I understand the D.C. Human Rights Act, I also understand (perhaps "believe" is a better word), that private organizations--even ones, as noted above, that will sell stuff to just about anybody--have the right to discriminate, a right based on the First Amendment.

Let the churches discriminate, they are a private institution. The churches that accept the new domestic unions will be seeing a big boost in their congregation numbers.

Those who want “unless the entity makes such services, accommodations, or goods available … to members of the general public” inserted back into the bill should be able to give some pretty good examples--specific names of venues, organizations, stores, services that they might be denied--in order to prove that they stand to suffer harm from its absence in the legislation.

But: Read the language of the bill. It is BROAD. There are many places this could come up. We're not just talking about sanctuaries. This covers any organization affiliated with a religious group that, for example, sells shit to the public. And the bill makes it legal for them to decide not to sell shit to gay people if it will be used in their wedding. That is discrimination, and it's against the law. That's why it's being written into the bill as an exception.

But again, this only pertains to public accommodations. Private accommodations aren't subject to the same rules. Also, the D.C. Human Rights Act allows for religious and political institutions to favor members of that religion/political party in employment and I believe in providing accommodations. I assume that provision helps ensure that these organizations can even survive---discrimination is legal in D.C. if the business can prove that it will go out of business if it complies with the law, but that's really hard to prove.

But I think there's an earlier miscommunication we haven't dealt with. I don't understand how a Catholic Church could deny use of its sanctuary to a Jewish couple but not to gays. How does that work? And if we're not talking about sanctuaries, what the hell are we talking about?

And again, how is invading hostile spaces using the law in any way a positive push for gay marriage or gay rights?

Private organizations can decline to extend public accommodations to groups who want to use the accommodation to espouse messages that are contrary to the organization's purpose, but they can't discriminate against protected classes of people. In D.C., sexual orientation is a protected class under the Human Rights Act. The views of white supremacists are not.

So, say a religious group regularly rents out a church hall for wedding receptions and other get-togethers. Could it refuse to rent to a party for a white supremacist organization's meeting? Yes. Could it refuse to rent to a party of people who just happen to look like white supremacists? No. Personal appearance is protected under the D.C. Human Rights Act.

Now, could the group decline to rent to a party of gay people celebrating a recent wedding? That depends on the definition of "message." For example, you can't just say that your organization is devoted to stomping out homosexuality, and refuse to allow gays to use your facilities for that reason. Gays are a protected group. What they publicly announce when they're using your accommodations is what matters.

Let's hope that cooler heads prevail.

Do you also think a synagogue should be required by law to rent its space to the KKK? If you don't think so, do you think said synagogue should lose its tax-exempt status for morally objecting to the presence of an organization it finds philosophically repugnant?

A Klan meeting and a gay wedding are two totally different things, but if we cover one under anti-discrimination laws, why not the other?

Also, C says "Church-owned enterprises not related to their religious functions would not be exempt." Do you have any sourcing on that? Also, what constitutes "enterprises not related to their religious functions"? For example, I've been to an ANC meeting at Catholic University, but the ANC meeting was not in a chapel, it was in a classroom. Doesn't renting out space constitute an enterprise not related to a religious function?

Would you say that the good a church does--housing, clothing, feeding the homeless, counseling, assisting the elderly--is worth being dismantled (because removing tax exemption status would effectively destroy those programs) in the name of forcing gay marriage onto an unwelcoming congregation?

That sounds like a lose-lose to me. I think C's take is much wiser: http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/11/10/d-c-gay-marriage-bill-preserves-domestic-partnerships/#comment-22447

The reason people are angry is that the marked up bill would remove that second part. Even if they rent it out to the public, they can still discriminate. That's straight up wrong. Just as wrong as if the Hilton wouldn't host a reception for a gay wedding.

Yes it would be a violation of the first amendment to tell a church what religious services it must perform. But once a church decides to rent itself out to the public, it cannot use religion to justify discrimination.

But it's not bad news that private organizations which are NOT open to the public have the right to refuse to marry whomever they choose. If a church wants to rent its halls out to the public, then sure, they should not be allowed to discriminate. But there are churches that do not rent out their facilities to the public and who do not marry non-members in their halls. It would be wrong for the government to tell a private institution what it can and cannot do behind closed doors. Just like it would be wrong for the government to tell consenting adults what they do behind closed doors.

Punishing organizations who are not in the business of publicly renting their facilities to perform gay marriages on their property is exactly the same as busting into a home where two gay people are being intimate together and arresting them. Civil tolerance means that you let people do whatever they like in private, even if you think it's disgusting, because that is their right.

Your tax exemption.

If you want to run a church that actively discriminates the same way that Augusta doesn't let women join their club, fine. We'll just look forward to receiving that check for your property tax next spring.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but churches, and most private organizations, CAN discriminate in employment and benefits as far as I know. The Boy Scouts, for instance, does: even though it's not even a church.

Churches are not allowed to discriminate in employment based on sexual orientation nor are they allowed to refuse benefits to gay employees who are married.

The trick is to come up with language that covers all of this.

But what's the alternative? Is carving out special holes/exceptions in commercial anti-discrimination laws/practice better? Churches that don't want gays in their buildings could simply not open them/rent them out to non-church members looking to hold non-church events. I mean, that's essentially what we're talking about here, not TPCarney's deceptive "forcing churches to marry gay people" thing.

The end result is, "You said we couldn't, the law says we can, so there."

Who wants that kind of hostility surrounding their wedding? And is there really a dearth of buildings--religious-affiliated or otherwise--for gay marriage?

But that's not generally how the law works for public spaces in general: if you offer a given space for private rent as a commercial enterprise, then according to DC law you can't say "...but no black people." Singling out homosexual-themed events for special exemption from this practice would be treating homosexuals different from other groups under existing anti-discrimination law, not preserving an existing right to discriminate in rental spaces.

Discrimination is sometimes ugly, sometimes an act of cultural preservation, but in most cases, is--and should be--perfectly legal.

Religious institutions already discriminate against couples looking to marry. A Jew can't marry a Catholic in a Catholic church, for instance. Some Anglican couples can't get married without counseling from a priest beforehand.

And you know what? This is a good thing. Churches and synagogues are private cultural institutions. Flawed as those institutions are, it would be a gross violation of the First Amendment to require all churches to open their doors to gay marriage.

Besides, there's always Reform Judaism and the Episcopal Church. Others may follow as our culture liberalizes, but it's absolutely appalling to require a church to marry any couple--gay or straight--against its will.