Commander of Awesome;1485533 wrote:Same reason separate but equal was over turned. Not sure why segregation is illegal say with a water fountain but its fine under the disguise of religion. It's segregation in another form IMO.
Serioulsy consider it under the lens of civil rights. Think or your arguements for why gays shouldn't be able to marry, or be married in this church or that one and it's the exact same logic that people used to diuscredit the civil rights.
I have considered this comparison, and it's certainly worth the contemplation. However, I suggest that it isn't an accurate parallel.
The problem with seperate-but-equal is that the service is the same, and the difference by which service was determined is solely the patron.
However, consider the distinction in the following example:
Two women, with a marriage recognized by their local state, come to a church in their area. They ask the pastor if he can marry their heterosexual daughter to her fiance. He says yes.
In the example above, the service rendered is the same as they always offer, and as such, they show no prejudice based on the fact that the patrons/customers/clients/etc. are a gay couple.
Now, consider this alternative:
A heterosexual couple comes to a church in their area. They ask the pastor if he can marry their homosexual daughter to her fiance. He says no.
In this example, the service rendered is different than what they always offer, and as such, they do not offer it, despite the fact that the patrons/customers/clients/etc. are a straight couple.
In the two examples above, there is no prejudice shown based on the customer, but there is prejudice shown based on the service provided, as with any other industry.
It's a technical distinction, naturally, but it's a distinction, nonetheless.
I'm not suggesting anyone should necessarily be denied a ceremony of any kind in a given church. I'm simply suggesting that the church itself should be allowed to choose what services they offer and what services they do not offer.
The thing about the above is that it doesn't deny anyone anything according to their identity. It merely doesn't endorse a particular action. I daresay that therein lies an important and real distinction between the seperate-but-equal problem and the current distinction between same-sex and different-sex weddings.
1. The refusal or acceptance of the job is contingent on the job itself, and not necessarily the customers requesting said job, and
2. The distinction between the jobs is not based on a refusal to equally recognize anyone's identity, but rather a refusal to facilitate a particular action.
