Christian registrars will not be able to opt out of performing marriages for gay couples because registrars are deemed to be public officials, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has said.
Giving evidence this week to a committee of MPs that are studying the (Marriage Same Sex Couples) Bill for England and Wales, the EHRC declared that although religious institutions are likely to face no legal sanctions for refusing to marry gay couples, public registrars, who perform civil partnerships and marriages on behalf of the state will be expected to comply fully with the new legislation.
26 Comments
There is now no limit or protection from government attack on religious liberties and freedom.
@leviticus
The problem here is that England never had any such protections. In the U.S. we have that same problem even though the 1st amendment is suppose to protect an individuals freedom of religion. Instead people are sued because they adhere to their beliefs. Ya know these anti-discrimination laws also protect people of faith. So aren't activists discriminating against religious business owners because of their faith? Sure they denied service, but instead of going to a business that is more friendly to the left's cause, they'd rather sue and punish people of faith who dare disagree with them.
"There is now no limit or protection from government attack on religious liberties and freedom."
Precisely.
And to complete the picture, the whole gist of these "equality commissions" and their variants in other countries is to remove Christians and Christianity from public life. So, in the name of equality (one of the left's most sacred sacraments), Christians are to be relegated to second class citizenship.
The implication is now clear: the path to first class citizenship (and full participation in public life) is for Christians and those who support traditional morality to accept the secular, hedonistic, "anything goes" sexually world view of the left. It is also clear that the left and its descendants since the Enlightenment have NOT been fighting for democracy per se, but for a society based on sexual permissivism being palmed off as "democracy."
One further implication: it is now also abundantly clear that Christianity and the world-view of the Left are incompatible and irreconcilable. Politically, this means that in any given nation, one or the other view must dominate.
I therefore call upon all Christians, all defenders of traditional morality, and all people of good will to come together and publicly and proudly and openly work for the creation of governments and national societies founded upon Christian and traditional virtues and values, and to firmly REJECT the left's notions of "democracy."
You also can't refuse to serve people based on their race.
Or religion--hey, isn't the marriage of two Muslims also not accepted in your church? Funny that.
And leviticus, honey (cute, btw), the freedom of religion would PREVENT government officials from refusing service to taxpayers because they have different religious beliefs. That's what it does.
It protects those citizens from that. It's called "freedom" (of religion, specifically).
@zack: Treating people exactly the same is the opposite of discrimination. You literally couldn't be more wrong.
And I'm not "the left" if I'm an individual who was abused by a business owner because I'm a member of a minority group that he or she hates.
If "Not evil" is really "the left's cause", if that's really the argument you're making, you have some serious problems that you need to work out.
Zack, first off, Christians are not sued because of their beliefs. They are being sued because they are discriminating against someone, which is already against the law and has absolutely nothing to do with marriage equality. If you own a business you don't get to pick and choose who you will have business with. You can't say you won't sell to a Jew, a Muslim, someone with one arm or a drug addict. It is not for you to decide who in the public you can do business with. Now, if you are a private organization, but you still do business with the public you are bound by anti-discrimination laws, which again have nothing to do with marriage equality. "Christians" aren't sued because of their beliefs; they are sued because they are breaking the law! You say that it is your first amendment right to your religion, which you are correct. I am also allowed to believe in my religion, which is for marriage equality. Which one of is right? I'll wait for the answer.....
The answer is neither one of our religions should dictate what someone else should do with their life, therefor, no establishment of religion and by extension, we do not establish laws based on a particular religion!
NOM posts this story and claims it about being discriminated against. This story is about a person who takes a government job and is paid out of the taxpayers money (i.e.: straight people and gay people's money), and therefore they don't get to decide how to do the job. If you don't like the rules, you are free to work for any religious institution you would like too. But my tax dollars, my husband’s tax dollars, do not belong in your pocket if you can't do the job you were hired to do! Do these registrars’ get to ask if the person was divorced and if so it is against their beliefs not marry the person? No, they aren't allowed to do that, so I don't see any difference here!
@Pat
"Treating people exactly the same is the opposite of discrimination. You literally couldn't be more wrong."
So it's okay to discriminate against people of faith for running a business in accordance with their views? How is that a violation of the first amendment?
"And I'm not "the left" if I'm an individual who was abused by a business owner because I'm a member of a minority group that he or she hates."
