... and most relevantly, accommodate:
The country's parliament voted through the new law on same-sex marriage by a large majority, making it mandatory for all churches to conduct gay marriages.
Denmark's church minister, Manu Sareen, called the vote "historic".
"I think it's very important to give all members of the church the possibility to get married. Today, it's only heterosexual couples."
Under the law, individual priests can refuse to carry out the ceremony, but the local bishop must arrange a replacement for their church.
...
"Marriage is as old as man himself, and you can't change something as fundamental," the party's church spokesperson Christian Langballe said during the debate. "Marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman."
Karsten Nissen, the Bishop of Viborg, who is refusing to carry out the ceremonies, has warned that the new law risks "splitting the church".
"The debate has been really tough," said Mr Sareen, an agnostic who has pushed hard for the legislation since taking his post last autumn.
"The minority among Danish people, politicians and priests who are against, they've really shouted out loud throughout the process."
Are you one who continues to stick your head in the sand about that sort of thing coming to America?
The New Mexico Court of Appeals has ruled that it is illegal for a photography business owned by Christians to refuse to photograph a same-sex wedding ceremony—even though New Mexico law does not permit same-sex marriage.
The court based its judgment on the text of the New Mexico Human Rights Act (NMHRA), which makes it illegal “any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services . . . to any person because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap.”
“Elane Photography’s owners are Christians who believe that marriage is a sacred union of one man and one woman,” the court noted in its opinion. “Elane Photography denied Willock’s request to photograph the ceremony based upon its policy of refusing to photograph images that convey the message that marriage can be defined to include combinations of people other than the union of one man and one woman … They also believe that photography is an artistically expressive form of communication and photographing a same-sex commitment ceremony would disobey God and the teachings of the Bible by communicating a message contrary to their religious and personal beliefs.”
“Elane Photography also poses another hypothetical situation in support of its argument,” the court continued. “The hypothetical involves an African-American photographer’s refusal to photograph a Ku-Klux-Klan rally … the Ku-Klux-Klan is not a protected class. Sexual orientation, however, is protected.”
Dismissing arguments that the statute violated the owners’ religious-freedom rights, the court ruled...
Summarizing then, in Denmark, a church must marry a gay couple should that couple want to marry in that church, no ifs, ands or buts... and in New Mexico, a photographer must take pics of a gay wedding should those getting married want that photographer to take pics, no ifs, ands or buts.
Are you still thinking this is about tolerance and acceptance?
Comments