Real Religous Liberty Questions

[CriticalThought]

Should a religious college or university that does not recognize same-sex marriage be required to provide spousal benefits to employees who are legally married same-sex couples, assuming they offer those benefits to other married couples?

Should a religious adoption agency that receives public funds be allowed to deny a married same-sex couple from adopting?

Should a business be allowed to use the fact of a person legally marrying someone of the same sex as grounds for termination?

Should an apartment complex be allowed to advertise that they will not rent to married same-sex couples?

Should public officials, such as clerks and their deputies, be free to refuse to marry same-sex couples on religious grounds?

Should a judge who does not recognize same-sex marriage be free to deny a divorce to a married same-sex couple on the grounds that his religious beliefs do not allow him to recognize them as married?

 

[Carjosse]

Yes on the first one and no for all the rest. It is discrimination based on sexuality and marital status.

 

[Chomsky]

Should a religious college or university that does not recognize same-sex marriage be required to provide spousal benefits to employees who are legally married same-sex couples, assuming they offer those benefits to other married couples?

Should a religious adoption agency that receives public funds be allowed to deny a married same-sex couple from adopting?

Should a business be allowed to use the fact of a person legally marrying someone of the same sex as grounds for termination?

Should an apartment complex be allowed to advertise that they will not rent to married same-sex couples?

Should public officials, such as clerks and their deputies, be free to refuse to marry same-sex couples on religious grounds?

Should a judge who does not recognize same-sex marriage be free to deny a divorce to a married same-sex couple on the grounds that his religious beliefs do not allow him to recognize them as married?

The answer (IMO) should be 'No' to all, but thanks to the recent Hobby Lobby decision we may be looking at things like this, (I hope not!)

 

[SocialDemocrat]

Should a religious college or university that does not recognize same-sex marriage be required to provide spousal benefits to employees who are legally married same-sex couples, assuming they offer those benefits to other married couples?

Yes, refusing to do so is discrimination based on sexual orientation and marital status, as Carjosse said.

Should a religious adoption agency that receives public funds be allowed to deny a married same-sex couple from adopting?

There is literally no evidence to suggest that same-sex couples make inferior parents and actually denying children without a family the opportunity to have loving parents based on their sexuality is sick and the antithesis of family values.

Should a business be allowed to use the fact of a person legally marrying someone of the same sex as grounds for termination?

Because that's relevant to the job itself how exactly? No, this is obviously unjust discrimination.

Should an apartment complex be allowed to advertise that they will not rent to married same-sex couples?

No, they shouldn't be allowed to advertise it or discriminate based on sexuality whatsoever. I doubt someone unhappy with married same-sex couples living in their apartments would be happy with single same-sex couples though.

Should public officials, such as clerks and their deputies, be free to refuse to marry same-sex couples on religious grounds?

No, that's not doing their job.

Should a judge who does not recognize same-sex marriage be free to deny a divorce to a married same-sex couple on the grounds that his religious beliefs do not allow him to recognize them as married?

No, the right to marriage includes right to a divorce, but that seems a bit counterintuitive.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Should a religious college or university that does not recognize same-sex marriage be required to provide spousal benefits to employees who are legally married same-sex couples, assuming they offer those benefits to other married couples?

Legally? This is a murky area. It's a private institution, not a public one. I would say a very tentative yes.

Should a religious adoption agency that receives public funds be allowed to deny a married same-sex couple from adopting?

If they receive public funds, they cannot discriminate on this basis. Without public funds, they can.

Should a business be allowed to use the fact of a person legally marrying someone of the same sex as grounds for termination?

This also is somewhat murky. Does having an SSM couple harm the business? Yes, it would be discrimination, but how this would impact the business needs also to be considered. Here's an example"

Years ago, the son of a friend was looking for a job. He had a bright red rooster Mohawk. He went to a local pizza place and applied. The owner told him that he could not work there with his hair like that... it was a family restaurant, and that image would dissuade customers from patronizing. This was a legitimate issue for the owner to consider in his employees. The boy came back the next day wearing a hat and got the job... and kept it as long as he kept the hat on.

So, I think context would be important with this question.

Should an apartment complex be allowed to advertise that they will not rent to married same-sex couples?

No, that's discrimination.

Should public officials, such as clerks and their deputies, be free to refuse to marry same-sex couples on religious grounds?

No, that violates their job. They have three choices: do their job, refer to someone who will marry the couples, or leave their job.

Should a judge who does not recognize same-sex marriage be free to deny a divorce to a married same-sex couple on the grounds that his religious beliefs do not allow him to recognize them as married?

No, same as above.

One thing to remember. There is a difference between one's religious beliefs and the legal system. Just because one may not recognize SSM on religious grounds has no bearing on whether SSM is legitimate on legal bounds. If the two converge in the religious arena, religion wins. If the two converge in the legal arena, legal doesn't necessarily win, but religion definitely does not. One does not violate one's religious beliefs by following the law. Two different concepts.

 

[maquiscat]

I will begin with the stipulation that should any private entity, profit or non-profit, receive government funds, as opposed their product or services purchased by a government agency, then they should have to sign a statement declaring that they will conduct themselves in a manner similar to the government where discrimination is concerned. If they do wish to be able to discriminate then they don't have to accept the government funds.

Should a religious college or university that does not recognize same-sex marriage be required to provide spousal benefits to employees who are legally married same-sex couples, assuming they offer those benefits to other married couples?

As long as they are not receiving government funds, yes. I would further separate here grants, loans, and scholarships that are given directly to the student as opposed to the school should be separate from the non-discriminating condition.

Should a religious adoption agency that receives public funds be allowed to deny a married same-sex couple from adopting?

Since they are receiving public funds no. If it is a private agency operating on their own funds, then sure. Again, if a government source is providing funds to the adoptive parents, not the agency, then again the agency should not be required to sign the non-discrimination condition

Should a business be allowed to use the fact of a person legally marrying someone of the same sex as grounds for termination?

yes, per the above.

Should an apartment complex be allowed to advertise that they will not rent to married same-sex couples?

If anything I would say that they might need to be required to, but outside that yes, again per above. So obviously section 8 housing could not.

Should public officials, such as clerks and their deputies, be free to refuse to marry same-sex couples on religious grounds?

Only insofar as they will no longer have a job. Government agencies and their workers are the only one who should be required to set aside any religious, or otherwise, held beliefs and serve the public despite them. This would also extend to emergency services.

Should a judge who does not recognize same-sex marriage be free to deny a divorce to a married same-sex couple on the grounds that his religious beliefs do not allow him to recognize them as married?

Same as the previous.