tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post2611907376563682050..comments2024-03-28T13:08:26.494-04:00Comments on Religion & American Law: Protection for Unwilling Clergy?Brantley Gasawayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02894338478934982958noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-13132707497970659172015-02-17T23:27:51.366-05:002015-02-17T23:27:51.366-05:00I believe that Oklahoma made the right decision by...I believe that Oklahoma made the right decision by passing the bill of protecting clergy members. The First Amendment protects an individual’s right to exercise his/her religion. I believe that Oklahoma has good intentions when protecting clergy from any accusations. I do not view this as a form of discrimination. If a person truly believed that performing a marriage is against his/her religion then the person should not be forced into something that endangers the stability of that religion.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12984148246452489864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-24750631765760671522015-02-17T20:56:10.107-05:002015-02-17T20:56:10.107-05:00I agree with Morgan and think that this bill is un...I agree with Morgan and think that this bill is unnecessary. Clergy members have the right to refuse to marry any couple, no matter their sex, and this bill is just protecting clergy members in case a couple is offended. In my opinion this bill was created to help political figures gain support due to religious reasons. Since same-sex marriage is such a heated issue in our country, states need to find a common ground so that communities can learn how to move forward in a unified and American way.Kristen B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/01050909421957777411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-6409857875816988622015-02-17T20:07:23.925-05:002015-02-17T20:07:23.925-05:00As mush as i dislike the fact that this protection...As mush as i dislike the fact that this protection act was passed, I too find it important to remember that Oklahoma, as a state, does not have a non-discrimination law and same-sex marriage is still possible for homosexual couples, just not by specific clergy members. I respect that these clergy members wish to remain protected because of their beliefs, even if they are very opposite of my own. It's a tricky subject to dance around, as same-sex marriage has become a hot topic among all states and more and more are allowing it each day. I personally think clergy members have the right to deny conducting a same-sex marriage as long as the state continues to have a non-discrimination law for those clergy members who would be willing to conduct such services. Molly H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/00721867630371536282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-2970920279728729122015-02-17T16:32:09.121-05:002015-02-17T16:32:09.121-05:00I agree with Sam above-as Clergy is not a public s...I agree with Sam above-as Clergy is not a public service or office, clergy members have the ability to decide who they wed and won't wed. Frankly, this bill is unnecessary and seems like a political stunt to gain favor among the clergy. It is important to realize the connection that Clergy have with their congregation and the ability they have, official or not-to sway voting patterns. Alex L.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13646550913147050243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-52390621515851234312015-02-17T13:25:24.660-05:002015-02-17T13:25:24.660-05:00I don't think the absence of an anti-discrimin...I don't think the absence of an anti-discrimination law means that public services or stores, like the one in Colorado, gives those services or stores the right to discriminate because the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause, as applied to the First Amendment through due process, protects all citizens and gives all of them the same protections no matter what. I think the key here is what Ben said, which is that this is a church and not a public institution. The First Amendment, in my opinion, does not give the state the right to regulate the types of people churches can and cannot serve and the type of couples clergymen can and cannot marry. Marrying a same-sex couple goes against what their religion stands for and the state cannot force them to contradict something that is important to their religion.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09987255088647103218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-91301760177991712232015-02-17T12:09:11.980-05:002015-02-17T12:09:11.980-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Molly H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/00721867630371536282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-53385783899643556062015-02-17T11:08:19.507-05:002015-02-17T11:08:19.507-05:00Due to the lack of Anti-discrimination law in Okla...Due to the lack of Anti-discrimination law in Oklahoma, I have to agree with the author that the bill is not unconstitutional. It allows the clergy men the free practice and free will to deny service to whoever they want on whatever grounds they want. If a member of the church doesn't want to preform a ceremony that is contrary to what they or the church they represent believe in they don't have to. I believe there is a difference between this case and the bakery because a bakery is a secular service while clergymen represent a church which is a service of faith. Although I personally take issue with this bill and lack of anti-discrimination standards, given the state laws and standards, I believe the bill is constitutional. The bill is moving Oklahoma in the wrong direction of a more accepting and caring society, but regardless is not unconstitutional. Trevor Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05896814794870416057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-84532163832077518882015-02-17T09:32:09.010-05:002015-02-17T09:32:09.010-05:00If someone opens their doors for business with the...If someone opens their doors for business with the community, then they do not have the right to deny service to an individual based on race, gender, or sexual orientation. This is true with or without an anti-discrimination law. Once a business has opened their doors, they have in a sense become a public service. The difference with this case is that the institution mentioned is a clergyman and his church. In my opinion, I think religious institutions should be given certain rights that transcend certain civil laws. In this instance, if the state of Oklahoma does not allow clergyman to deny same-sex marriage, the state is controlling the religious freedom of this particular religion. If a principle of the religion is no same-sex marriage, then Oklahoma does not have the constitutional authority to enforce the religious actions of the clergyman.Ben K.https://www.blogger.com/profile/12662953386976324916noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-21153584605026079352015-02-16T19:12:09.224-05:002015-02-16T19:12:09.224-05:00I think as long as the same sex couples are able t...I think as long as the same sex couples are able to obtain marriage licenses, then the clergy should have the right to refuse service. As Liz and the author have pointed out, Oklahoma does not have an anti-discrimination law, the clergy members are not legally bound to perform a marriage ceremony if the marriage goes against their personal beliefs.Courtney W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16315571330181883561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-21438133200433175432015-02-16T17:31:09.393-05:002015-02-16T17:31:09.393-05:00I think the fact that Oklahoma does not have a non...I think the fact that Oklahoma does not have a non-discrimination law is key to the passing of this bill. The fact that the clergy are protected, however, I think will prove to be a slippery slope in the future, even though I would not consider this bill unconstitutional either. Using the clergy being protected as a precedent, will other professions demand bills to be passed for them to be able to deny their services to members of the LGBT community because of their own religious beliefs? It appears that the fact that this bill was a bit unwarranted seemed to be Oklahoma’s way of covering their bases before anyone filed a lawsuit against a church official for refusing to perform a marriage.Mackenzie Yhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07128715799065965096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-31371975798718795602015-02-16T13:39:22.081-05:002015-02-16T13:39:22.081-05:00I find these types of issues difficult to judge be...I find these types of issues difficult to judge because on the one hand, I think it is extremely discriminatory and wrong to deny service based on sexual orientation, but on the other hand that does not mean it is unconstitutional. Because Oklahoma does not have the same anti-discrimination laws that Colorado does, it seems that these clergy are within their legal limits to deny service to homosexual couples. To me, if we have to worry about protecting the clergy from lawsuits and 'other courses of action', then this should force the state to look into the constitutionality of their anti-discrimination laws to begin with. However, I would have to agree that this bill is not unconstitutional due to these laws.Liz Ehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12158115742624195708noreply@blogger.com