ND76

Can you point out for me where in the four corners of the Constitution and 27 amendments the phrase "separation of church and state" is located?

I'll save you the research time. That phrase cannot be found in the Constitution. The only reference to religion is stated in the first clause of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

The term "separation of church and state" first appeared in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson (who was not a drafter of the Constitution BTW) to the "Danbury Baptists" on January 1, 1802.

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

This term was picked up by a one-time member of the KKK and anti-Catholic bigot named Hugo Black, who wrote the majority opinion in a case called Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township, 330 U.S. 1 (1947). Four justices dissented from the Klansman's opinion. You can read the majority opinion and the dissents at this link:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/330/1

So, the term "separation of church and state" is far from a "cornerstone" of American constitutional law.

captiveguru

I agree... But there are several examples of gay couples using the courts to punish business owners who have refused, for religious reasons, to participate in same sex wedding ceremonies. In several cases the couples were already customers of the business and the business willing sold flowers and baked goods to the customers.

But when the owners refused to participate in the couples' wedding ceremonies the litigation began.

Here are but 2 examples. There are, unfortunately, several more.

http://www.westword.com/news/masterp...needed-6629741

http://dailysignal.com/2015/02/20/st...res-responded/

TheMadBrewer

But you were talking about churches being forced to perform same sex weddings. For profit businesses selling to the general public are a different kettle of fish -- public accommodation laws. You know, those "whites only" signs on lunch counters years ago...

houserulz77

In both cases, the state (CO and WA) has an anti-discrimination law that makes sexual orientation a protected class. So your assertion in these cases are correct, the couples have the right to sue for discrimination.

If a business offers a service or product, they have to offer that service and/or product to everyone, unless there is a compelling reason not to. Sadly, at the Federal level, sexual orientation is not a protected class, but fortunately many state have already bridged that barrier.

dgilman

This is also a spurious argument. How is selling someone something 'participating'?

Like everything else you've written, it's simply not true. No one asked these people to participate in their wedding. They asked them to sell them something that offer to everyone else.

No one has sued a church for not marrying them. They've sued the government for not allowing them to be married IN THE EYES OF THE LAW.

Saying, "but my religion tells me so" is not a defense or excuse for bad behavior. It doesn't allow to discriminate or break the law.

David

Widgets

No one says that "separation of church and state" is quoted in the Constitution. The concept is in the first amendment.

The words "gun" or "weapon" appears nowhere in the Constitution. That doesn't mean that the right to carry isn't a significant liberty.

The words "God" or "Christianity" doesn't appear in the Constitution, but some would swear that the Constitution is entirely founded under those two concepts.

sethb

Rather, the churches would lose, because the regulation is Constitutional (and has been applied to other organizations). A regulation that applies to all 501(C)(3) organizations is not "respecting any establishment of religion".

sethb

That's because they're similarly bigoted, just along a different axis.

Now, can you provide examples of clergy forced to participate in inter-racial marriages that they didn't want to?

sethb

How is selling flowers participating?

Is Staples participating in forgery when they sell pens?

Is a gun store participating in murder?

captiveguru

Is the photographer a participant in a wedding ceremony? The baker and the florist might not have to be there, but the photographer is there and must document the event.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/gle...-weddings.html

captiveguru

Why? I have not represented that that is occurring.

dgilman

No. The photographer is a service provider who, by the virtue of offering his/her services to public, can't discriminate against people for things outside their control, like their sex, color of the their skin, country of origin, or, wait for it, sexual orientation.

David

houserulz77

Yeah if you are a wedding photographer you need to be at the weddings. If you have a problem with a wedding based on who the couple is, that would be discrimination.

Also, where does the bible does it say it's a sin to be in the presence of sinners (assuming someone feels that way)?

In the course of a 20 year careers, a wedding photographer is going to be at dozens of weddings where the couple's marriage is incongruent with the bible's definition of marriage. If that's a problem, don't be a wedding photographer. Of course we love the don't ask, don't tell way of doing things. The bride and groom in a "traditional" wedding can have met through an ilicit affair, be having other affairs during the period when they are married, can have an "open" relationship, can have had children out of wedlock, etc., just so long as they don't mention those transgressions. That way, Mr. Christian photographer can convince himself that the wedding is legit. Talk about making a mockery out of the commandments.

fliesdelta

Interracial marriage bans were based on the same axis: a religious explanation, that God had set the different races in different continents for a reason.

Widgets

"The Bible says Adam and Eve, not Adam and Mary J. Blige." -Wanda Sykes, out-of-context from her show I'ma be Me, but in-context for this thread.