Reader comments · US: Nevada equal marriage bill amended for religious protection ahead of Senate vote · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


US: Nevada equal marriage bill amended for religious protection ahead of Senate vote

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. These “religious freedom” amendments are so much horsepucky. No can force a clergyman to perform a wedding ceremony against his beliefs and no one an force a church to provide the venue for a wedding ceremony against that church’s teachings — that’s settled American law — it’s called the “Free Exercise Clause” and it’s part of the Constitution. These sorts of things are really just an attempt to give cover to the butcher, the baker and the florist to be bigots and get out of complying with anti-discrimination laws.

    1. Why are they being “bigots”? They shouldn’t be forced to act against their conscience. If they are being asked to do something that goes against their conscience because it legitimises homosexuality, they should be able to refuse.

      Likewise, if you are a photographer and a Christian group ask you to take photos at an anti-gay event, you should be able to refuse. This is not discrimination against people; it’s refusal to take part in behaviour that offends you.

      Do NOT confuse the person with the behaviour.

      1. And your confusing person beliefs and what a business can provide to the public, they and you are trying to fudge the two so they can express their bigotry.

        The two examples you give are polar ends apart, one is to express love, the other to express hate and intolerance. One is a personal attack on individuals the other is a choice not to get involved in an expression of intolerance.

      2. It’s much more the right that is trying to confuse the person with the behavior — there’s a limit on the expression of religion, just as there are limits on all of our other rights. What the right is trying to establish is that there are no limits on expression of religion, which is simply license to discriminate on any basis. When you run a business offering goods or services to the public, you are licensed by the state, and if the state says you must offer those goods or services to the public without bias, then you must do so. It’s that simple. If you can’t square that with your religious beliefs, get out of the business.

        1. It’s not just about religious beliefs. It’s about personal beliefs, generally.

          Say that a neo-nazi group goes to a hotel and asks to hire the conference room for their annual convention. Should the hotel be able to refuse? Yes? No? Why/why not?

          What happens if a porn company wants to hire your film studio to film their latest opus. Should you be able to refuse if you personally disapprove of pornography? Why or why not?

          1. Dave North 21 Apr 2013, 4:56pm

            Because they are real life measurable tangible ethics.

            Not sky daddy told me so, ethics.

      3. Robert in S. Kensington 20 Apr 2013, 4:42pm

        You don’t get it. The law doesn’t work that way. It’s no different than an atheist doctor refusing to save the life of a religious person because their beliefs are in conflict with his, although personally, I think he or she should be able to. Religious belief isn’t innate, it’s a chosen life style, learned behavior and a personal choice.

      4. Dave North 21 Apr 2013, 5:02pm

        Its called the LAW OF THE LAND.

        Just deal with it or get jailed.

        1. Dave North 21 Apr 2013, 5:03pm

          And PS. My existence is not up to a “Conscience” vote.

          Get it.

    2. And what happens when everyone working for the state government is “clergy” and they all refuse to marry a gay couple because of this provision? (At this link, it only costs you $150! )

      “The Saskatchewan government says “no” is not an option for marriage commissioners who are unwilling to wed same-sex couples.
      At least one commissioner says the province will have to fire him if that’s the case.
      Justice Minister Don Morgan says marriage commissioners are getting letters informing them about a decision by the province’s top court. The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ruled last week that religious beliefs cannot be used as a reason to refuse to marry same-sex couples.”

      1. In that case, they are employees of the government and have to abide by the government’s rules. What’s so hard about that?

  2. PaperShyguy 20 Apr 2013, 9:00am

    See, as someone three doors down over in Texas, this is actually the ideal way I think Equal Marriage should be handled: Open to everyone without going out of its way to inhibit a religion’s right to not recognize it. Hey gay people you wanna get married? Cool, do it. He church people, you wanna not have to marry them? Cool, you don’t have to.

    In the case of clergy who are working as, say, county clerks, signing marriage lisences, I don’t imagine that would go over well for them; even if they’re clergy, they’re *acting* as representatives of the government and the government says to do it. At that point the state has two choices; remove this person from the equation or let them misrepresent policy.

  3. Out with the Delusionals 20 Apr 2013, 11:44am

    What sane individual would want to have a marriage conducted by a delusional from a “belief” that fundamentally hates them? As for being forced to act against their beliefs they pick and chose what to subscribe to depending on their own wants; so much for their sacred marriage vows when it comes to adultery eh? Religion is such garbage and should be treated as such.

  4. Guy sitting 20 Apr 2013, 2:58pm

    Perhaps atheism should adopt the label of religion and then atheists can refuse to provide services to believers on the grounds that hate based on a theocracy continues to destroy the fabric of a modern society.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 20 Apr 2013, 4:45pm

      There are a small number of atheists who also oppose equal civil marriage and yet atheism is a form of a belief system.

      1. Out with the Delusionals 20 Apr 2013, 5:43pm

        Atheists do not have a belief system they have reason and logic and science, not delusions and magic.

  5. Atheistic beliefs do exist: buddhism, astrology, yoga/reiki, homeopathy trade unionism, communism v free-market libertarians, racial facism, nationalism animalrights/vegans, pacifists, enviromentalist etc

    1. Dave North 21 Apr 2013, 4:58pm

      Maybe so. But based in fucking reality. Not silly old books and BELIEF.

  6. Dave North 21 Apr 2013, 5:01pm

    Why do the religious NEED protection.

    Surely their great omnipotent god will do that for them, what with their praying and all.


    Not so omnipotent then is it.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.