Are equal rights for gays incompatible with religious liberty?

[Reverend Rick]

Otherwise it has no basis in reality except to try to scare people into voting against gay rights.

People can't vote against something that does not exist. Once Gay's get rights, there will be nothing to vote for or against.

That is the same logic people use when they say their rights have been taken away. You have to have something first before it can be taken away.

 

[Darkness]

why does someones sexual preference need to be such a problem for the church. if not for some members this would not be an issue.

Because God says it is evil for a man to love another man and a girl to love another girl. :sarcastic

 

[Green Gaia]

People can't vote against something that does not exist. Once Gay's get rights, there will be nothing to vote for or against.

That is the same logic people use when they say their rights have been taken away. You have to have something first before it can be taken away.

You mean it is withheld from us by intolerance, otherwise we would have it.

 

[Green Gaia]

Because God says it is evil for a man to love another man and a girl to love another girl. :sarcastic

No, She doesn't.

Besides, this is off topic.

 

[Moey]

Because God says it is evil for a man to love another man and a girl to love another girl. :sarcastic

Now I thought I read that a man shall not lay with a man as he lays with a woman. Is this acurate?

 

[Green Gaia]

Now I thought I read that a man shall not lay with a man as he lays with a woman. Is this acurate?

OFF TOPIC!!

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

If gays ever get rights, they'll bang on our doors demanding we marry them in our living rooms. But it doesn't stop there. No sir! After we marry them, they'll want to re-decorate those very same living rooms! No living room is safe if gays get rights! After they get rights, it's gonna be endless disco nights -- right in our living rooms! That's what's at issue here, sir! Nothing less than the home decor of America! Nothing less than our traditional living room couch potato life-style!

Oh god. And the men in tight pink pants, it's an abomination! Must outlaw it! Cause if we're going back to the '70s, we MUST do so only with the bell bottoms!

I firmly believe that if gays get rights, anyone who refuses to marry gays in their living room and hang a disco ball from the ceiling afterwards is highly likely to be jailed!!!!

* waits for the church of 2050 to have a giant disco ball suspended above the worship center

 

[Aqualung]

What taxes (besides preachers paying income tax) do churches pay? I thought churches were treated more like non-profits than businesses.

They pay property taxes on their buildings. Sales of religious materials by religious institutions are taxed. Tax is the default position. A religious institution must apply (if that's the correct term for this case) for tax exemption to gain it. Exemption is extended as a matter of grace.

Mmmm... Dog barf examples.

Yeah. I was talking to my mom about my dog and the first thing that popped into my mind for an example was dog barf.

But the thing is, the government also treats churches differently from businesses and schools. I'm not saying that maybe someone would try to challenge churches being able to deny certain couples marriage ceremonies, but I see no reason that churches would be forced to (as I think such a case would be seen as having no merit).

Under our consitution, I see no reason why churches would be forced to, either. But under our consitution, I also see no reason why churches should be taxed, why private business owners cannot discriminate based on race, why a private restaurant owner cannot throw a black man out of their school, and why private schools must be required to have girls sports teams. NONE of that makes sense under our law, yet all of it happens.

The one problem about talking about things that haven't happened is that we can both say "this has a good chance of happening," but we really don't know until it happens, as you've made clear with your dog barf example.

That's true, but if we were to operate undre that principle, this thread should be deleted entirely, because it asks for people to suppose about things that havent' happened yet (ie, to suppose if gays were given equal rights if this would infringe upon personal liberty.

You have backed up why you think could happen based on how anti-discrimination laws have been applied to businesses and universities and I've backed up my position based on how churches are treated differently and granted certain exceptions that businesses and universities typically don't get. We both have decent reasons to feel the way we do, and at this point, neither of us can really be right or really be wrong. So yes, we'd have to wait and see what happens. I do really appreciate what I've found to be a pretty respectful dialogue with you thus far, by the way.

Thank you. I try.

 

[Aqualung]

Yeah, I have and all I've seen you offer is the same old, tired myth that if same gender couples are allowed marriage then all religions and churches would be forced to marry them, of which there is no evidence for.

Then you should really try addressing particular points, and offer counter evidence. Saying "X vague statement is and old, tired myth" doesn't advance a debate at all. For one, I have no idea what specifically you're talking about. And for two, it's an opinion without any backing.

If you have evidence that would definitely happen, please present it. Otherwise it has no basis in reality except to try to scare people into voting against gay rights.

Please read my dog barf example.


