cannot discriminate against same-sex couples wanting to use the property for a wedding civil union ceremony.
posted by hippybear at 7:22 AM on January 27, 2012 [1 favorite]


From the linked article: "...the organization violated its promise to keep the [boardwalk pavilion] property open to public use in exchange for a tax exemption under the state's Green Acres program that promotes and protects a system of interconnected open spaces."

This is where the church found out that a public space is a public space, and just because a church happens to own it doesn't mean they can make it "not public" when it suits their purposes.

What would be interesting would be to see what would happen if a church made a practice of renting out its actual sanctuary for non-worship use, effectively making it a public space, and then refused to rent it out to a gay (or black or whatever) person.
posted by slkinsey at 7:40 AM on January 27, 2012 [1 favorite]


In an interesting twist to all this, a New Jersey court recently ruled that a Church-owned bit of property which is open for public use cannot discriminate against same-sex couples wanting to use the property for a wedding civil union ceremony.

That's what public use means. Gay people are part of the public. Again, this is about access, not about religion, as you pointed out there is no requirement for the church to sanction the services from a religious perspective.
posted by odinsdream at 8:03 AM on January 27, 2012 [2 favorites]


That's what public use means. Gay people are part of the public. Again, this is about access, not about religion

Right, except the New Hampshire bill would restrict access to public places which are NOT run by churches based on religious bigotry against homosexuals.

It's all an interesting tangle all around.
posted by hippybear at 10:06 PM on January 27, 2012


It still astounds me, after all these years of hearing examples of it, how some people of faith sincerely promulgate the assertion that they're the victims of persecution because, essentially, they're not allowed to discriminate against other people without consequences.

I should have become immune to it by now, but seriously, every new instance of it leaves me a little bit amazed at the human ability to rationalize cognitive dissonance.
posted by darkstar at 9:31 AM on January 28, 2012 [2 favorites]


« Older Animals in hats...  |  Former Fox News host Glenn Bec... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments