ST Alpha - "Should religious officials be required to perform marriage ceremonies that violate their stated religious beliefs? -- nm" (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Login
Create Account

Search Dr. S. Talk
TT/ST Wiki
How Well Do You Know ...

RSS Feed

Hosting by DigitalOcean

Support ST on Ko-Fi

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 157

Should religious officials be required to perform marriage ceremonies that violate their stated religious beliefs? -- nm

Posted by Strongbad (aka Rambler14) Mar 23 '16, 09:43

(No message)

Responses:

No. Nor should churches. -- nm - TWuG Mar 23, 09:50
No. -- nm - MDH Mar 23, 09:50
Absolutely not. -- nm - ReluctantCynic Mar 23, 09:49
it would be constitutionally impermissible -- nm - ML Mar 23, 09:47
Of course not. They refuse to now. -- nm - mara Mar 23, 09:46 14
- I don't think this is "of course not" worthy. It's half of the controversial bill that was mentioned on B2. -- nm - Strongbad Mar 23, 09:48 13
  - *laughing* I just realized what you're referring to. They put wording in the bill to allow something that's already allowed. -- nm - mara Mar 23, 09:53
  - I doubt that it's the controversial part though. -- nm - pmb Mar 23, 09:52 6
    - That's what I'm getting at. There's 2 components. I wanted to verify that the 2nd component is the issue. -- nm - Strongbad Mar 23, 09:57 1
      - See below, though as to why the first component is objectionable to some. - pmb Mar 23, 09:58
    - Also of note (and why sometimes it is controversial) is that it's a law that serves no purpose. They don't have to now. It's a law to make a - pmb Mar 23, 09:53 3
      - I think we can see, though, that it *does* serve a purpose. It makes people think there's a problem that doesn't exist. -- nm - mara Mar 23, 09:55 2
        
        *discreetly stops burning American flag* -- nm - con_carne Mar 23, 09:58
        
        Yes. It flames the fear. It's like the anti-Shariah law stuff. -- nm - pmb Mar 23, 09:56
  - Then perhaps somebody is misunderstanding something. -- nm - mara Mar 23, 09:49 4
    - or purposely misrepresenting - ty97 Mar 23, 09:50 3
      - Wait. What? - ReluctantCynic Mar 23, 09:57 2
        
        Sit down RC, I have some more truth bombs to share. - ty97 Mar 23, 09:58 1
        
        *whimper* - ReluctantCynic Mar 23, 10:24
Nope. -- nm - Shaun Mar 23, 09:45
No, but these types of bills are always about more than that, aren't they? -- (edited) - znufrii Mar 23, 09:44 4
- I'm basing this off the link on B2. There were 2 key statements in the last paragraph, this being #1. - Strongbad Mar 23, 09:45 3
  - That, and the individual protections in the bill that the article doesn't mention. -- nm - znufrii Mar 23, 10:05 2
    - Exactly. It's an attempt to hide true intent behind a defensible issue. - David Mar 23, 10:07 1
      - after reading question two, I think this is aimed at plan B rather than gay people -- nm - crash davis Mar 23, 10:23
Are Catholic priests required today to marry a Jewish person and an atheist? -- nm - ty97 Mar 23, 09:44 1
- I'm waiting for a good punchline to this -- nm - prayformojo Mar 23, 09:48
no. it's a private job with a private organization. -- nm - Andie Mar 23, 09:43

Post a message top

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.