And then, if you want to play that game, please present the evidence that if gays were allowed equal rights that what I have presented would definitely (and I stress the word DEFINITELY as you have done in your responses to me) not happen.

 

[Green Gaia]

And then, if you want to play that game, please present the evidence that if gays were allowed equal rights that what I have presented would definitely (and I stress the word DEFINITELY as you have done in your responses to me) not happen.

Because we want to change legal rules, not religious rules. It's as simple as that. Why do you keep confusing the two?

 

[standing_alone]

They pay property taxes on their buildings. Sales of religious materials by religious institutions are taxed. Tax is the default position.

Interesting... I wasn't aware of that. I'll have to learn more about this, for sure.

A religious institution must apply (if that's the correct term for this case) for tax exemption to gain it. Exemption is extended as a matter of grace.

Having to apply for and demonstrate that one's religious institution is deserving of tax exemption seems a reasonable request of the government.

Under our consitution, I see no reason why churches would be forced to, either. But under our consitution, I also see no reason why churches should be taxed, why private business owners cannot discriminate based on race, why a private restaurant owner cannot throw a black man out of their school, and why private schools must be required to have girls sports teams. NONE of that makes sense under our law, yet all of it happens.

Makes sense to me and here's why: Because legislators have decided to make laws concerning such things as quoted above because they couldn't have been foreseen by the Founders and because the Founders wrote the Constitution to be a more "flexible" document (to be able to apply to the changing times). These laws passed by the legislature addressing the things concerned in your quote above haven't been found unConstitutional as of yet and so they remain to be obeyed.

 

[Aqualung]

Because we want to change legal rules, not religious rules. It's as simple as that. Why do you keep confusing the two?

I want to change legal rules, too. On almost everything. But, you asked if changing the legal rules could possibly have an effect on religious rules. I said yes, they could possibly have an effect. Then you said this wasn't the purpose of your question. But then, pray tell, what was the purpose of asking if changing the legal rules could have an effect on the religious rules, and how have I missed your point? I'm just trying to asnwer your question, but I can't even figure out what your question is anymore. I thought it was:

In response to that trend, one thing I've noticed is religious conservatives claiming that treating gays like fully equal citizens and human beings is incompatible with the conservatives' religious liberty. Are they right?

I interpreted this as asking

[psuedo quote]Is there any circumstance in which changing the laws regarding the equality of gay people would have an effect on the free exercise of religion[/psuedo quote]

I then gave a reply to this. You have claimed that I am not answering your question. Can you rephrase your question if I am not interpreting it correctly so we don't continue to talk past each other in such an unprofitable way?

Having to apply for and demonstrate that one's religious institution is deserving of tax exemption seems a reasonable request of the government.

Not in a government that supposedly advocates seperation of church and state. Plus, it means that speration is not the default, but co-mingling. Since seperation is not the default, it would seem that it would not be the default in matters of legally binding contracts, such as marriage contracts, as well.

Makes sense to me and here's why: Because legislators have decided to make laws concerning such things as quoted above because they couldn't have been foreseen by the Founders and because the Founders wrote the Constitution to be a more "flexible" document (to be able to apply to the changing times)

Flexible, sure, but not reversible. Things have been reversed to where "seperation" means "control", which exactly what the founding fathers sought to avoid (albeit control in the other direction).

These laws passed by the legislature addressing the things concerned in your quote above haven't been found unConstitutional as of yet and so they remain to be obeyed.

That's just because people care so little about the constitution that they don't want to bother with trying to figure out if they are unconstitutional. Most cases are decided on legal precidence, not on constitutionality.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Depends. The threat of judicial tyranny is a grave threat if courts are allowed to impose those "rights." If they are won at the ballot box, then no rights are violated regardless of how self-destructive it might be.

 

[standing_alone]

Not in a government that supposedly advocates seperation of church and state. Plus, it means that speration is not the default, but co-mingling. Since seperation is not the default, it would seem that it would not be the default in matters of legally binding contracts, such as marriage contracts, as well.

I don't exactly understand what you're getting at here.

Flexible, sure, but not reversible. Things have been reversed to where "seperation" means "control", which exactly what the founding fathers sought to avoid (albeit control in the other direction).

Explain, please.

That's just because people care so little about the constitution that they don't want to bother with trying to figure out if they are unconstitutional.

Well, then, if people are too apathetic or lazy to use the system, that's not the fault of the system but the fault of the people. Perhaps, if people are too apathetic or lazy to do anything about what they see as an affront to the Constitution, they shouldn't complain about it.

Most cases are decided on legal precidence, not on constitutionality.

