Marriage is state-sanctioned. It is under the law. If a church wants to issue marriage licenses, they need to be authorized by the state to do so. Therefore, if a church wants the privilege to issue marriage licenses, they should not get to pick and choose who they will and will not marry. Separation of church and state means that your religious beliefs cannot dictate the law. Being that marriage is a legal matter, NOT a religious one, and you need to be authorized by the state to issue marriage licenses, a church does not have the right to refuse same-sex couples a marriage license. If you won't serve everyone, you shouldn't be allowed to serve any. If you would have an issue marrying a same sex couple, don't get authorized by the STATE to provide a legal service.
Don't surprised if this happens because businesses are already being sued for refusing to host their so called Wedding. Were getting closer to Christ's 2nd Coming and If the government does this is going to be a big court case and it will make headlines. Christian's may have to Worship in Secret in America in the future.
Whether or not we expect Churches to perform these marriages is not relevant anymore. The Supreme Court's ruling in the Obergefell v. Hodges case states in its official opinion that "The Court, in this decision, holds same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States. It follows that the Court also must hold--and it now does hold--that there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character... They [same-sex couples] ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right." (Obergefell v. Hodges, No. 14-556) If the system of Judicial Review is to be upheld, it is unconstitutional, and therefore unlawful, for same-sex couples to be refused marriage. I rest my case.
I don't agree with it, but I do see it as the next step. It's true that churches and states both officiate in the office of marriage, but in reality, neither of them own the institution. The concept of marriage has evolved substantially, but in it's inception, it was never something that had to be officiated by any government or church, but rather it was something that was done symbolically for the purpose of forging alliances or strengthening family connections. The notion of marriage today centers around love and fidelity, and in the government's eyes, gender is not an issue. But the government does not own the institution of marriage, and there are no constitutional amendments garuanteeing anyone's right to be married. Unfortunately, we seem to have shifted to a point in society where a couple's marriage is not legitimate anywhere unless it has the government's stamp of approval. The government does this by denying tax and other monetary benefits to those it does not recognize. But the argument needs to be whether or not the government ever had this authority in the first place, because before marriages had to be legitimized by any governing entity, they were required to be sanctioned by the catholic church in the 1200's. So if anyone should be claiming ownership on the institution of marriage, it should be religion. Not because it is a religious institution per say, just because religion had first dibs.
So here's how it will happen. Governments will not come out and say that religious institutions need to perform these (because that's a violation of our 1st amendment rights), but instead will say that any institution who cannot conform with government policies cannot file as a charitable organization. Then churches will lose their non-profit tax status. Once this happens, someone will point out that they are now technically "for profit" organizations, rather than religious institutions, and then the government will intervene the same way that they intervene with other small businesses that supposedly discriminate against same sex couples.
Tolerance is a two way street. Unless you are in the U.S., in which case tolerance means "see it my way, or you're a homophobe." Those that preach tolerance the most are often those that don't care about your religious morals and standards. There is a word for that, it's called intolerance.
If a business does not wish to serve a black man because the owner assumes and sees that the customer is a, 'problem' then that owner has the legal right to reserve service and can say, "I am refusing service, please leave the building." This is no different than a Church refusing to marry a gay man with a gay man or a woman with a woman. It is the right of the Church to do as it may because of what it believes in.
The people do not have to get married any how, a marriage license is a mere piece of paper dictating who you are spending the rest of your life with. So long as you want to follow a piece of paper is the time on this earth you follow a person and not yourself.
I am for gay rights and I would be happy to attend or provide a gay wedding. But I can't force my views on anyone else and if a good person does not want to take part in something they disagree with than I can not force them to. Everyone has the right to practice their religion in a way that doesn't harm anyone.
I think that depending on the church and the community respect it should be considered. I don't believe that forcing them is the right way to do it. Encouraging them to do so - yes. Forcing - no. By forcing churches to hold same sex marriage weddings you could be allowing very bad things to happen. Firstly, there is the risk of abuse. The members of the church will despise you (depending on how strict they are) and you could be a target for a attack in public, Church and possibly on your wedding day. If the majority of the community accept gay marriage and are not against it then it is perfectly okay to do so however I believe that it is safer for the couple to get married somewhere else, other than in a place where most people believe that what they are doing is wrong and punishable by sending them to hell.
There are two sides to consider. One is a baker who will not make a wedding cake for a gay couple. This is discriminatory, much akin to having minorities having a specific section on a bus, the back. It's a bias based on characteristic or label placed upon an individual or group. In a religious practice context, there is a belief system and religious rites, such as baptism and marriage. If a particular characteristic or label of an individual directly contradicts or impinges on the ability to perform such rites, this would be discriminatory due to the inability of the religion to practice it's faith. One deals with public transactions the other with the ability to "practice" ones faith.
The First Amendment provides that the government cannot establish or impact the free practice of any religion.
God severely condemns homosexual activities. This sin is no worse than talking back to your parents, murder, or telling a lie. But the Bible clearly tells us that people who live this lifestyle will not enter Heaven (1 Cor 6:9-10).
I do not, and they should not be forced to perform a ceremony that may not be within their interests. I'm a liberal/progressive democrat and have extended family that are gay and legally married to their respective spouses, so I'm all for equality, but you cannot force a church/synagogue/mosque etc. to follow something they do not believe in. The ability to say no to something they do not believe in is called religious freedom. What I am against is what Kim Davis did in Kentucky, so basically when the state is in question and a state employee won't follow the law and claims religious freedom. That isn't religious freedom, that's called not doing your job and thus should be removed from office if you do not do the job that people are paying you to do. Religious organizations however, should never be forced to perform something that goes against what they believe in, no matter how extreme/how much you disagree with those beliefs. That's religious freedom