Isn't that how it is? I've only been married once, but, I had to get a marriage license from the state. A priest then performed the ceremony.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Where do you draw the line on what is permitted religious behavior (for lack of a better term)? Can the trivial and trite prayer invoke Jesus Christ our Lord? Courts have shot down the overt religious symbolism such as a Ten Commandments plaque, so that's over the line, right?


In the land where I am king? No official prayer is present. Religion doesn't belong in government. I can't make laws based on the whim of a mythological being whose ways we explicitly state we cannot know. Feel free to prey (I'm going to leave that typo in there for the Catholics) by yourself. But I'm not going to pass laws simply because of a religious belief that working on Sunday is bad or eating shellfish is an abomination.

Why do you think local and other governments have these opening prayers?

2 reasons. One I covered above, so they can check a box in their virtue signaling checklist.The other is so they can show/feel that a belief in god, and their particular way of showing that belief, is seen as correct.

I have two conflicting thoughts on this. First, I wish atheists wouldn't sue over something so trivial. Two, I wish religious people would not force atheists and others to sue over something so trivial by injecting religion where it does not belong.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

It has been 30 years since I worried about this so I might be wrong. You got the license from the government but it was dependent on a ceremony of some sort. And even the justice of the peace ceremony is an awful lot like the religious version, whether or not a fake Elvis is present.

Is there anywhere in the US where you can forego the wedding ceremony completely and just sign the contract?

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

My understanding is that he would not make them a custom wedding cake, but offered to sell them any cake in his store.

He said he's been getting a lot of calls for gross custom cakes (Satan licking a dildo was one example) and he has said no.

He has a bakery and he makes custom cakes. He will sell any cake in his shop to anyone but declines to make custom cakes if he objects to the message.

I would assume he would decline to make a cake celebrating adultery.

My understanding is, no. You must have an officiant and witnesses (except for common law marriage). My point was - they are separate. The state grants the marriage. The church is optional.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

And as far as the state is concerned isn't the marriage license the only thing that matters? I was married by some county official (I think), there was no religion at all.

Correct. License and ceremony. But, "ceremony" only means an officiant and witnesses. Does not mean a formal ceremony and certainly does not mean religious ceremony.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Just saying, according to Jesus, a 2nd marriage for any woman is adultery, a male is ok as long as he divorced his first wife for her sexual misconduct, otherwise he is an adulterer too.

For some reason, many if not most Christians have decide just to ignore Jesus on that one and focus on other "social" issues which Jesus didn't even have anything to say about.

Yes, the church is optional but I think it is very important to note that the church is sufficient to close the loop and execute the authority of the state.

That's not a bad way to go. I think everyone is fighting for the law to match their moral position.

I think the French do it this way. I think our current practice is a hold-over from Henry VIII's break with Rome. He became head of both church and state. Thus, it made sense as time passed to have clergy exercise both authorities once a civil marriage was recognized. Keep in mind that it was not until after the 14thA that states were prohibited by the US Constitution from establishing a state religion. Undoing it now, would open yet another front in the culture war.

That Henry was English.

I know. I just edited to clarify my post to mean that the second "this" was meant to refer to our current practice. Thanks.

Whew! I'm in the clear. Unfortunately, I guess my wife is gonna burn along with my ex. ;-p

---

''The enemy isn't conservatism. The enemy isn't liberalism. The enemy is bulls**t.''

—Lars-Erik Nelson

  

I'll note, once again, because it seems to keep getting lost, this baker is NOT picking and choosing customers based on their status as members of protected classes. He's not refusing to sell cakes to homosexuals or transgendered individuals.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Did you just ask why the government hasn't taken a common-sense approach?

Does the government have any business anymore in the regulation of people who choose to get married? People should just be allowed to file a form registering as married for tax purposes and for the event they may require divorce court.

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

I think it's human nature to ignore the behavior you're struggling with and turning your focus to behavior that you're not struggling with. That reminds me of Matthew 7:5 "You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

I think the libertarian view is apt in marriage. The government should get out of marriage, period.

---

~Brad

If the baker's refusal was because the prospective customer was being an asshole, and as a matter of principle, he refuses to do business with all assholes regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, sexual identity, etc., the there would likely be no problem, as being an asshole is not a protected class. So at least in the case with an equal-opportunity anti-asshole discriminator, the issue should primarily be whether that explanation was credible.

But that does not appear to be the case here. The baker doesn't appear to be saying that he refused to bake the cake because the customer was an ass. Rather, it appears that he's being quite clear that he refused because he objected to how that cake would be used.

As much as the lawyer who baited the baker was trying to make a larger point, it appears the baker is perfectly fine in playing that game. The baker wants to make a larger point too.