And how were those precidents decided? Based on the Court's determination on the Constitutionality of the case/law in question.

 

[Green Gaia]

I want to change legal rules, too. On almost everything. But, you asked if changing the legal rules could possibly have an effect on religious rules. I said yes, they could possibly have an effect. Then you said this wasn't the purpose of your question. But then, pray tell, what was the purpose of asking if changing the legal rules could have an effect on the religious rules, and how have I missed your point? I'm just trying to asnwer your question, but I can't even figure out what your question is anymore. I thought it was:



I interpreted this as asking

[psuedo quote]Is there any circumstance in which changing the laws regarding the equality of gay people would have an effect on the free exercise of religion[/psuedo quote]

I then gave a reply to this. You have claimed that I am not answering your question. Can you rephrase your question if I am not interpreting it correctly so we don't continue to talk past each other in such an unprofitable way?

You are purposefully skewing the question and everything I said. I asked how treating gblt people as equal citizens is incompatible with religious liberty (the freedom of people to practice their religion how they chose) and you made up a scenario where we're going to force all religions to marry same gender couples. Do all heterosexual couples demand that any church marry them? No. Is there any problem with that? No. So why do you assume same gender couples will force religions that don't want marry them to do so? Your scenario is not based in reality, but rather on unfounded and unwarranted fears that anti-gay leaders have used to perpetuate lies about marriage equality.

Simply granting equal rights to gblt people does not infringe on anyone's religious liberty, the scenario you made up goes beyond what would be equal rights, since heterosexual couples do not even have the right to force any church to marry them, and is therefore not a valid excuse to withhold equal rights to gblt people.

 

[Aqualung]

I don't exactly understand what you're getting at here.

Taxing churches violates a speration of church and state. The state is not (or ought not to be) allowed to either help or hinder a religious organisation. But, taxing religious organistions (ie, hurting religion, requiring religious organisations to help the state, and intertwining church and state) is the default position. Therefore, it would seem that non-seperation of church state is the default, and seperation of church and state must actually be granted, rather than something that is inherently possessed to be taken away.

Explain, please.

The consitution may have meant to have been flexible, I will agree with that. But, the constitution was never meant to have been so flexible that it would actually mean the exact opposite of what it should be. In other words, the consitution says "speration of church and state", and the constitution is flexible. But it should never have become so flexible that seperation of church and state actually must be GRANTED, while connection of church and state is the default.

Well, then, if people are too apathetic or lazy to use the system, that's not the fault of the system but the fault of the people.

The system is supposed to protect the people against the fault of the people, not absorb the faults of the people into the system.

Perhaps, if people are too apathetic or lazy to do anything about what they see as an affront to the Constitution, they shouldn't complain about it.

Most people don't. That's why republicans and democrats are the two hugest parties. Nobody really wants drastic change. They just want slightly greater or lesser change.

And how were those precidents decided? Based on the Court's determination on the Constitutionality of the case/law in question.

Occaisionally. Only when the lawsuit is based on constitutionality. Then they interpret constitution. But many court cases don't bring up the constitutionality, so the judges rule. Then later court cases, which are based on constitutionality, rule on the precident set by those who did not rule on constitutionality.

 

[Aqualung]

You are purposefully skewing the question and everything I said.

No, I'm not, and I would appreciate if you would refrain from telling me what my intentions are, since nobody else can possibly know them. If you can't or won't refrain from that, tell me, and we can end this debate.

I asked how treating gblt people as equal citizens is incompatible with religious liberty (the freedom of people to practice their religion how they chose) and you made up a scenario where we're going to force all religions to marry same gender couples.

Not "we". The courts. Which will probably represent the views of a minority.

Do all heterosexual couples demand that any church marry them? No. Is there any problem with that? No. So why do you assume same gender couples will force religions that don't want marry them to do so?

I'm not assuming that they will. I'm simply analysing the current law system and saying that if somebody WERE to do that (again, not assuming that somebody WILL), then the legal situation is such that this may result in said scenario.

Your scenario is not based in reality,

Nor is your question. Your question is about the hypothetical of what would happen if gays were given equal rights. My answer is about a hypothetical possible situation if gays were given equal rights. Again, I can't see how my answer and your question are at different ends.

but rather on unfounded and unwarranted fears that anti-gay leaders have used to perpetuate lies about marriage equality.

(a) I'm not afraid of that. Well, I am, but it's definitely the last in a long list of fears about the current state of the government, and I feel that if this were to happen it would just be a symptom of larger governmental problems. (b) I made this up on the spot when I read your question, so I have no basis in believing that this type of thing actually is perpetuated (or a lie, for that matter, since you haven't provided any counter evidence) by anti-gay leaders.

