What a great country we live in! Couple fined for not hosting same-sex marriage

What we have here is a few disingenuous people scamming society to wiggle their way into a tax break.

They now claim that they are discriminated against for not being allowed to marry and they further claim that this discrimination violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. But neither claim makes any sense, no one or any law prevented Gay people from marring therefore the 14th had not been violated in any sense.

There is no discrimination in the marriage laws until you "Change" the definition of marriage. It is currently defined in Oregon law in one of two ways:

1 In the solemnization of a marriage no particular form is required except that the parties thereto shall assent or declare in the presence of the clergyperson, county clerk or judicial officer solemnizing the marriage and in the presence of at least two witnesses, that they take each other to be husband and wife.

2 All marriages, to which there are no legal impediments, solemnized before or in any religious organization or congregation according to the established ritual or form commonly practiced therein, are valid. In such case, the person presiding or officiating in the religious organization or congregation shall deliver to the county clerk who issued the marriage license the application, license and record of marriage in accordance with ORS 106.170 (Report of marriage to county clerk). [Amended by 1979 c.724


Husband is the male partner, Wife is the female partner.

The law that the Attorney General of Oregon declined to defend was the line in the Oregon Constitution that marriage is between a Man and a Woman. I have not heard a word what the legislature will change in the Oregon Statutes to make Civil Marriage legal. It would seem several words need to be redefined in the dictionary to make it go. Such as Wife, Husband and Married.

Some ancient words to be changing, not for the benefit of the children in our society, but for the benefit of a vocal minority to gain some tax breaks that Congress never intended to bestow on them.

I think this whole issue is ridiculous. Marriage should be left to the Churches and the Tax law left to the government. Society will be better served with Churches in control the moral institutions of our Society, the government should have no role in this issue. The mission creep that has occurred via tax law to benefit families and children has been perverted and perversion seems to be gaining momentum without a gain for society in view. Even the origin of the ancient word married is being perverted, The word goes all the way back to the Indo-European language beginning. A Man joining with a Mari to be married. Mari was the original word for young woman. One can speculate that Mary a very common name came from Mari the term for a young woman of marriageable age. And then further speculate that there was a rather liberal translation the made Mary, the mother of Jesus a virgin.

It sure as hell takes some more liberal word smithing to get Jack and John married instead of Jack and Jill. But then, they produce no product and therefore, no need to marry, no doubt why they were never required to marry. Ah but now we have the tax break! Equal protection? Baloney!

 

Well after they win, they will be back in the marriage business, able to refuse ceremonies for gay people.

 

And there you go

 

My wife told me about this and said she sent the farm a check for $100

 

So basically anything anti religion is ok in this country?

Muslim family says no Christmas program because it has the word Christ in it and it's a holiday festival
Gay couple wants to get married and a Christ loving couple politely says no and gets sued for thousands of dollars


I can't help but wonder if the same rules apply if it was the other way around? Could a LGBTDGVHOIJHSD%D couple say no to a Christian couple if they wanted to hold prayer ceremonies on their property?

 

Assuming that the "LGBT...." couple were operating a business allowing people to rent their property for group events, then I think the answer is that they could not say no to a Christian group. Religion is a protected class under federal law and state law in Oregon.

Protected classes in Oregon include:

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/oregon-employment-discrimination-31796.html

 

You're correct, but the laws on "public accommodation" are similar:

http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/659A.403

 

Here is an example of the shoe being on the other foot...

http://www.edgeboston.com/columnists/mark_malis/49720/should_straight_people_be_allowed_in_gay_bars

 

Good question. I don't know. Seems like that would be giving unfair advantage in accommodation to godless heathens like you, Denny.

 

But it would be denying a group access to your place of public accommodation strictly because they might engage in their constitutionally protected right of freedom of religious expression. The accommodation is the rental of the property as a business, not the religious ceremony.

Churches and synagogues are not-for-profit entities and do not offer goods or services to the public. As such, I believe they would be exempt from the public accommodation law.

But I'm not a lawyer and much energy these days seems to be spent by one group or anther trying to shove their views on a given subject down somebody else's throat, so who the heck knows?

 

The answer is no, no violation, no difference.

106.150¹
Form of solemnization

• witnesses
• solemnization before congregation


2 All marriages, to which there are no legal impediments, solemnized before or in any religious organization or congregation according to the established ritual or form commonly practiced therein, are valid. In such case, the person presiding or officiating in the religious organization or congregation shall deliver to the county clerk who issued the marriage license the application, license and record of marriage in accordance with ORS 106.170 (Report of marriage to county clerk). [Amended by 1979 c.724 §5; 2001 c.501 §2; 2007 c.703 §3]