<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Absurdity of the &#8220;group&#8221; exemption</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.gaysdefendmarriage.com/2009/04/27/absurdity-of-the-group-exemption/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.gaysdefendmarriage.com/2009/04/27/absurdity-of-the-group-exemption/</link>
	<description>A website for LGBT folks who support marriage as the union of husband and wife—and getting the gay leadership to return to more pressing LGBT issues for our community.</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 02:26:49 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Marty</title>
		<link>http://www.gaysdefendmarriage.com/2009/04/27/absurdity-of-the-group-exemption/#comment-15632</link>
		<dc:creator>Marty</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2009 13:34:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gaysdefendmarriage.com/?p=142#comment-15632</guid>
		<description>"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason."

Freedom of association is a 2 sided coin.  It includes freedom of dissociation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason.&#8221;</p>
<p>Freedom of association is a 2 sided coin.  It includes freedom of dissociation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Barton</title>
		<link>http://www.gaysdefendmarriage.com/2009/04/27/absurdity-of-the-group-exemption/#comment-15557</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Barton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2009 04:59:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gaysdefendmarriage.com/?p=142#comment-15557</guid>
		<description>DB: "I’ve been thinking about the group-but-not-individual exemption in Connecticut’s and Vermont’s gay-marriage bills. How would that apply, for example, to a Christian rock band? They’re certainly a “religious organization,” right?"

I'd allow them as a religious group on the principle of "expressive association". Caterers who happen to be Christian on the other hand, not so much.

DB: "Does that mean that a Christian rock solo artist could be forced to work at a same-sex wedding, but if she threatens to bring a drummer, she’s exempt?"

Just because I'm a nice guy I'd allow a Christian rock solo artist under the principle of expressive association, even though she/he's not actually associating with anyone. Or maybe I'd allow it on general principles of free speech. I'd certainly want to see some actual speech.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>DB: &#8220;I’ve been thinking about the group-but-not-individual exemption in Connecticut’s and Vermont’s gay-marriage bills. How would that apply, for example, to a Christian rock band? They’re certainly a “religious organization,” right?&#8221;</p>
<p>I&#8217;d allow them as a religious group on the principle of &#8220;expressive association&#8221;. Caterers who happen to be Christian on the other hand, not so much.</p>
<p>DB: &#8220;Does that mean that a Christian rock solo artist could be forced to work at a same-sex wedding, but if she threatens to bring a drummer, she’s exempt?&#8221;</p>
<p>Just because I&#8217;m a nice guy I&#8217;d allow a Christian rock solo artist under the principle of expressive association, even though she/he&#8217;s not actually associating with anyone. Or maybe I&#8217;d allow it on general principles of free speech. I&#8217;d certainly want to see some actual speech.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fitz</title>
		<link>http://www.gaysdefendmarriage.com/2009/04/27/absurdity-of-the-group-exemption/#comment-14984</link>
		<dc:creator>Fitz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2009 19:33:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gaysdefendmarriage.com/?p=142#comment-14984</guid>
		<description>David (for example) of above...

This post from law professor Michael Scaperlanda in an ongoing discussion of same-sex "marriage" and religious liberty at "Mirror of Justice" law blog. 

&lt;i&gt; "But, I wonder if it isn't a tad naïve to think that religious liberty will really be secure without a fundamental shift in our nation's anthropological foundations. We might secure short-term protection, but my bet is that these protections erode over time – possibly very quickly." &lt;/i&gt;

I would agree with that general assessment.., 

Original Post here : 

http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2009/04/securing-religious-liberty-in-an-age-of-growing-intolerance.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>David (for example) of above&#8230;</p>
<p>This post from law professor Michael Scaperlanda in an ongoing discussion of same-sex &#8220;marriage&#8221; and religious liberty at &#8220;Mirror of Justice&#8221; law blog. </p>
<p><i> &#8220;But, I wonder if it isn&#8217;t a tad naïve to think that religious liberty will really be secure without a fundamental shift in our nation&#8217;s anthropological foundations. We might secure short-term protection, but my bet is that these protections erode over time – possibly very quickly.&#8221; </i></p>
<p>I would agree with that general assessment.., </p>
<p>Original Post here : </p>
<p><a href="http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2009/04/securing-religious-liberty-in-an-age-of-growing-intolerance.html" rel="nofollow">http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2009/04/securing-religious-liberty-in-an-age-of-growing-intolerance.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fitz</title>
		<link>http://www.gaysdefendmarriage.com/2009/04/27/absurdity-of-the-group-exemption/#comment-14981</link>
		<dc:creator>Fitz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2009 19:20:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gaysdefendmarriage.com/?p=142#comment-14981</guid>
		<description>From a lawyer _ nobody knows. That’s not to say that multiple in-depth opinions are not already available. However this situation (i.e. marriage) is so unique and its implications so massive that all such questions are up for a myriad of legal opinions, all of which are potentially valid. 

On top of that you have a 40 year tradition of legal scholarship hostile to religion and dismissive of religious liberty claims.


However: I think the question is a very good one ... all I can say is I don’t have a strong answer, and that anyone who tells you they do is not being honest.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From a lawyer _ nobody knows. That’s not to say that multiple in-depth opinions are not already available. However this situation (i.e. marriage) is so unique and its implications so massive that all such questions are up for a myriad of legal opinions, all of which are potentially valid. </p>
<p>On top of that you have a 40 year tradition of legal scholarship hostile to religion and dismissive of religious liberty claims.</p>
<p>However: I think the question is a very good one &#8230; all I can say is I don’t have a strong answer, and that anyone who tells you they do is not being honest.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
