Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ouze wrote:
I got so zooted up on Sangria after my wedding I don't really remember either the food, or the latter half of the night.

We broke the cask of sake open at the reception and the next thing I know, I'm giving a toast at the nijikai.

I'm letting the side down here, I had one drink at my wedding

Sounds like a healthy recipe for a good marriage.
WeinerWife "I think we should improve this blah blah blah"
FRazzmeister " OMG Mustard , sour kraut and sausage all on the one plate....and my dog looks roughly like 1/3 of my plate..."

and agnosto beat me to my GW reference.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I just think when it comes to doing something that requires licensing by the state in 2014, people should be required to not be dicks.

"But the chapel is also registered as a for-profit business – not as a church or place of worship"

So they can have wedding parties all they want and discriminate, by they shouldn't be able to actually perform an official wedding unless they are willing to do it for everybody.

 d-usa wrote:
It's their playground, it's their rules. Some of the rules might have good reasons and also stupid reasons.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/615664.page#7213171

Did Facebook become a state-licensed social media exchange service without anyone noticing?

Or is the "want to be licensed by the state, follow state rules and don't discriminate" argument more complicated than I thought?

 agnosto wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I got so zooted up on Sangria after my wedding I don't really remember either the food, or the latter half of the night.

We broke the cask of sake open at the reception and the next thing I know, I'm giving a toast at the nijikai.

Best wedding I ever saw was a family of 6'4" westerners marrying into a 5' Korean family and there being a macho shot taking competition between the two families at the bar...you know how it turned out.

That said what's nijikai?

also soju is nice.

No, businesses cannot refuse service to everybody, and for very good reasons.

42 U.S.C. §2000a (a)All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

-- http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/hce/title2.php

plain english here https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/the-right-to-refuse-service-can-a-business-refuse-service-to-someone-because-of-appearance

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I'm letting the side down here, I had one drink at my wedding

Shocking, just shocking!

 d-usa wrote:
So they can have wedding parties all they want and discriminate, by they shouldn't be able to actually perform an official wedding unless they are willing to do it for everybody.

I think that the for profit element might be the determining factor

 d-usa wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
It's their playground, it's their rules. Some of the rules might have good reasons and also stupid reasons.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/615664.page#7213171

Or is the "want to be licensed by the state, follow state rules and don't discriminate" argument more complicated than I thought?

How about the "both are private for profit businesses" argument? Seems pretty straight forward to me.

 d-usa wrote:
Did Facebook become a state-licensed social media exchange service without anyone noticing?

Depends on their relationship with the NSA

 Bullockist wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I got so zooted up on Sangria after my wedding I don't really remember either the food, or the latter half of the night.

We broke the cask of sake open at the reception and the next thing I know, I'm giving a toast at the nijikai.

Best wedding I ever saw was a family of 6'4" westerners marrying into a 5' Korean family and there being a macho shot taking competition between the two families at the bar...you know how it turned out.

That said what's nijikai?

also soju is nice.

nijikai is the second party. So, in Japan they have the wedding, the reception is like $200per plate and limited to family/best friends so there's a party for all the friends who couldn't make the reception, usually at a restaurant or izakaya (pub). We actually had another party after the nijikai for the hardcore hangers-on. The wedding was completely Japanese but the parties afterward incorporated quite a few American traditions (bouquet and garter throwing, groom cake, etc).

I think I'm going to stop on the way home and get the stuff to make Sangria.

Tomorrow at work, I will regret this thread and my participation in it.

 Ouze wrote:
Tomorrow at work, I will regret this thread and my participation in it.

No need to wait for tomorrow when today is ready for you!

Like I said before, I'm just waiting for Abercrombie to get sued because they don't sell size 50 pants.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So they can have wedding parties all they want and discriminate, by they shouldn't be able to actually perform an official wedding unless they are willing to do it for everybody.

I think that the for profit element might be the determining factor

It's a non factor, since the actual service is still depending on state licensing. It doesn't matter if you officiate in a for-profit setting, a non-profit church, or officiating to marry hobos on the street. Officiating over marriages is a state function and since the state can no longer discriminate against same-sex couples then as an agent of the state you should not be able to discriminate either, regardless of whatever arena you chose to officiate in.

Hence my argument that there should be no more automatic "oh, you're clergy, here is your state authorization to marry people" and a move towards "are you willing to follow the law, here is your license to officiate" system.

 d-usa wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
It's their playground, it's their rules. Some of the rules might have good reasons and also stupid reasons.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/615664.page#7213171

Or is the "want to be licensed by the state, follow state rules and don't discriminate" argument more complicated than I thought?

How about the "both are private for profit businesses" argument? Seems pretty straight forward to me.

If we want to pretend it's a valid argument then it's a good thing that you quoted my Facebook opinion: a private business can make rules as long as the same rules apply to anyone. If the rules single out certain groups then it's a rule that should not be legal.
Or we can admit that the "private business" doesn't matter because if you have to be licensed by the state to marry people then you should have to marry everybody that can get married.

I'll admit that it's an evolution of my previous stance regarding religious institutions, but people do mature and change their views based on thinking about stuff>

Just charge 10x more for it. Because it violates their faith. Find a way to make that legal. Not all products are equal.

Johnnytorrance wrote:
Just charge 10x more for it. Because it violates their faith. Find a way to make that legal. Not all products are equal.

That's.... that's not how nondiscrimination works.

 TheMeanDM wrote:

I'm all for that idea as well.

You go to the Priest/Shaman/Vicar/Rabbi.....and do your religious MARRIAGE ceremony.

Then, you go before a judge or Justice of the Peace (or some other person with the legal authority) and get your government sanctioned CIVIL UNION.

Religions won't have to marry non religious people or feel that they are condoning a lifestyle that they don't agree with.....but a civil union allows everyone to be treated the same under the eyes of the law.

Hmm...sounds a bit like "Separate but Equal"....doesn't it? However, I would hope, that in this instance, there would actually be equality.

IMO, it should be the other way round.... Go to the judge/courthouse FIRST, to be recognized by the State, and get your tax benefits, THEN be married under the eyes of whatever deity(ies) the people prefer.

axisofentropy wrote:
No, businesses cannot refuse service to everybody, and for very good reasons.

42 U.S.C. §2000a (a)All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

-- http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/hce/title2.php

plain english here https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/the-right-to-refuse-service-can-a-business-refuse-service-to-someone-because-of-appearance

Wjere doea it say sexual orientation?


What is the definition of "place of public accommodation"?

I am still of the opinion that if a compay wants to be all Massengill...that they will either go out of business because there isn't enough support for them and their product...or they will find enough other like minded Massengill's and make a few bucks. Thats how the free market works...

The issue at its core is that marriage, a religious term and ceremony, is giving extra benefits from the government...benefits that could be given to others via civil union laws.

Let everybody get "hitched"...they should have the chance to be miserable like the rest of us

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
[

IMO, it should be the other way round.... Go to the judge/courthouse FIRST, to be recognized by the State, and get your tax benefits, THEN be married under the eyes of whatever deity(ies) the people prefer.

You can have a religious marriage and ceremony and not have a legally binding one.

Just like you can have a legally binding marriage without a religious marriage and ceremony.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Tomorrow at work, I will regret this thread and my participation in it.

No need to wait for tomorrow when today is ready for you!

Its 8.00 AM somewhere. Get to it.

 agnosto wrote:

 Bullockist wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I got so zooted up on Sangria after my wedding I don't really remember either the food, or the latter half of the night.

We broke the cask of sake open at the reception and the next thing I know, I'm giving a toast at the nijikai.

Best wedding I ever saw was a family of 6'4" westerners marrying into a 5' Korean family and there being a macho shot taking competition between the two families at the bar...you know how it turned out.

That said what's nijikai?

also soju is nice.

nijikai is the second party. So, in Japan they have the wedding, the reception is like $200per plate and limited to family/best friends so there's a party for all the friends who couldn't make the reception, usually at a restaurant or izakaya (pub). We actually had another party after the nijikai for the hardcore hangers-on. The wedding was completely Japanese but the parties afterward incorporated quite a few American traditions (bouquet and garter throwing, groom cake, etc).

sounds awesome, I hope there was karioke
I witnessed many a korean wedding with karioke and it's awesome, out of tune and terrible.....but awesome

 cincydooley wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
[

IMO, it should be the other way round.... Go to the judge/courthouse FIRST, to be recognized by the State, and get your tax benefits, THEN be married under the eyes of whatever deity(ies) the people prefer.

You can have a religious marriage and ceremony and not have a legally binding one.

Just like you can have a legally binding marriage without a religious marriage and ceremony.

Agreed. But in the case of the former, they should not, under any circumstances be able to file taxes as married, unless they have done so under the eyes of the law. And obviously the way to be married under the eyes of the law, is through state marriage license/marriage certificate.

 TheMeanDM wrote:


What is the definition of "place of public accommodation"?

A place of "public accommodation" is defined as “an establishment either affecting interstate commerce or supported by state action, and falling into one of the following categories: (1) a lodging for transient guests located within a building with more than five rooms for rent; (2) a facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including such facilities located within retail establishments and gasoline stations; (3) any place of exhibition or entertainment; (4) any establishment located within an establishment falling into one of the first three categories, and which holds itself out as serving patrons of that establishment; or (5) any establishment that contains a covered establishment, and which holds itself out as serving patrons of that covered establishment. Bishop v. Henry Modell & Co., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104830, 39-40 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2009)

Personally, I think it's far too ambiguous.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:


Agreed. But in the case of the former, they should not, under any circumstances be able to file taxes as married, unless they have done so under the eyes of the law. And obviously the way to be married under the eyes of the law, is through state marriage license/marriage certificate.

