Americans United: Iowa Supreme Court Ruling On Marriage UpholdsReligious Liberty, Says Americans United

[Steven Jamar]

It is quite a stretch to say someone must not discriminate in renting  
property or providing secular services to say that religious  
organizations and their officiants must perform an action like  
marrying two other people contrary to their beliefs.  We don't force  
priests to marry a catholic to a jew or an orthodox rabbi to perform  
the ceremony between an athiest and a orthodox jew, even when the  
people are of different sexes.

Brad is overstating the danger in the typical fear-mongering of those  
opposing gay marriage.

The photographer he refers to is a much harder, closer case.   Can a  
restaurant refuse to serve gays?  In most places yes.  Can a  
photographer refuse to photograph anyone at all?  No.  But they can  
still discriminate on all sorts of allowed bases and in most places  
that would include height, weight, smoker, non-smoker, sexual  
orientation.

Steve

-- 
Prof. Steven D. Jamar                     vox:  202-806-8017
Associate Director, Institute of Intellectual Property and Social  
Justice http://iipsj.org
Howard University School of Law           fax:  202-806-8567
http://iipsj.com/SDJ/

"I have nothing new to teach the world. Truth and nonviolence are as  
old as the hills."

Gandhi




On Apr 3, 2009, at 8:26 PM, Brad Pardee wrote:

> Americans United is quite thoroughly wrong, as is their support for  
> the Iowa Supreme Court's ruling.
>
> Rev. Lynn says, "Civil law cannot be based on any group's theology,"  
> but people who do not support same sex marriage are not any more  
> guided by their theology than the evangelicals emerging from the 2nd  
> Great Awakening to oppose slavery.  Was advocating an end to slavery  
> advocating impermissible because it was civil law "based on any  
> group's theology"?  Of course not.  A person's religious beliefs  
> can't be the What of civil law, but it can most certainly be the Why.
>
> Additionally, the notion that this ruling that this protects  
> religious liberty is, at best, the naive clinging to a myth.  Rev.  
> Lynn claims that houses of worship will not be required to perform  
> same-sex ceremonies, but that's not what the court says.  The  
> article itself quotes the ruling as saying, "A religious  
> denomination can still define marriage as a union between a man and  
> a woman, and a marriage ceremony performed by a minister, priest,  
> rabbi, or other person ordained or designated as a leader of the  
> person's religious faith does not lose its meaning as a sacrament or  
> other religious institution."  How long will it be before says,  
> "This church doesn't have to define our relationship as a marriage  
> but they can't discriminate by refusing to perform the ceremony"?   
> The idea that a person would never be forced to act contrary to  
> their religious beliefs would come as a great shock to Elaine  
> Huguenin.
>
> Brad Pardee
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joel Sogol" <jlsatty at wwisp.com>
> To: "Religionlaw" <religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu>; "'Brian Sogol'" <bsogol at gmail.com 
> >
> Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 6:17 PM
> Subject: Americans United: Iowa Supreme Court Ruling On Marriage  
> UpholdsReligious Liberty, Says Americans United
>
>
>> http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=10375
>
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed  
> as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that  
> are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can  
> (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.