![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wingedbeast1. No religious organization or religious official (that is a person holding a religious office, not an official who happens to be religious) will be forced, by law, to officiate a wedding that violates the religion of the organization or the religion.
We know this to be the case not only because of our constitution, but because we have a prior example to show the contrary. We have Loving-v-State of Virginia. Since that ruling, force of law has not forced any church to perform an interracial marraige against the will of either that church or the officiating cleric. The law will not force this on you.
To counter this, churches that have refused to officiate interracial marriages have lost members, lost social standing, been marginalized as bigoted, etc. But, these are social costs, not legal costs. Social costs are a part of living in a society. If you do not want to pay the social costs for your position, make a better case for it.
2. The Slippery Slope relies upon your assumption that you have no other arguments than tradition.
Now that same sex marriage is the law of the land, if you still oppose multiple marriage, you have a challenge set before you. Come up with objections that are not limited to tradition and/or religion. If you cannot, perhaps you should rethink your objection. If you can, then tradition is not the only argument available.
3. Civil Rights means everybody serves people they don't like.
If the owner of a rental property has a personal religious belief that people outside a specific ethniciety should not take up residence in their neighborhood, tough. If the owner of a pizza parlor has a personal religious belief that interracial marriages don't count, tough. If the owner of a taxi-company has a personal religious belief that Christians shouldn't be allowed transportation, tough.
Each of these people would be classed as bigots. But, here's the thing, they're also classed as citizens. To claim that your religion shouldn't be subject to this part of Civil Rights but theirs should is to claim that you are just more of a citizen than both they and gay people you don't want to serve.
Besides, with so many claims that persecution is on the way, one would think you'd want this protection in place.
That said, I'd like to not hear those particular arguments again. Please come up with new ones. These have been answered.
We know this to be the case not only because of our constitution, but because we have a prior example to show the contrary. We have Loving-v-State of Virginia. Since that ruling, force of law has not forced any church to perform an interracial marraige against the will of either that church or the officiating cleric. The law will not force this on you.
To counter this, churches that have refused to officiate interracial marriages have lost members, lost social standing, been marginalized as bigoted, etc. But, these are social costs, not legal costs. Social costs are a part of living in a society. If you do not want to pay the social costs for your position, make a better case for it.
2. The Slippery Slope relies upon your assumption that you have no other arguments than tradition.
Now that same sex marriage is the law of the land, if you still oppose multiple marriage, you have a challenge set before you. Come up with objections that are not limited to tradition and/or religion. If you cannot, perhaps you should rethink your objection. If you can, then tradition is not the only argument available.
3. Civil Rights means everybody serves people they don't like.
If the owner of a rental property has a personal religious belief that people outside a specific ethniciety should not take up residence in their neighborhood, tough. If the owner of a pizza parlor has a personal religious belief that interracial marriages don't count, tough. If the owner of a taxi-company has a personal religious belief that Christians shouldn't be allowed transportation, tough.
Each of these people would be classed as bigots. But, here's the thing, they're also classed as citizens. To claim that your religion shouldn't be subject to this part of Civil Rights but theirs should is to claim that you are just more of a citizen than both they and gay people you don't want to serve.
Besides, with so many claims that persecution is on the way, one would think you'd want this protection in place.
That said, I'd like to not hear those particular arguments again. Please come up with new ones. These have been answered.