I agree.

 d-usa wrote:
Can we just turn the usual "get rid of marriage" argument around and take away the ability to officiate a state sanctioned marriage ceremony from all clergy unless they swear to officiate ALL wedding ceremonies?

They can still officiate private meaningless religious ceremonies at whatever church they want and between whoever they want, but the couples that unlicensed clergy officiate over would not be legally married.

But if want to have the ability to legally wed people, then you should have to legally wed anybody they can legally get married.

We have separation of church of state. If you want to be an agent of the state and officiate then your religion shouldn't matter. If your religion doesn't let you perform your job as an agent of the state, then don't apply for the ability to officiate.

We already have separation of church and state when it comes to weddings. Anyone, anyone, that can legally get married can do so with a justice of the peace at city hall. Nobody is prevented from having a civil ceremony for the wedding.

If you want to take your extreme position that every pastor/revrend/rabbi etc. has to marry anybody then you get into actual govt oppression. A Jewish couple wants to get married in a Roman Catholic cathedral because the bride thinks its a beautiful place for a wedding, the Catholic revrend says no I'm sorry we only allow Catholic ceremonies between two Catholics in our church. A Catholic priest refusing to marry nonCatholics in a Catholic church in no way shape or form violates the separation of church and state. It would be horrible for the local, state or federal govt to force a Caholic priest to act in opposition to Catholicism upon threat of fines or imprisonment. That would be a violation of church and state, it would not be enlightened or just.

 cincydooley wrote:

 TheMeanDM wrote:


What is the definition of "place of public accommodation"?

A place of "public accommodation" is defined as “an establishment either affecting interstate commerce or supported by state action, and falling into one of the following categories: (1) a lodging for transient guests located within a building with more than five rooms for rent; (2) a facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including such facilities located within retail establishments and gasoline stations; (3) any place of exhibition or entertainment; (4) any establishment located within an establishment falling into one of the first three categories, and which holds itself out as serving patrons of that establishment; or (5) any establishment that contains a covered establishment, and which holds itself out as serving patrons of that covered establishment. Bishop v. Henry Modell & Co., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104830, 39-40 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2009)

Personally, I think it's far too ambiguous.

While I agree with you, the wedding chapel in the OP doesn't really fall under any of those categories. Does anyone know if this chapel is adjoining to a church property, or is it on its own land, completely separated from any other religious buildings?? (as in, is there a church within spitting distance/shares property lines with, etc or not)

 d-usa wrote:
It's a non factor, since the actual service is still depending on state licensing. It doesn't matter if you officiate in a for-profit setting, a non-profit church, or officiating to marry hobos on the street. Officiating over marriages is a state function and since the state can no longer discriminate against same-sex couples then as an agent of the state you should not be able to discriminate either, regardless of whatever arena you chose to officiate in.

I meant that it could potentially affect the use of the First Amendment, and the fact that the clergy in question are registered as a for-profit business as opposed to a non-profit place of worship.

 d-usa wrote:
Hence my argument that there should be no more automatic "oh, you're clergy, here is your state authorization to marry people" and a move towards "are you willing to follow the law, here is your license to officiate" system.

Marriage seems to be a strange hybrid of State and religion, and this obvious tension is starting to become apparent. Then again thanks to Homeland Security and other circumstances beyond our control we had the civil ceremony first, then the wedding on our first anniversary

 d-usa wrote:
If we want to pretend it's a valid argument then it's a good thing that you quoted my Facebook opinion: a private business can make rules as long as the same rules apply to anyone. If the rules single out certain groups then it's a rule that should not be legal.
Or we can admit that the "private business" doesn't matter because if you have to be licensed by the state to marry people then you should have to marry everybody that can get married.

I'll admit that it's an evolution of my previous stance regarding religious institutions, but people do mature and change their views based on thinking about stuff>

I will admit that I was more just yanking your chain with it

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

I refuse to believe for one second that either of you would honestly do that or advocate that response from someone close to you. Granted, I know you will likely dig in and defend your stance to the death, so I am not looking for a public change of opinion here, but seriously...BS. If this was your wife or daughter, or grandson or nephew, you wouldn't be enraged that a business was refusing them service due to the business owner's own bigotry?

Honestly? No, I wouldn't. I'd teach them:

1. Why the person didn't want to serve them and why, to me, it's morally wrong.
2. I'd explain that while I think it's morally wrong, people are allowed to be bigots and donkey-caves.
3. I'd explain to her that we live in a country of boundless choices and options, so we're simply going to take our business elsewhere.

So you'd teach them that it was okay for people to arbitrarily break the law, but as long as there were other law abiding businesses to patronize the infraction should be ignored?