It's always "hatred" right? Because I disagree with you I must have a seething hatred. There is no abuse. If a business owner refuses to service someone, then the logical result would be for the person who is denied to find a business that is more accommodating. But the leftist doesn't understand that, instead their reaction to punish people who dare disagree.
The only hatred I see here is the hatred for the Constitution.
typo: how is that not a violation of the first amendment*
"So it's okay to discriminate against people of faith for running a business in accordance with their views? How is that a violation of the first amendment?"
It's not a violation of the first amendment because it's not a law.
But that's not the point. OF COURSE it's not okay to discriminate against a business owner for his/her religious beliefs--but what you described as "discrimination" was a REFUSAL to discriminate.
As I said, you literally couldn't be more wrong.
That Strawman you attacked was really bizarre since it was kind of exactly what I didn't say?
"Because I disagree with you I must have a seething hatred."
But you never disagreed with me. You "disagree" with me being a member of a certain minority group--the word "disagree" doesn't apply here.
The word you're thinking of is "hatred".
(And a business absolutely should not discriminate against people who disagree with the owners, as a general rule. I'm not sure where you're going with this, but it certainly doesn't seem to be, y'know, right.)
Definitions are fun!
@Pat
"It's not a violation of the first amendment because it's not a law."
But that's not the point. OF COURSE it's not okay to discriminate against a business owner for his/her religious beliefs--but what you described as "discrimination" was a REFUSAL to discriminate."
There is no discrimination taking place. Simply adhering to one's religious beliefs in the work place is not "discrimination".
"But you never disagreed with me. You "disagree" with me being a member of a certain minority group--the word "disagree" doesn't apply here."
No I disagree with your views. No hatred involved. The word disagree absolutely applies.
"And a business absolutely should not discriminate against people who disagree with the owners, as a general rule. I'm not sure where you're going with this, but it certainly doesn't seem to be, y'know, right."
Surely you believe in the Free Market? No based on that statement I assume not, how silly of me. A business has every right to refuse service to whomever they want for whatever reason they want. The rule of thumb in a market economy is that the people vote with their wallets and the business practices they don't like is undeserving of their patronage.
Compulsory acceptace and agreement is not "freedom" and should be enscribed in law. If it is, then it should be done away with immediately.
@Pat
"It's not a violation of the first amendment because it's not a law."
But that's not the point. OF COURSE it's not okay to discriminate against a business owner for his/her religious beliefs--but what you described as "discrimination" was a REFUSAL to discriminate."
There is no discrimination taking place. Simply adhering to one's religious beliefs in the work place is not "discrimination".
"But you never disagreed with me. You "disagree" with me being a member of a certain minority group--the word "disagree" doesn't apply here."
I disagree with your views.
"And a business absolutely should not discriminate against people who disagree with the owners, as a general rule. I'm not sure where you're going with this, but it certainly doesn't seem to be, y'know, right."
Surely you believe in the Free Market? No based on that statement I assume not, how silly of me. A business has every right to refuse service to whomever they want for whatever reason they want. The rule of thumb in a market economy is that the people vote with their wallets and the business practices they don't like is undeserving of their patronage.
Compulsory acceptace or agreement is not "freedom".
@Pat
"It's not a violation of the first amendment because it's not a law."
But that's not the point. OF COURSE it's not okay to discriminate against a business owner for his/her religious beliefs--but what you described as "discrimination" was a REFUSAL to discriminate."
There is no discrimination taking place. Simply adhering to one's religious beliefs in the work place is not "discrimination".
"But you never disagreed with me. You "disagree" with me being a member of a certain minority group--the word "disagree" doesn't apply here."
I disagree with your views.
"And a business absolutely should not discriminate against people who disagree with the owners, as a general rule. I'm not sure where you're going with this, but it certainly doesn't seem to be, y'know, right."
Surely you believe in the Free Market? A business has every right to refuse service to whomever they want for whatever reason they want. The rule of thumb in a market economy is that the people vote with their wallets and the business practices they don't like is undeserving of their patronage.
Compulsory acceptace or agreement is not "freedom".
Geeze nom...nit picky much? I had to revise my post 3 times before it could finally be posted.
Does that mean that public servants who are paid with tax dollars to fill out paperwork for the government's records can't refuse to fill out the paperwork of the people they don't like?
