I expect to be pilloried for this, but that's ok.

The gay marriage debate has started anew in Canada, because the legislation that will make it legal across the country was just recently introduced to parliament(for reasons too convoluted to go into, it's only currently legal in parts of the country). One of the centrepieces of the bill is that churches, which can perform civil marriages, will not be forced to marry gays, or other groups they disagree with. This isn't a new thing -- Catholic churches currently don't have to marry people who've divorced in the past, for example. I've never had a problem with this exception, it's always just seemed "right" to me that churches not be forced to marry people they disagree with.

However, I've been thinking about that, and I'm having a hard time justifying this to myself. What it comes down to is, should churches be legally able to discriminate against people? Should they be forced to accept gays? What about blacks?

And if it's ok, legally, for churches to discriminate, should businesses be able to discriminate? Should segregation by restaurants in the South have been legal?

I'm sorry if this rambled on a bit, but my thoughts on the matter are a bit muddled. Anyway, have at it.

As long as a church is a private institution acting in its own name, and not a part of the government or with governmental authority, then it has every right to be as hateful and bigoted as it pleases. Just as long as it doesn't go around organizing or commiting crimes as a result of it. The same holds true of individuals and of any secular institutions.

Well, I don't know why a church would have to marry people it didn't want to.

I mean, let's take Catholicism. Catholicism is against homosexuality. Major no-no, they say. So why would there be homosexual Catholics who are open about both? Why believe in a religion that damns you? I mean, should a Catholic church be forced to marry a doctor who openly performs abortions? It seems, at least to me, that if the church doesn't want you, you wouldn't want the church (unless you're just a glutton for punishment, in which case you'd get what you wanted--a refusal). It seems to me that you'd go join a church that accepts you.
Nobody has to get married in a church. They can go get married in court. The church is just to marry people in the eyes of God, and if, as it says in the Bible*, "God hates fags", it seems to me that God wouldn't be too eager to join two of 'em in holy matrimony, you know?

So I really don't see how the situation would come up where the church needed to be forced at all.

*sarcasm, if it do ya

Bill - would your non-governmental bodies include businesses? Whilst I see no problem with a church rejecting someone because they're gay; principally because I can't see why anyone would believe in a religion that condemns them; it's a different matter entirely when seeking a job. Should racial, sexual and... um... sexualityal prejudices be legitimite reasons for leaving someone unemployed?

In response to the real dilemma you present, Rysto, you're right: Churches blessed with the legal ability to create binding partnerships ("marriage") should have to obey every anti-discrimination rule that applies to the governmental function they are performing. So, really, the answer is simple: Church marriages should confer no legal rights. If they want to maintain their religious sovereignty, they cannot perform governmental functions. Getting legal authority binds you to legal reprecussions; if Churches want their marriages to be recognised by the State, they need to follow the State's rules. End of discussion.

Their religious freedom does not trump the people's civil liberties. We should stop pretending otherwise.

Bill, I'm glad we agree on this one.

As am I, Freak.



It ain't pretty when it happens, but it's their right to do so if they so choose. Or at least under the principle of free enterprise it is.

Now, it can in some situations be grounds for a lawsuit if the plaintiff can demonstrate that they were in fact being discriminated against for something irrelevant rather than for something that is a business practice.* In this case damages will have to be paid. But that doesn't necessarily make it illegal.

Of course, the second they start receiving any sort of governmental funding or subsidy beyond a tax refund, it becomes illegal. The government has outlawed its own participation in such activity.

* This mostly just leaves it to race. Certain businesses might not want to hire women because the job requires physical strength, or gays because it would be likely to distract the workforce, or people of certain religions because they'd have to work on that religion's equivalent of a sabbath, or whatever; it's unlikely but they're valid defenses (note: even race can be subject to this; for example, an employer might hire only from Native American tribes within the Arctic Circle because that phenotype has developed a resistance to eating raw meat).

What about recent cases?

