ACLU not pursuing law suit against wedding chapel


#1

ktvb.com/story/news/local/regional/2014/10/23/aclu-wedding-chapel-religious-organization/17790741/

I think the ACLU is completely correct in not suing this wedding chapel… since they are only offering religious ceremonies, they cannot be forced to marry people against their religion. I’m sure to many, this will help ease some of the tensions… of course I’m sure there will be others who will still be convinced big gay is coming after their churches in the courts.


#2

From the article, it doesn’t sound as if they planned to sue.


#3

latimes.com/travel/deals/la-trb-las-vegas-wedding-chapels-turn-away-same-sex-couples-20141023-story.html

Although same-sex marriage became legal on Oct. 9 in Nevada, some Las Vegas wedding chapels are refusing to perform the marriages.

Those places are, the American Civil Liberties Union says, breaking the law.

An ACLU official on Thursday criticized what he said are “a small number” of for-profit wedding chapel owners who are refusing to perform such ceremonies because of their religious beliefs.

This is where it could get interesting.


#4

The question is whether these chapels are religious entities or are they businesses? And if they are businesses then are the religious beliefs of the owners and employees irrelevant?

We see the same problem with the HHS mandate. The government takes it upon itself to dictate who is religious and who is not. What is the federal definition of a church. If you don’t meet the definition then you don’t get an exemption. Oh, you can sign away your conscience, they tell the Little Sisters of the Poor. But you’re not religious enough to count, so either violate your conscience by signing, violate your conscience by acquiescing, or be subject to crippling fines and close your business.


#5

What kind of minister operates a wedding-for-$$$ chapel? It’s almost as big a mockery of marriage as . . . “gay marriage”.
No, they shouldn’t be forced to do ceremonies they object to but I find the whole “wedding chapel” thing offensive. What next, drive-thru communion?


#6

Weding chapel? For many are lost and not knoweth). Dont condemn. Does one not know, that they “judge” themself? World events/newes? Think, why would one give and :ear to any noise of the world?


#7

hotair.com/archives/2014/10/29/remember-that-hitching-post-gay-wedding-case-yeah-never-mind/

Looks like the city is saying the Wedding Chapel is okay and won’t be compelled whether it is a not-for-profit or for-profit organization.


#8

So this was one of the times a day the stopped clock is right? :slight_smile:

Make no mistake, this was a trial balloon on the part of the city. Expect more of these as neo-pagan society (disguised as secular and neutral) marches toward imposing a modern version of the Test Acts.

What I find interesting is the “for profit” canard. What they are essentially saying is that if you want to make an honest living, you’d better not stray a millimeter out of the Overton Window.


#9

What’s ironic is the “big gay” referred to in the prior comment may be a misnomer, because a lot of the pushy people in that arena are actually straights who are in many ways just look for a name for themselves. :tsktsk:

In fact, a lot of GLBTQ folks are seemingly reasonable about this issue.


#10

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.