Gosh Tim, when you describe it that way it sounds just AWFUL! Gasp.
Oh, and my detailed response didn't get posted. I'm shocked! Shocked!
So many shocking things are happening 'round these parts!
Timothy Kincaid, the conflict is between the SSM idea and the marriage idea. You want to make it hyper-personal but that is your chip on your shoulder.
Freedom of conscience is the first liberty; and it is the first liberty that SSMers attack.
Chairm - SSM is marriage. There is no conflict between the 2.
Gah...multiple posts...i ask nom to delete the duplicates.
@bobby
There is a clear difference between the two.
Bobby, the SSM idea is an outright rejection of the marriage idea. This is well established in the pro-SSM rhetoric and argumentation.Our laws express the marriage idea. SSMers reject that expression as hateful, bigoted, unjust. But their SSM idea is incoherent and the gay emphasis is irrelevant.
The marriage idea: 1) integration of the sexes (see the bride-plus-groom requirement), 2) provision for responsible procreation (see the sexual basis for the marital presumption of paternity), and 3) these combined as a coherent whole (see marriage, a foundational social institution of civil society that is greater than the sum of its parts). This is that to which bride and groom, together, give consent when they say, I do. This is that to which society consents with the preferential status accorded marriage. This is that to which society gives special regard when drawing lines between marriage and all other types of relationships (seeeligibility and ineligibility boundaries drawn around the core meaning of marriage).
The SSM idea: the exclusion of either man or woman makes each instance of SSM an instance of sex-segregation. It precludes procreation within it due to the lack of the other sex (this is an intrinsic inability that does not change by adding a gay emphasis). The SSM idea lacks coherency and is a conceptual mess. It is not a foundational social institution of civil society.
Even on your own terms, Bobby, the SSM idea is segregative based on sexual attraction for it is presented as being male-only or female-only. Your own vew is that procreation is extrinsic to the SSM idea. Your gay emphasis rejects the core meaning of marriage.
SSM law is for the SSM idea. Marriage law is for the marriage idea. The SSM campaign seeks to abolish the marriage idea from our laws and government policies. The SSM advocates insist the the SSM idea, presented with the unmistakable gay emphasis, is superior to the marriage idea; that SSM must replace the marriage idea for the sake of treating each union of husband and wife as if it wasthe equivalent of SSM.
SSM: the specious substitution of marriage. It is a rejection of the marriage idea.
@Bobby, there is a conflict between the marriage idea and the ssm idea.
Ash - What is that conflict (not difference, Zack)? Is happiness a zero sum game whereby one can only achieve happiness at the expense of another? As human beings, we are all called to love. The issue is civil marriage - marriage in the eyes of the state. The state does not discriminate.
Bobby, See my earlier comment. Note that I described the marriage idea as expressed in marriage law. It is in conflict with the SSM idea, obviously, and those who attack the marriage idea, such as yourself, have presented the SSM idea as an outright rejection of the marriage idea.
You are free to love and to live but you demand abolition of the marriage idea in the law. You are against civil marriage.
The gay emphasis does not provide justification for treating the gay subset of nonmarriage as superior to the rest of the types of relationships that populate the nonmarriage category. You favor unequal treatment based on unjust discrimination on the basis of gay identity politics.
If anyone comes to my door and tries to sue me for following my consciience I have a baseball bat ready to defend my life!
Those who scream about their "civil right to marry" have political power, money and jobs. They don't need anything else. The means test Constitutionally has always been powerlessness!
Winning elections constitutes HAVING power.
Having money and having jobs constitutes having power.
Having a big reach to those who have money is also power.
Now , what is this about gays not having power?
Society may discriminate between marriage and non-marriage, Bobby.
No SSM advocate, including you, has managed to justify discriminating in favor of the gay type of relationship and against the rest of non-marriage.
Is gay a race-like identity group, in your view of things? I think you have asserted as much. The SSM advocate is the racist analogue. Your gay emphasis in your rhetoric and argumentation is racist-like -- closely analgous with the asserted supremacy of white identity politics.
Civil marriage is two-sexed and not one-sexed. SSMers refer to civil marriage without actually making a sound argument for abolition of the legal requirement for bride and groom. They do not mean, civil marriage, but they do mean SSM.
SSM = Specious Substitution for Marriage.