Are equal rights for gays incompatible with religious liberty?

[Green Gaia]

Thank you, Lilithu. :bow:

 

[standing_alone]

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.

Best post in this whole thread!

 

[lilithu]

Oh, I know I am going to be sorry for getting into this one. First I think that we should have full civil rights for gays (marriage, adoption, visiting rights, the whole nine yards). But we should not assume that this will not impinge on the rights of religions, we must be vigilent that it does not.

Why do I say this?

Remember not too long ago in the UK it was decided that Catholic agenices MUST help gay couples to adopt children. The end result, Catholic agencies are no longer going to do adoptions period because this went against their beliefs.

Just food for thought.

Good point. And I actually think that it was a mistake to force Catholic agencies to help same-sex couples adopt. The only condition under which I would think such a decision would be justified is if the Catholic organization had a monopoly on adoption and there were no other way for same-sex couples to adopt. Otherwise, I agree. We do have to take the rights of religious institutions into account.

 

[lilithu]

Oops, standing_alone, upon reading further I see that you did bring up issues other than marriage, such as the lack of protection from discrimination.

My bad. I'd frubal you but it says I need to spread them around.


THE HOUSE PASSED THE HATE CRIMES ACT!! :rainbow1:

I just needed to say that again. Now let's see if the Senate has any moral fiber.

 

[lilithu]

What I am saying is that Christians have the same right to influence the society they live in as you do.

I agree. (btw, you seem to be under the misguided impression that ALL Christians are against BGLT equality.)

You seem to wish to deny them that.

Umm... nope.

Green Gaia was asking whether the current claim that BGLT equality violates the conservative's religious liberty is a valid claim. She didn't say anything about conservatives not having the right to participate in the democratic process.

 

[Aqualung]

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

Can you please show me how I'm skewing it instead of just repeating that I am? By my interpretation of what you asked, I am not skewing it. Can you please show me which part I am interpreting incorrectly? In other words, how does a question about legal and religious rights get interpreted to exclude an answer about religious and legal rights?

The slaves weren't freed until after the Civil War had started, therefore you cannot blame the war on their freedom.[/quote]
You're right - that was an oversimplified example because I couldn't think of another one. But, I am sure you still can understand my point, right?

Even if it were, the slaves weren't asking for a war, they wanted freedom, you cannot blame them because a war started.

In the situation I propose, I wouldn't blame gay people. I would blame legislation. By bringing up blame, you have effectively avoided the real issue and instead have constructed a straw man. My point was never WHO to blame, but rather what the far reaching effects of a peice of legislation might be.

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.

This is true, and I have tried to only use the language of equality, rather than language of gay marriage.

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.

Right again. But, it would infringe upon liberty in general (not Christian liberty specifically) by making thoughts a crime. Hate is a thought. Actions are crimes. Therefore, a hate crime as something different than a crime in general is a crime of both action and thought. To define hate crime in terms of homosexuality would further infringe upon the rights of all citizens (not just Christians, but certainly christians too) to hate whoever they choose.

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.

Right again. It would not SPECIFICALLY deny the rights of Christians, but in general it would deny the rights of all private business owners to do what is morally conscionable and fiscally sound. Private business owners should be the ones who get to choose their business practices, including hiring and firing, so passing non-descrimination laws regarding sexual orientation would further the already tremendous denial of liberty that all (not just Christians) have given up.

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 agree fully with this one. It would restrict the rights of nobody if this were allowed.

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.

I will argue whatever you bring.

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.

How are you so sure this wouldn't happen? For my part, I have the distinct advantage of posting an analyis of the current legal trends, whereas you simply have your word.

 

[Green Gaia]

Can you please show me how I'm skewing it instead of just repeating that I am?

You are skewing it because you are adding something to it that was not part of the question, therefore changing the whole question and answer. If you can't see that, I don't know how to make it any clearer to you.

 

[Aqualung]

You are skewing it because you are adding something to it that was not part of the question, therefore changing the whole question and answer. If you can't see that, I don't know how to make it any clearer to you.

You could make it clearer by explicity stating what I am adding. Actually, here's a way that it would definitely make it clearer. Post a rephrasing of your original intent when you wrote the now-famous question in the OP. Then, post which parts of my line of questioning are at odds with this. This would be extremely helpful.

 

[Green Gaia]

You could make it clearer by explicity stating what I am adding. Actually, here's a way that it would definitely make it clearer. Post a rephrasing of your original intent when you wrote the now-famous question in the OP. Then, post which parts of my line of questioning are at odds with this. This would be extremely helpful.

You are adding to the question a make-believe scenario that has no roots in reality, and you know it. I'm not going to play your game anymore, I've wasted enough energy on trying to explain this very simple thing to you already: is gblt people having equal rights as citizens incompatible with religious liberty (meaning how you practice your religion as you see fit)? No added made-up legislation, no space aliens, just answer the question as it is. Or don't.

 

[lilithu]

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.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men (ie - people) are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights."

Sound familiar?

 

[Aqualung]

You are adding to the question a make-believe scenario that has no roots in reality, and you know it.

Again, if you can't refrain from telling me what my intentions are, I'm not going to continue. Can you refrain from telling me that?