Simply granting equal rights to gblt people does not infringe on anyone's religious liberty, the scenario you made up goes beyond what would be equal rights, since heterosexual couples do not even have the right to force any church to marry them, and is therefore not a valid excuse to withhold equal rights to gblt people.

That's true. It goes beyond the actual act of giving equal rights, because actions have consequences. Let's take this retrospective example: Allowing black people to be free will cause a war. While one cannot say that the actual act of freeing blacks caused the civil war, one can definitely say that this act was one step in the road to civil war and was in some ways a cause of it. In this same manner, I say that, given my analysis of the current social/legal/political atmosphere in this country, that this could be one factor in the diminishing nature of religious autonomy. I don't think it is THE factor, and I've hinted at some of the other factors throughout my post, but just as it cannot be said that freeing slaves had NOTHING to do with the start of the civil war, I think in my scenario it would be just as fallacious to say that allowing equal rights would have NOTHING to do with the obliteration of religious autonomy.

 

[lilithu]

Are you saying that you don't want Christians who believe that same-sex marriage is an abomination to accept is as a cultural norm?

If it is a cultural norm, then it is a cultural norm whether conservative Christians accept it or not. It would only be an imposition of one's beliefs if conservative Christians were expected to accept it as moral.

 

[Green Gaia]

Nor is your question. Your question is about the hypothetical of what would happen if gays were given equal rights. My answer is about a hypothetical possible situation if gays were given equal rights. Again, I can't see how my answer and your question are at different ends.

But they are because you are assuming something beyond the question. You are skewing it.

That's true. It goes beyond the actual act of giving equal rights, because actions have consequences. Let's take this retrospective example: Allowing black people to be free will cause a war. While one cannot say that the actual act of freeing blacks caused the civil war, one can definitely say that this act was one step in the road to civil war and was in some ways a cause of it. In this same manner, I say that, given my analysis of the current social/legal/political atmosphere in this country, that this could be one factor in the diminishing nature of religious autonomy. I don't think it is THE factor, and I've hinted at some of the other factors throughout my post, but just as it cannot be said that freeing slaves had NOTHING to do with the start of the civil war, I think in my scenario it would be just as fallacious to say that allowing equal rights would have NOTHING to do with the obliteration of religious autonomy.

The slaves weren't freed until after the Civil War had started, therefore you cannot blame the war on their freedom. Even if it were, the slaves weren't asking for a war, they wanted freedom, you cannot blame them because a war started. A war didn't have to happen, others besides the slaves decided that.

 

[lilithu]

In response to that trend, one thing I've noticed is religious conservatives claiming that treating gays like fully equal citizens and human beings is incompatible with the conservatives' religious liberty. Are they right?

Weird how Amy asked about full equal rights and the thread immediately went to a heated debate about marriage.

Marriage inequality is not the only place where BGLT continue to face discrimination.

For example, the hate crimes bill just passed in the House today, but it still needs to be passed in the Senate. As it stands now, if someone is attacked on the basis of their race or religion, it can be considered a hate crime, but not if someone is attacked on the basis of their sexual orientation. Would the passing of this bill interfere with conservative Christian religious liberty? NO.

Another example: the Employment Non-discrimination act is still pending, which would make it illegal to refuse to hire or to fire someone on the basis of their sexual orientation. This would afford BGLT the same protection currently given to others. This would not affect the hiring practices of religious organizations, only non-religious companies and businesses. Would the passing of this bill interfere with conservative Christian religious liberty? NO.

Another example: BGLT currently cannot serve in the armed forces unless they hide their sexual orientation. Full equality would require that we repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Would that interfere with conservative Christian religious liberty? NO.

I take it that since the religious conservatives on this thread are all arguing about marriage and not these other issues, that we are all in agreement that these issues do not affect their religious liberty.

So marriage.... the legalization of same-sex marriage would ONLY be an issue if the government were to force all religious groups to recognize marriage between same-sex couples as legitimate within their church. Which wouldn't happen. So NO, it's not incompatible with anyone's religious liberty.

I would point out that it already is the case that there is a difference between civil marriage and religiously recognized marriage. Amongst conservative Jews, a woman cannot get a divorce unless the husband ok's it. But she can certainly get a divorce in civil court whether the husband agrees or not. So there already are cases where the religious institution considers a couple married yet the government does not. It would not be profoundly different to have it the other way around.