Walmart getting sued for not promoting women to managerial levels. Walmart claims that's because it's female employees aren't interested in promotion, but statistically, they have far fewer women in managerial jobs than equivalent chains like Target or K-mart. There's also anecdotal evidence of women having supervisors who were openly sexist. (One woman said her boss told her she couldn't have a promotion because Adam was created first.)

Abercrombie and Fitch got sued for not hiring racial minorities, and when it did hire them, it stuck them in backroom stocking jobs where they wouldn't come into contact with customers. Apparently, they chain thought that having non-white sales clerks would be bad for their image.

Does anyone know the precise legal grounds on which these companies were sued?

I don't know exactly how Canada handles it; but here in the States a church type wedding has all the legal significance of a Valentine's day card, which is to say none at all. Only the State can marry anyone; and it graciously extends permission for clerics to officiate at the signing of this contract if they properly apply for it. They do not become officers of the state, with the responsibilities of one; they just acquire the limited privilege of acting as one in this one respect.

All of this means that if an American branch of the 4th Reformed Church of Bob refuses to marry you, they aren't depriving you of anything which legally matters, or refusing to do anything it's officially their job to do. It only becomes official discrimination if a Justice of the Peace refuses to do it; because marrying people is officially their job.

Exactly, Weremensh, and based on that statement, even if a church refuses to marry someone we all would receive equal protection under the law, which is what is actually what is required. The exception would be if, as Weremensh said, it was a JP that refused the union for any reason other than a legal one such as the revelation that one of the parties is still legally married to someone else, (basically something that would constitute a violation of the legal requirements for marriage under state law).

This very thing kind of bugs me too. Churches feel they should be allowed to influence public policy, but don’t want to abide by public rules. I would like to see some kind of reciprocal agreement re. Church vs. State. If a given church wishes to meddle in government policy, they must allow the government to regulate their policy in turn. If a church wanted to become politically active, they would have to abide by all the public rules regarding discrimination, etc. I know this will never happen, but I think it would be a nice idea…

Yeah, that rule would be REALLY easy to enforce... But, as said earlier, the church plays no legal role, except to the very minor extent that it is customary for certain of its members to apply for certain licenses which grant legal abilities.

If there was a religion which had a custom of its clergy being notaries, would it be illegal or even vaguely immoral for one of them to refuse to notarize a document you had, on the grounds that it did not fulfil the specific religious grounds under which they notarize documents?

If notaries are required to notarise anything they're asked to, it would be both illegal and immoral for the religous notary to refuse to do so. If notaries can refuse to notarise, then obviously the clerical notary has the same right.

I don't think clerics should have any less responsibility with regard to marriage than justices of the peace, though. If they want the power to create legal binding documents like the JP can, then they should have to follow the same rules the JP does. Now, this would mean that liberal priests might have more "power" than conservative priests, but when you're talking about governmental functions, equality is the by-law; you want to discriminate, you can't be involved in the government in any way (well, unless you're in a country whose government allows discrimination, but I'm assuming Western-style democracies with the equal protection under the law deal going for them, like the US and Canada.)

Notaries are not necessarily "agents of a governmental institution." It would infringe on no one's rights as long as they were not acting as agents of any portion of the U.S. government (federal or state). Notaries simply have the priveledge granted by the govenment to notarize documents. They are not on the federal or state doll because of this granted power, so the situation you suggest still does not present a problem.
Ex: Our office manager is notary but she is not obligated to notarize any document simply because she has the power to do so. Joe off the street can't walk into our office or our home and demand her to notarize a document. If she was a government employee whose job was to notarize documents, then it would be a different story

*edited to add example

I'm not sure it should be linked to funding; however, since notaries are 'Notary Public', they probably have all the same rights (including the right to refuse service) as any member of the public would. Saying, however, that simply because so-and-so isn't receiving money from the government means they shouldn't have to follow the same rules for the same function is a fallacy; the law is the law and you don't have to be a government employee to have the law apply to you.

We are only guaranteed "equal protection under the law." I'm not in support of any form of discrimination, but that's the law. The government cannot discriminate against anyone, and the spirit of the law should tell us that no one should discriminate. However, the letter of the law refers to the government, so yes, being a government agent whether it is determined by pay or title is the determining factor.