The Vermont Clause
CommentsWith all the Green Mountain State’s double-bride and double-groom celebrations, nobody has seemed to notice that the Vermont gay-marriage law contains a clause offering some of the same protections I’ve been calling for here at GaysDefendMarriage.com:
§ 4502. PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS
* * *
(l) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a religious organization,
association, or society, or any nonprofit institution or organization operated,
supervised, or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization,
association, or society, shall not be required to provide services,
accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges to an individual if
the request for such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or
privileges is related to the solemnization of a marriage or celebration of a
marriage. Any refusal to provide services, accommodations, advantages,
facilities, goods, or privileges in accordance with this subsection shall not
create any civil claim or cause of action. This subsection shall not be
construed to limit a religious organization, association, or society, or any
nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised, or controlled by or
in conjunction with a religious organization from selectively providing
services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges to some
individuals with respect to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage but
not to others.
I dunno. The Vermont Supreme Court’s pro-SSM opinion represents an abuse of judicial review that, in its attitude and lack of judicial reasoning, could be applied to this clause — without the justices breaking a sweat or invoking anything other than its own pro-SSM precedent. Their rewrite of the state constitution — based baldly on identity politics rather than sound jurisprudence — does not portend any greater protection for the effectiveness of this clause in a statue implementing the SSM merger.
It depends a bit on what “celebration” and “in relation to” mean, but the above is about what I would have been happy to concede for free before any grubby horsetrading to extract concessions in other areas. If, as I tend to presume, “celebration” is what the celebrant does, then it’s squarely in the ritual aspect of religion and so most entitled to protection under freedom of religion. On the other hand, if it’s what happens at the reception afterwards, then not so much - it’s not clear that it’s included and I’d argue against that reading. And if it’s commercial reception caterers who just happen to be conservatively religious then it’s clearly not included, and I’d fight tooth and nail it being added.
Hang on, if an athiest photographer or caterer does not wish to do religious weddings, will she be forced by the law to do them? Doesn’t happen today under the clear distinction between marriage and nonmarriage. Maybe it would under the SSM merger in Vermont?
Heh.
CO: “Hang on, if an athiest photographer or caterer does not wish to do religious weddings, will she be forced by the law to do them?”
Well, yes. Most states have public accommodation laws that explicitly mention religion, so religion would be disallowed as a criterion for refusing service.
CO: “Doesn’t happen today under the clear distinction between marriage and nonmarriage.”
It doesn’t happen that I’m aware of, but less because of the law than because most atheists could care less whether theists like to have mumbo-jumbo pronounced over their weddings - it’s just a joyous occasion and a business opportunity. But in theory they _could_ care, and it would be too bad because theists are very jealous that no one treats them the way they like to treat gay people.
No case law, I think, that includes an athiest being fined for not photographing or catering a religious event; nor forced to do it against his beliefs.
That has less to do with athiests of whom there are plenty who wouldn’t miss an opportunity to press the issue in court as far as it can go, and more to do with the tolerance of the religious people who would be disinclined to demand an athiest act against his beliefs in such a situation.
Besides, whether religious or irreligious or anti-religious people who photograph marriages or cater to them do so for events based on the union of husband and wife. The conflicts would come in where nonmarriage, as as an all-male or an all-female arrangement, is falsely equated with marriage under the law.
But, as always, Mark you can choose to openly villify others in your remarks, based on your fervent faith in identity politics.
CO: “No case law, I think, that includes an athiest being fined for not photographing or catering a religious event; nor forced to do it against his beliefs.”
I’m not aware of any either, but such denial of service on the basis of the religion of the customer is precisely the sort of thing that specifying religion in non-discrimination laws was supposed to rule out, so it’s wildly implausible that suits are being brought and dismissed. It can only be that, as I suggested, atheists can be bothered.
CO: “That has less to do with athiests of whom there are plenty who wouldn’t miss an opportunity to press the issue in court as far as it can go, [...]”
Not at all. It’s certainly true that there are plenty of atheists who would sue at the drop of a hat to stamp out collective school prayer or other government sponsorship of religion (and I’d support them), but this is a different issue. As a minority now even more unpopular than gays, atheists keenly appreciate the value of strong public accommodation laws, and while I’m sure there are exceptions, by and large we get it that if we’re going to keep strong public accommodation laws we need to support them being applied evenhandedly.
CO: “[....] and more to do with the tolerance of the religious people who would be disinclined to demand an athiest act against his beliefs in such a situation.”
Ha bloody ha. The traditional and still widespread belief among theists is that atheists don’t _have_ morals. See, e.g., Psalm 14: “The fool hath said in his heart, ‘There is no God’. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.”
CO: “Besides, whether religious or irreligious or anti-religious people who photograph marriages or cater to them do so for events based on the union of husband and wife. The conflicts would come in where nonmarriage, as as an all-male or an all-female arrangement, is falsely equated with marriage under the law.”
And your point is? Like, we get it that religious people think that SSM is essentially phony. We should respect that view why exactly? After all, by hypothesis, legally it’s not phony. Legally it’s the real deal, because outside theocracies, the law gets to say what’s real and not real for the purposes of the law.
CO: “But, as always, Mark you can choose to openly villify others in your remarks, based on your fervent faith in identity politics.”
When Psalm 14 is repealed, and no longer printed in Jewish or Christian scriptures, I’ll stop laughing.
MB, there are nonreligous people who agree with the defense of marriage as I have described it. Indeed, in CA the nonreligous vote provided the margin of victory for the marriage amendment.
And I will readily acknowledge that there are religious people who agree with the merger of SSM and marriage at law. Some even do so within their religious congregations. That was also illustrated during the CA marriage amendment campaign.
Yet here you are setting up this false dichotomy of religous people versus SSMers.
Based on your own stated standards, MB, SSM carries no societal significance that merits a special status among the rest of the nonmarriage category. Of course, you don’t distinguish marriage from nonmarriage so it is unsurprising that you don’t substantively distinguish SSM from nonmarriage either. Maybe it is your own argumentation, and that of the SSM campaign, that deliberately leaves the impression that SSM is phoney — for the purposes of the law and everything else — with the single possible exception that it would help innoculate gay identity politics.
But you could correct that impression right now. What is real about SSM? What are the essentials without which SSM would not be SSM? You know, for the purposes of the law.
When we covered this ground earlier, you went in circles. You said commitment to commitment is the only essential.
And yet commitment can and does occur outside of SSM. That contradicts your own stated standard of argumentation when you attack the centrality of responsible procreation in the social institution of marriage.
Indeed, for you, the social institution is not as significant as the governmental power to issue licenses for something you have failed to distinguish from nonmarriage. Thus you depend on arbitrariness to an extent that also denies the purpose of marriage law and that promotes the replacement of marriage with SSM for the purpose of asserting supremacy via identity politics.
This fervent faith of yours manifests in a peculiar sectarianism which you apparently feel compelled to dress-up as a battle between Government and Religion.
Whether you are laughing or not, you keep choosing to villify others on that basis, as I said previously. I take your remarks about Psalm 14 to be your concession that this is indeed your choice.