One of THOSE topics

[moosetracker]

eisely states : Of greater concern is the government at any level trying to force religious acceptance of same sex marriage. Rabbis, ministers, imams and priests, and their affiliated religious establishments should have the right to refuse to perform such marriages.

 

I don't see this.. The glorous thing about the seperating church & state is the goverment rarely can force changes to religions, that is why it is so hard to shut down cults that are clearly breaking laws..

 

The thing is the religions equally can not force their country or state to accept their veiwpoints, and make laws to force everyone in the country/state to accept their viewpoint.

 

[nldscout]

In NY which recently passed a law allowing same sex marrige, members of the clergy are allowed to refuse to do the wedding on religious grounds.

 

Judges like myself however were not afforded that right, so legally I could not refuse because its a same sex wedding.

 

The problem is there are same sex advocates traveling around pretending to want to get married and looking for someone to say no so they can sue them. Some people have already been caught in this web.

[packsaddle]

Substitute the word 'interracial' for the words 'same sex'. Now please explain that problem again?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[moosetracker]

packsaddle - I see it the same as you. But others see it as a different issue..

 

In that regard, something did change the views some religions held. Well, maybe the churches do have something to fear. After all government intervention did force them to up the age a girl could marry from 12-13, and that the women as well as the man should enter into a marriage willingly and freely.. And their views on the fact the white race was superior to the black race.. I am not surprised if churches did fight the fact that THEY would not marry an interracial couple.. I looked and found articles similar to this one:

 

http://topboost.wordpress.com/2008/11/08/the-legalization-of-interracial-marriage/

 

But, I did not see if when state legalized interracial marriages, religious views exempted the church from having to preform the marriage.. Or, if there are still churches today with this view, and if they are still allowed to site their beliefs as a reason for not preforming the ceremony.. Did government force religions to accept the law and preform the marriages? Or did they just slowly come around accept the viewpoints of the changing world around them?

 

I honestly don't know my churches views on interratial marriage at the time. I know we had parents of an interratial couple. The couple was visiting and it stirred up alot of wagging tongues in the church, and pity and sympathy for the parents who had to endure such embarrassment.. But, I was too young to know the churches stance on if they accepted (or preformed) interracial marriages..(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

[packsaddle]

"I did not see if when state legalized interracial marriages, religious views exempted the church from having to preform the marriage"

 

No church is ever forced to perform a marriage. I had to ask permission, get marriage counseling by a celibate man (who, in reality was actually cuckolding a parishioner with an adulterous woman - one up on Newt) and pay a hefty fee to be married by the church for my marriage. That church was free to decline for any reason or no reason at all. It might have been awkward if they declined but that's life. Laws are unnecessary for this situation.

 

However, if a Justice of the Peace is disinclined on religious grounds to perform a marriage, say, of an interracial couple, that is a different matter. His argument is essentially that his personal religious view takes priority over his occupational responsibilities. In essence he thinks he can use the power given him as part of the government to apply his religious views to the public.

I was once treated in this manner. Because I declined to submit my religious faith to examination by a public official, that official attempted to deny my voter registration. She quoted her version of the law, "In North Carolina, you can't vote if you don't believe in God." ...or, evidently in my case, if you decline to participate in such an examination by a public official.

 

The real question is for us as individuals: should our religious views trump everything else? And if not everything, then where do we draw the line? A baker or florist or a photographer can make this decision as an individual. If they don't want to work for an interracial couple, they can make an excuse that their schedule is full (or some other variation of a LIE that so-called scouters have advocated here). No law is necessary for them to weasel their way out with that lie.

 

I'm sympathetic to the market approach to businesses and clients. In a competitive market, for a business to turn away profit because of prejudice, and for that profit to go to a competitor, will mean the eventual death of prejudice in business. There should be no need for a law of any kind unless to protect the free market.

 

But as a public official, that is a different matter. They serve the public...not JUST those who believe as they do.

[moosetracker]

So I was originally correct before I got to thinking about what made churches except interracial marriages.. A state bill or an amendment to the constitution due to someone fearing that without it their religion will be forced to accept same-sex marriages is unfounded.. All the bill does is try to force the entire public to accept (or at lAeast abide by, if the public does not accept) their beliefs rather then allow the public to freely follow their own beliefs.

 

I also agree a bill is unneccessary to get a buisness out of servicing a client they do not want to give service to.. The bill only would give them the right to turn down the buisness and be brutally and hurtfully blunt about the reason when doing so.. Rather then making up a socially acceptable lie..

 

[packsaddle]

Yep. It seems that way to me too.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Trevorum]

Reading about this issue, I found the following blog:

 

The New Hampshire legislature will consider a bill that would allow Christian businesses to refuse service to gay couples. Rep. Frank Sapareto says anybody that opposes his bill is "intolerant."

 

The bill would put an exemption in state marriage law. The proposed text says no person, including a business owner or employee, should be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges for wedding services in "violation of the person's conscience or religious faith." Our definition of marriage is heterosexual, he said. Sapareto is preparing a companion bill granting the right to discriminate against darkies.

 

 

I'd insert a little winky face here, but I don't think it really deserves it.

 

 

[Eagledad]

>>Threat?! Someone sees their rights going unrecognized and successfully sues. Where's the threat?>So unless they say they are booked, and you find them home twiddling their thumbs, and can prove their client didn't cancel.. They can say "No".. They just can't say "No, because I don't do same-sex marriages" or whatever else the person may discriminate against be it Jewish weddings or atheist weddings or whatever..

