« Maine’s Inheritance Through Marriage Not What Most Partners Expect | Main | Attorneys Fall Short in Helping Domestic Partners »

May 20, 2009

Governor Insists on Inequality to Get Marriage Equality

While New Hampshire is poised to become another marriage equality state, Governor John Lynch is holding captive other, more important equal protections for LGBT individuals and couples. In an effort to "protect the religious sensibilities" of people opposed to gay marriage, he wants to make changes to the law already passed by the legislature to allow open discrimination.

"Judiciary Chairwoman Deborah Reynolds, a Plymouth Democrat, said Lynch's language amplifies protections lawmakers already approved.

Gay marriage opponents argued at Tuesday's hearing that private businesses also deserve protections. They said personal religious beliefs should be respected outside the formal church setting. For example, commercial wedding photographers should not be penalized for discriminating based on their religious beliefs, they said." (Boston.com)

While no one in the LGBT community wants to force churches that are opposed to gay marriage to perform marriages, and employees of churches shouldn't have to do anything that violates their religious beliefs, it looks like opponents to marriage equality want to take things a step further.

Kevin Smith, executive director of gay marriage opponent Cornerstone Policy Research, said the protections Lynch wants for churches already exist in New Hampshire law or are provided by the First Amendment. Smith said those protections don't exist for businesses and individuals who will be put in a precarious position of facing legal action if they refuse to serve gay couples. (Boston.com)

Wait a minute. Wedding photographers, florists, wedding planners and other people need protecting? We are not now talking about religious freedom. We are talking about a license to discriminate. If a wedding photographer refuses to take on clients because they are gay, that should somehow be alright? What would happen if a wedding photographer refused to work a wedding because the couple was interracial? Or Jewish? Imagine the firestorm of religious frenzy if a florist refused their services to Baptists.

These are not people working for a church. They are people engaged in business. They should have no right to refuse to give services to anyone based on "age, sex, race, color, sexual orientation, marital status, familial status, or physical or mental disability, religious creed or national origin," as it already is banned by state law in public accomodations. But trading one type of discrimination for another should not be acceptable. If someone is so opposed to gay marriage that they would not be able to take wedding photos without "sinning," then they should find another line of work.

Posted at 05:08 AM |

The comments to this entry are closed.

Most Recent Photos

rainbowlegaltalk's Podcast

American Civil Liberties UnionACLU Newsfeeds