Chick-fil-a Kerfuffle

[dramaturge]

(08-09-2012 07:26 AM)C_Fresh Wrote:  Wait, I'm seriously confused. How would that be any different than a restaurant refusing to serve some group (minority, gay, straight, take your pick) since there are plenty of other restaurants they could go to eat? It seems like the same thing to me.

Churches get all kinds of exemptions in areas like that because "Freedom of Religion." The precedent has long been set that ministers can choose to marry or not marry anyone they want, including inter-racial couples for whom married was established as a civil right. This idea that marriage as a civil right will preclude church exemptions has already been dealt with as lucrezaborgia pointed out: for heterosexual couples of major status, regardless of all else (excepting too close familial relationship, which guidelines vary from state to state), marriage already is a civil right, and ministers are still able to refuse to perform a marriage. Extending that civil right to same-sex couples won't do anything to change that.

[C_Fresh]

Thanks, that makes sense.

[lucrezaborgia]

(08-09-2012 10:30 AM)dramaturge Wrote:  Churches get all kinds of exemptions in areas like that because "Freedom of Religion." The precedent has long been set that ministers can choose to marry or not marry anyone they want

Exactly. Precedent mixed with the freedom of religion amendment has firmly answered this question. It would take a constitutional amendment to change this.

Case in point the freeing of the slaves. It wasn't enough to free them via federal law. It had to be enshrined in the constitution because of years and years of court precedent or else all it would have taken was a single law to reestablish slavery.

Precedent can make or break cases because a ruling in a previous case regarding the same or similar laws means that the court must rule in the exact same manner. To force churches to marry people that they do not deem acceptable would go against all of that. Now, the Supreme Court is the only court that does not have to follow this rule because they have the power of judicial review, but it's extremely rare that they go against precedent unless the law in question directly contradicts the constitution. You may believe that a ruling is unconstitutional, but if you actually read the entire judgement and what precedents were used, then it's a much different picture. The laws of the land are a fickle thing and precedent is the only thing that keeps law from becoming even more complicated than it already is.

At the same time, businesses are under a completely different set of laws and church businesses are not exempt from those laws for many reasons. Those reasons are varied and the courts have for many years determined the various ways that church businesses are not covered under the freedom of religion amendment, tho there are some exemptions that come into play when the business is completely private and not accepting government money. Church property is similar in that churches are not exempt from building codes.