Start their own Christian church where they can get married.
They can even make their church a place where heterosexuals can’t get married.
If they a) offer that service to certain people and b) deny you it based on your sexuality, gender, race, disability, religion, or whatever, then yes, you could.
So when a church, or synagogue, or mosque denies someone a service based on any of those criteria, they are discriminating, and should be prevented from doing so.
And yes, with any luck when society finally enforces that it will destroy religion. It’s just a shame it won’t happen any time soon.
There is a difference, though, between the way the new law treats the CofE and the way it treats other religious denominations. Other denominations can “opt in” to performing same-sex marriages, whereas the CofE will not be able to do so without further parliamentary action.
Not that this affects this particular case, which is silly and should be thrown out. Judging by the comments on it at PinkNews, most of the gay people in the UK agree.
Yup. Plus due to division of church and state in the US (which goes both ways), any similar stupidity won’t get far.
:dubious: Cite?
I thought all this stuff was decided by the General Synod. It is not part of the law that the C of E can’t perform SSM, surely. Lots of members of parliament, and lords, are not Anglicans. I do not think non-Anglicans get a say (and certainly I don’t think they should get a say) in what Anglican doctrines should be.
So, you’re saying that a Catholc church refusing to perform an Islamic marriage is an act of criminal discrimination?
OK, it doesn’t get funding. But let’s not pretend that the CoE is just like any other Church in the UK or, as the OP is implying, like any Church in the US. As long as the CoE has some significant intertwining with the government, they should not be allowed to discriminate. If they want to be able to, then cut loose from the apron springs of government.
Actually, it is part of the law. The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 does specifically exclude the Church of England from being able to perform same sex marriages. Provisions in the law allow various other denominations, including Quakers and Jews, to opt in to performing same sex marriages, but excludes the C of E from this provision. The so-called “quadruple lock” provisions require that if the C of E wants to perform same sex marriage, there must not only be a change to canon law, but new legislation must also be passed by Parliament.
Should American Atheists be required by law to admit evangelical Christians as members, even if the Christians’ goal was to join en masse and subvert it from within? If AA refused would that be religious discrimination?
No, I’m saying that refusing to provide a Catholic marriage to two Muslims should be considered discrimination. Same as refusing to serve coffee to someone because they were black, or in a wheelchair, for example. If you offer a service you should offer it equally.
Yes.
Two things stand out to me:
One, unlike the US, the CoE is a state religion.
Two, in the US, churches can opt out of gay marriage if they want. In the UK, churches have to opt in to gay marriage. That strikes me as unfair. In the UK, marriage is for everybody, and a state church is obliged to marry everybody eligible who wants to. Or, they can stop being a state religion. Also, I think any citizen of a state with an official religion, is free to sue that religion to change, regardless if they even belong to that religion.
Okay, so Keira Knightly and Olivia Munn, by presumably only having sex with men, are engaged in discrimination by not having sex with each other, on sexist grounds!
And by performing only in front of certain audiences (i.e. those who watch TV and movies) and not in front of others (i.e. those who watch live lesbian sex shows)… discrimination!
Heck, the legal battle’s half over already.
You’re consistent, Steophan, I’ll give you that.
No, as they are not offering that as a service.
Why not? DISCRIMINATION!!
I basically have no incentive to take this particular complaint seriously, even though I take the subject of equal treatment under the law very seriously.
What if the Muslims refuse to be Baptized into the Catholic Faith? Because as long as they did agree to be Baptized, then the RCC would have no problem allowing them to marry in the Church.
Ultimately, it would depend whether that requirement was inherently discriminatory. If the baptism, and the marriage, are available to all regardless of race, gender, sexuality, disability, religion, or whatever, it would be fine. As long, basically, as they treat everyone equally.
Obviously, this won’t happen, as the whole point of religion is to promote imaginary differences between people.
No, as I understand it, it’s funded by owning a whole lot of farmland, just like it was in the Middle Ages.
I’m a gay man who really hopes to be married one day, legally recognized by my state and my country (I’m in the US), but I strongly believe that no church should be compelled by the government to perform marriages it does not wish to perform, as long as there are other easy avenues for gay couples to obtain a marriage license.
Now, the fact that this is a state religion might muck things up a bit. I honestly have no idea whether a state sponsored religion like the CoE should be compelled to perform marriages that the State says is legal and recognizes. But certainly other private churches within England should not be compelled to perform marriages that it doesn’t wish to perform.
And shops shouldn’t be compelled to sell stuff to black people, as long as there’s other shops around.