The big stink is about whether these laws give people and organizations rights to trod on others right's, but...
What about churches that see performing marriage ceremonies for all relationships, heterosexual and homosexual, as their religious duty? Wouldn't forbidding such ceremonies, or failing to give them equal support under the law, be a "substantial burden" on their religious beliefs, and require the state to provide a compelling (and, by Lemon v Kurtzman, secular) purpose for preventing that action?
There are currently three states that forbid same-sex marriage and have this kind of religious freedom law, and three more that have stayed rulings overturning such bans.
What about churches that see performing marriage ceremonies for all relationships, heterosexual and homosexual, as their religious duty? Wouldn't forbidding such ceremonies, or failing to give them equal support under the law, be a "substantial burden" on their religious beliefs, and require the state to provide a compelling (and, by Lemon v Kurtzman, secular) purpose for preventing that action?
There are currently three states that forbid same-sex marriage and have this kind of religious freedom law, and three more that have stayed rulings overturning such bans.
I'm only bringing up that precedent is a two way street, and those who have pushed for these bills haven't seemed to notice that. Anyone accuse anyone (forumites, legislators, or parties on either side of the issue) of bigotry and I'll ask for the thread to be locked.
Religious freedom bills and same-sex marriage
0 commentaires:
Enregistrer un commentaire