Would that couple *want* counseling from an official of a faith that disapproves of their union? I think not. Would the army *force* the couple to get their counseling from that disapproving chaplain in the name of "equal treatment"? I hope not, but I'm not so sure.

This is not a road we want to go down. Freedom of expression and of choice is far far better than imposing some ill-defined "equality" on everyone.

This isn't relevant to the video, but I wanted to add context to the discussion on Army chaplains lest the job get distorted. I have a selfish reason for doing this. I'm the son of an Army chaplain.

When my fahter was a unit chaplain, he counseled people of different faiths all the time — Catholics, Mormons, even Wiccans. The military is extremely ecumenical. Plus, counseling isn't always — or even usually — about matters of faith. A large part of the job is just helping soldiers and families deal with the stresses of military life. A chaplain is often the only person for soldiers to talk to who's at least somewhat removed from the military hierarchy.

One other note: Many in the chaplain corps, including my father, argue that a major part of a chaplain's job is protecting the freedom of religion — ensuring that soldiers of all faiths have access to the spiritual guidance they need.

All this is to say there are plenty of times when a Muslim or Catholic chaplain would end up helping couples of a different faith, and there are plenty of times couples would welcome it.

Its not a question of wanting counseling from an official of faith that disapproves their union. The official of a faith made a choice to enter the public square to provide a service. Can they then enter the public square and then claim their Freedom of expression and choices have been limited ?

If a Catholic or Muslim hospital takes Medicare, then they are entering the public square. Can a Muslim hospital claim they will not hire women ? Not in their mosque but in a public hospital.

Responding to James Warden - Exactly right. The point is that both the counselors, and the conselees have a choice. A Catholic chaplain may well counsel on housing issues, or general stress, but probably would not be the right choice for a homosexual with sexual issues. A faithful chaplain would not want to do it, and the counselee would not be comfortable. The logic of "anti-discrimination" forces both of them to pretend that the tension over obvious issues does not exist.

Donald, quit dancing around the issue. Catholic churches and other religions have a choice. And when they make that choice to enter the public square then they cannot claim that following the law of the land is some kind of interference of their religious beliefs.

How is providing a photo service accepting a gay couples views. Catholic Social Services often contracts with states to provide social services. It is fully agreed upon that for non catholics to visit their sites is not an infringement of their religious rights. So what's the difference ?

Can you clarify this question? I don't understand what you are asking.

Forcing people to do what they don't want to do is a problem. Taking pictures is no a problem. Forcing people to take pictures is a problem. Same with catholic institutions. They are free to make contracts, and also to refuse to make contracts, which is as it should be.

Say you are an accountant. You decide to refuse to serve an existing client, who happens to be homosexual, and happens to be militant. In fact, he has a habit of insulting your other clients because they don't approve of him. You decide to dump that client, because he is not worth the grief.

Being a homosexual, he has the "legal club" that he can wield to force you to serve him. His recent speech hints strongly that his "preferences" have been a factor in your decision to dump him. His lawsuit can force you to keep him as a client.

Is this what we want?

A gay person has no choice but to accept social services from a Catholic Charity, if that is the contracted agency in his/her county. The mere interaction of people/institutions with two different religous/moral views has never been considered forcing ones view on others. So why should it be different for a lay photographer and a gay person/couple.

Your accountant analogy is specious. Many people use "legal clubs" that suit their circumstances. Starting with companies and their patent trolling. Assigning it as some kind of reason to deny gay rights is grasping for straws.

"To argue that opposition to same-sex marriage is immoral is to argue that every moral thinker, and every religion and social movement in the history of mankind prior to the last 20 years in America and Europe was immoral. About no other issue could this be said. Every moral advance has been rooted in prior moral thinking. "

The same analogy could be made for women's rights. Women's suffrage became popular only in the later 18th and early 19th Century. Therefore by Pragers analogy women had no right to be treated as equal before that nor after that because in earlier history of man there was no great moral calls for equality of women as we have it today. Right ?

I presume the comment is about the spammers, not SSM. ;->

You presume correctly.