Seems like a bad message to instill on anyone you cared about. Passivity in these instances only breeds more bigotry.

I have to agree. The Woolworth's counter keeps coming into my mind, with the whole "seperate but equal" business. Good posting of the pictures, those who did it.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Can we just turn the usual "get rid of marriage" argument around and take away the ability to officiate a state sanctioned marriage ceremony from all clergy unless they swear to officiate ALL wedding ceremonies?

They can still officiate private meaningless religious ceremonies at whatever church they want and between whoever they want, but the couples that unlicensed clergy officiate over would not be legally married.

But if want to have the ability to legally wed people, then you should have to legally wed anybody they can legally get married.

We have separation of church of state. If you want to be an agent of the state and officiate then your religion shouldn't matter. If your religion doesn't let you perform your job as an agent of the state, then don't apply for the ability to officiate.

We already have separation of church and state when it comes to weddings. Anyone, anyone, that can legally get married can do so with a justice of the peace at city hall. Nobody is prevented from having a civil ceremony for the wedding.

If you want to take your extreme position that every pastor/revrend/rabbi etc. has to marry anybody then you get into actual govt oppression. A Jewish couple wants to get married in a Roman Catholic cathedral because the bride thinks its a beautiful place for a wedding, the Catholic revrend says no I'm sorry we only allow Catholic ceremonies between two Catholics in our church. A Catholic priest refusing to marry nonCatholics in a Catholic church in no way shape or form violates the separation of church and state. It would be horrible for the local, state or federal govt to force a Caholic priest to act in opposition to Catholicism upon threat of fines or imprisonment. That would be a violation of church and state, it would not be enlightened or just.

That is a fair point.
Another argument can be made that the business is essentially his service, and that his religion doesn't permit weddings of such. All contracts would have to be in the minister's name however.

I feel there should be a new law.
If guests have been subjected to Karioke a wedding is binding

Prestor Jon wrote:

If you want to take your extreme position that every pastor/revrend/rabbi etc. has to marry anybody then you get into actual govt oppression. A Jewish couple wants to get married in a Roman Catholic cathedral because the bride thinks its a beautiful place for a wedding, the Catholic revrend says no I'm sorry we only allow Catholic ceremonies between two Catholics in our church. A Catholic priest refusing to marry nonCatholics in a Catholic church in no way shape or form violates the separation of church and state. It would be horrible for the local, state or federal govt to force a Caholic priest to act in opposition to Catholicism upon threat of fines or imprisonment. That would be a violation of church and state, it would not be enlightened or just.

He's not saying that, I don't think.

Fairly certain he's saying that Rabbis, priests, ministers, any schmuck off the internet, etc. shouldn't be performing legally binding marriages.

Prestor Jon wrote:

We already have separation of church and state when it comes to weddings. Anyone, anyone, that can legally get married can do so with a justice of the peace at city hall. Nobody is prevented from having a civil ceremony for the wedding.

We don't have separation of church and state when it comes to weddings. Anyone, anyone, that happens to be a clergy member of an religious institution automatically becomes an officiant.

You can't claim that there is a separation of church and state when you automatically become a state actor simply by virtue of your position in your religion.

If you want to take your extreme position that every pastor/revrend/rabbi etc. has to marry anybody then you get into actual govt oppression.

Except that is not my position.

If a pastor/reverend/rabbi etc wants the ability to officiate STATE SANCTIONED weddings, then they have to marry anyone. They can have the right to use their religion as a justification to refuse to participate in a private ceremony, but they should not be able to use it as a reason to refuse to exercise their role as a state licensed officiant.

A Jewish couple wants to get married in a Roman Catholic cathedral because the bride thinks its a beautiful place for a wedding, the Catholic revrend says no I'm sorry we only allow Catholic ceremonies between two Catholics in our church. A Catholic priest refusing to marry nonCatholics in a Catholic church in no way shape or form violates the separation of church and state.

A Catholic priest refusing to to exercise his job as a state-sanctioned officiant and to refuse to participate in a state-sanctioned event to marry two people that are legally allowed by state law to enter into a state-sanctioned covenant to receive state-granted benefits because his religion doesn't like it seems to be violating the separation of church and state.

It would be horrible for the local, state or federal govt to force a Caholic priest to act in opposition to Catholicism upon threat of fines or imprisonment. That would be a violation of church and state, it would not be enlightened or just.

if the Catholic priest doesn't want to act in opposition to Catholicism then he can always give up his ability to officiate state sanctioned marriages.

He can be a priest.
He can be a state-licensed officiant.
He can be both if he wants to.
But he shouldn't be able to be a state-licensed officiant if he is not willing to carry out his role as a state-actor within the full scope of the law. If his religion doesn't allow him to marry everybody, then he shouldn't be allowed to marry anyone.