Supreme Court of the United States Recent Rulings

[elit]

Then thats pretty troublesome.

Yup bc all religious non profits rely heavily on it.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Perhaps they wont be prosecuted or sued, but someone commenting on the Fink article brought up a diffrent concern. Is the tax exempt status of a non profit  orginization that refuses to marry a gay couple going to be at risk? I dont know much about this topic but the commenter claims that the irs retracts tax exempt status from non profits that are discriminatory.

What about the Catholic church that discriminates against women by not letting them be Priest?

Someone beat me to it but the point is obvious.

[elit]

I'm not so sure that's true.  Religious institutions can discriminate in certain instances, i.e. not allow female clergy.  That would be illegal discrimination against a protected class in any other situation.

Honestly i have no idea but the guy who told me this is pretty well versed in this topic

[aradisc]

No as in "no, I have combed over the law, and have concluded that an orthodox Jewish caterer can't be sued for turning down a gay customer"

Anti-discrimination statutes mostly apply to housing, workplaces, and places of public accommodation, not independent contractors. The state of the law is that religions, private clubs, and businesses that aren't a public accommodation can pretty much discriminate as they see fit.

[Aj3042]

...but when the courts say it then it is so.

What are you talking about? "The courts" said nothing of the sort. The only thing mentioned in relation to this is an "assurance" from Breyer that religious people would be protected. Even if he's sincere and not lying, and even if he's not being naive, he's still only one person at one time saying that.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

What are you talking about? "The courts" said nothing of the sort. The only thing mentioned in relation to this is an "assurance" from Breyer that religious people would be protected. Even if he's sincere and not lying, and even if he's not being naive, he's still only one person at one time saying that.

You never heard the term "No means no"?

[dovy2]

What are you talking about? "The courts" said nothing of the sort. The only thing mentioned in relation to this is an "assurance" from Breyer that religious people would be protected. Even if he's sincere and not lying, and even if he's not being naive, he's still only one person at one time saying that.

Why is every comment of yours, an attack?  Everything ok?

[Aj3042]

You never heard the term "No means no"?

No

Why is every comment of yours, an attack?  Everything ok?

& no.

[Achas Veachas]

For everyone worried about their Rabbi/priest getting sued:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

The same way a Catholic priest can't get sued for not marrying off a Jewish couple (even though Jews are a protected class) a rabbi can't get sued for refusing to marry off a same-sex couple. The state can not dictate to a religious institution how to run a religious ceremony, discrimination doesn't play a role here.

[Sport]

For everyone worried about their Rabbi/priest getting sued:
The same way a Catholic priest can't get sued for not marrying off a Jewish couple (even though Jews are a protected class) a rabbi can't get sued for refusing to marry off a same-sex couple. The state can not dictate to a religious institution how to run a religious ceremony, discrimination doesn't play a role here.

I'm glad you're so confident, but

Honestly i have no idea but the guy who told me this is pretty well versed in this topic

makes me weary. only time will tell.

[Aj3042]

I'm glad you're so confident, but  makes me weary. only time will tell.

Let's just say that if Breyer had to assure the conservatives that this won't be the case that there's much cause for concern.

[avromie7]

Still have no interest in arguing either side of this, but if your opinion is the opposite of whatever Fink says, you'll usually be right
http://finkorswim.com/2015/06/28/i-believe-in-torah-halacha-and-equality/

I finally finished reading this thread and that is unfortunately very true

[elit]

For everyone worried about their Rabbi/priest getting sued:
The same way a Catholic priest can't get sued for not marrying off a Jewish couple (even though Jews are a protected class) a rabbi can't get sued for refusing to marry off a same-sex couple. The state can not dictate to a religious institution how to run a religious ceremony, discrimination doesn't play a role here.

Getting sued may be further down the road but losing tax exempt status is not... I would double check with my source on this stuff but he is currently in azerbajjen to meet with government officials to discuss issues of religious freedom there...

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Getting sued may be further down the road but losing tax exempt status is not... I would double check with my source on this stuff but he is currently in azerbajjen to meet with government officials to discuss issues of religious freedom there...

Please get back to us but the Catholic Church does have tax exempt status.

[elit]

Please get back to use but the Catholic Church does have tax exempt status.

From what i understand the Catholic church is very concerned about losing that status

[zale]

For everyone worried about their Rabbi/priest getting sued:
The same way a Catholic priest can't get sued for not marrying off a Jewish couple (even though Jews are a protected class) a rabbi can't get sued for refusing to marry off a same-sex couple. The state can not dictate to a religious institution how to run a religious ceremony, discrimination doesn't play a role here.

A Catholic priest can't get sued for turning down a Jewish couple, but can he get sued for turning down a Black couple?

LGBT rights groups have framed themselves in the same category as Black oppression. This is the reason bake shops and photographers have been bullied and beaten down for refusing to service gay couples.

While you sound overly confident about pastors not being targeted, it appears that many are worried. Aside from pastors, what about other wedding service providers?

[ChaimMoskowitz]

A Catholic priest can't get sued for turning down a Jewish couple, but can he get sued for turning down a Black couple?

I assume you are asking about a Catholic black couple? A Catholic Jewish couple would not get turned down.

[zale]

I assume you are asking about a Catholic black couple? A Catholic Jewish couple would not get turned down.

Q: How can you tell if someone is half Catholic and half Jewish?
A: When he goes to confession, he takes a lawyer with him.

But yes, I'm talking about a Catholic Black couple.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Q: How can you tell if someone is half Catholic and half Jewish?
A: When he goes to confession, he takes a lawyer with him.

But yes, I'm talking about a Catholic Black couple.

As long as the better half is Catholic you are OK. 

If you are baptized Christians you can get married in the Catholic church. Color and race does not matter.

[aygart]

While Justice Kennedy wrote this.

It must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same-sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate.

Chief Justice Roberts had this reply in which he specifically addressed tax exempt status:

Respect for sincere religious conviction has led voters and legislators in every State that has adopted same-sex marriage democratically to include accommodations for religious practice. The majority’s decision imposing same-sex marriage cannot, of course, create any such accommodations. The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to “advocate” and “teach” their views of marriage. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to “exercise” religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.

Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage—when, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples. Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage. There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court. Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today

.