[Beavah]

I don't see this.. The glorous thing about the seperating church & state is the goverment rarely can force changes to religions, that is why it is so hard to shut down cults that are clearly breaking laws..

 

The government can't force changes to religions directly, eh?

 

Da thing of it is, this sort of thing comes as an indirect assault. Yeh can have your religion if yeh want, but if yeh actually adhere to your religion we will take away your livelihood. Religion is fine as long as it is confined to a compound out in the woods somewhere.

 

So if a Catholic hospital refuses to perform abortions, folks want laws to force them to, eh? Or lose all Medicare or state insurance funding. Yeh can have your religion in private, just don't let it affect how you behave in public or we will destroy you financially.

 

It doesn't have to be even that overt, eh? The government (national, state, and local) controls about a third of GDP. So by government just choosing where to spend the dollars it has collected, it can wipe out the livelihood of folks who disagree with it. What business can afford to lose a third of its income/clients (on average)? Yah, yah, there will be some who are in businesses that can weather it, but many who can't. Add that to a government near-monopoly on educating the young, and yeh can certainly see that the government can seriously harm any religion or viewpoint without ever crossing the Constitutional line as it is currently drawn.

 

Rightly or wrongly, it is da perception of many Christians that some special interests are doing exactly this - using public schools to indoctrinate, using government to repress their views. And there are certainly plenty of examples of exactly that, though they're always passed off as local aberrations.

 

So if a reception hall owner doesn't want to host a gay commitment ceremony, is it OK to destroy him financially because of his beliefs? How about a Christian wedding chapel not affiliated with any single religion? I reckon most of us would try to find a balance like Scoutfish's, but clearly some here would not. Just as some would rather destroy the entire Catholic charity hospital system rather than let them refuse to perform abortions or other reproductive services contrary to their religion. "Those people", yeh see, can't be allowed to run hospitals or be an OB/GYN. They should go live on a compound in the woods.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[packsaddle]

"Just as some would rather destroy the entire Catholic charity hospital system rather than let them refuse to perform abortions or other reproductive services contrary to their religion."

 

Beavah, my daughter can do 'drama queen' far better than you. Why don't you leave the hyperbole to her and instead try to make a reasoned argument?

[scoutingagain]

Another tempest in a teapot. No pun intended.

 

I'm with Pack. Let the market work it out. If the wedding hall owner doesn't want to provide services to a gay couple fine. I'm fairly confident in any state where such a union is legally recognized there will be a hall that will gladly take their business. Same with flowers, caterers, music etc.

 

SA

[moosetracker]

scoutingagain states

I'm with Pack. Let the market work it out. If the wedding hall owner doesn't want to provide services to a gay couple fine. I'm fairly confident in any state where such a union is legally recognized there will be a hall that will gladly take their business. Same with flowers, caterers, music etc.

 

 

So are you for the approval of a Bill in the State that lets them say "No, because you are abhorrant to my sense-abilities..".. Or do you feel that they can find a resonable excuse as to why they can not work the party and say "No" with a socially acceptable white lie??

 

Beavah - You may be right that that was a fear of the Catholic church when Obama stepped into office.. Still two wrongs don't make a right. You can't stop the turning of public opinion by trying to railroad through a discrimanatory Bill first.. Bills are changed and amended all the time.. You get no security with a bill that is against public opinion.. In fact you make that bill a target to not only throw out after the next election, but to amend to something you would truly dislike. It is much more likely that you will be left alone with your views if you don't try to stong-arm everyone else into having to follow your rules, when they think different.

[CalicoPenn]

This is an argument that has been debated for a very long time, just with a new face to it. Now it's gays and lesbians. In the past it's been blacks, jews, catholics, mormons, muslims, etc.

 

Ironically, it's all in the name of God (or Jesus) and I really have to wonder about anyone who claims that God or Jesus would be supportive of them refusing to provide services for people because they are gay, or black, or muslim, or a woman, or whatever. In what twisted way would the people who want to discriminate because it's against their religion be in any way a person of faith in God or Jesus?

 

 

"The problem is there are same sex advocates traveling around pretending to want to get married and looking for someone to say no so they can sue them. Some people have already been caught in this web."

 

And this is a problem why? There are laws against housing discrimination and people test those in essentially the same way all the time. Same with ADA compliance. What's the point of having a law on the books if it can't be enforced, either criminally or civilly?

 

I look at this law and I wonder if people's reactions would change if instead of marriage, it said food, or gasoline, or housing, or ??? Must we repeat the 1950's everytime we decide on a new boogieman or is it just impossible for us as a society to actually grow up and learn from the past?

 

I have no sympathy for business owners who want to hide behind their religion, or skin color, or nationality, or language, or whatever and use it as an excuse to discriminate against other people. If you want to own a business but can't, in "good conscience", do so unless you're allowed to discriminate, then you have a choice not be be in business. Depending on how you set your business up, you gain extra protections when you incorporate your business. If you want those extra protections, then stop griping about having to follow the laws.

 

When all is said and done, though, I take heart that more and more people are taking to task those who want to discriminate in the manner. In a way, it makes laws like this one, even if passed, moot.

 

 

[scoutingagain]

I'm saying it's something I'm not particularly concerned about. I'm confident if a gay couply in NH wants to have a wedding they can find a venue, caterer, flowerist, band etc. that will happily serve them.

 

I don't see the need for government to force private businesses to take on additional customers and collect additional revenue and ruin them financially.... Unless of course those businesses are banks and the additional customers want loans they can't pay back so the banks can repackage them to sell them to others knowing they can't be paid back.

 

SA