As for the adding something - you asked a hypothetical question that can only be answered by hypothetical scenarios. You asked if, hypothetically speaking, gay people got equal rights, if this would, hypothetically, infringe upon the rights of others. Your question was inherently hypothetic (or make believe, to your terminology) because it hasn't happened. Therefore, introducing a hypothetical situation (which likewise has not happened) to answer the question is what EVERYBODY in this thread has been doing. Some have entered the hypothetical answer that it would not infringe upon the rights of the religious. I entered the hypothetical answer that it would. Again, I don't see these two things (a hypothetical question and a hypothetical answer) at odds with each other.

I'm not going to play your game anymore,

Again, you're qualifying something you have no knowledge of whatsoever. I'm not playing games; I'm trying to engage in a civil debate. (On the other hand, you were the one who started it, so if your intent was to play a game, then I am just participating in it, but I don't believe that was your intent, so I don't see that I am playing a game...) So I will ask again - will you be able to engage in a debate without telling me what my intentions are?

No added made-up legislation,

It's a made up legislation to say that gays have rights in the first place. If you are allowed to enter made up legislation but NOBODY else who responds is, this thread would have ended at post 1.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men (ie - people) are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights."

Sound familiar?

Great point. On the other hand, being endowed by a creator does not necessarily entail being endowed by their government. And, since it's the government taking away these rights, not God, it still doesn't matter. You see, God gave the rights, but he hasn't taken them away. The government has not given the rights, so they cannot yet be taken away.

 

[lilithu]

Right again. But, it would infringe upon liberty in general (not Christian liberty specifically) by making thoughts a crime. Hate is a thought. Actions are crimes. Therefore, a hate crime as something different than a crime in general is a crime of both action and thought. To define hate crime in terms of homosexuality would further infringe upon the rights of all citizens (not just Christians, but certainly christians too) to hate whoever they choose.

First of all, the current hate crimes law does not make hateful thought illegal. Only actions are illegal. All it does is make actions motivated by hatred based on race or religion carry a stiffer punishment.

Second of all, by your logic all hate crimes laws infringe upon citizens rights. It has nothing to do with adding sexual orientation to the list. You can debate the legality of hate crimes laws in another thread. The OP was asking whether BGLT equality posed a threat to religious liberty. In other words, if there already is a hate crimes law, which there is, does adding BGLT to the already existent list of those protected pose a threat. No, it doesn't.

Right again. It would not SPECIFICALLY deny the rights of Christians, but in general it would deny the rights of all private business owners to do what is morally conscionable and fiscally sound. Private business owners should be the ones who get to choose their business practices, including hiring and firing, so passing non-descrimination laws regarding sexual orientation would further the already tremendous denial of liberty that all (not just Christians) have given up.

Same argument as above. If you gotta a problem with laws protecting people against discrimination, take it up in another thread. The question here is whether adding BGLT to the pre-existing list of people already protected denies anyone's religious liberty. No, it doesn't.

How are you so sure this wouldn't happen? For my part, I have the distinct advantage of posting an analyis of the current legal trends, whereas you simply have your word.

I've read your "analysis," and as several people have already told you, your "analysis" is faulty. Your interpretation regarding Brown v. Dade is incorrect. And furthermore, you have not established a connection between it and its relevance to churches.

"In Brown v. Dade Christians schools, Inc., the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, sitting en blanc, was presented with the question left open by the Supreme Court and upheld the black plaintiffs' section 1981 claim. The court, however, failed to produce a majority opinion, and most of the judges restricted their reasoning to the specific facts of the case; the decision thus provides no answer to the general question of the legality of racial exclusion by religious schools."

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0017-811X(197802)91%3A4%3C879%3AREBRSB%3E2.0.CO%3B2-X

And again, as standing_alone pointed out, A SCHOOL IS NOT A CHURCH.

 

[Sunstone]

I firmly believe that if gays get rights, they will make girls bounce on trampolines to the sound of disco music, contra the free exercise of my sacred religion.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

How are you so sure this wouldn't happen? For my part, I have the distinct advantage of posting an analyis of the current legal trends, whereas you simply have your word.

Your analyses are based on things that are, to the best of my knowledge, factually incorrect:

1. You said, "Read Brown v Dade Christian School. A religious institution. . . is only allowed to discriminate if it can be proven that discrimination is doctrine."

I followed your advice and read about that case, and it does not say what you are claiming: http://www.jstor.org/view/0017811x/ap040729/04a00070/0

"The decision...provides no answer to the general question of the legality of racial exclusion by religious schools."

2. You said, "Religious schools aren't allowed to deny admission based on colour."

Not true. Religious schools are allowed to deny admission based on color, they just won't get tax breaks if they do.

3. You keep referring to "religious institutions", equivocating between, for example, churches (i.e. places of worship) and religious schools. But the law makes a distinction between the two. Show me the historical precedent for laws that tell CHURCHES whom they must accept through their doors or include in their ceremonies.

4. You have not demonstrated, in my opinion, that there exists *any* significant group of people who would favor laws that force priests to perform the marriage rituals for gays. In fact, you have yet to bring to my attention a SINGLE person who would favor this.

It's not that what you are suggesting--namely, that the government will jail priests for refusing to perform the religious rites of marriage on same-sex couples--isn't possible. Sure, you are absolutely right, it's possible. It's also possible that legislation against gun control will be extended to ban all weapons, including knives, pepper spray, and karate classes. It's also possible that legislation restricting alcohol consumption will lead to a new Prohibition, and to restrictions on candy or soda or fast-food consumption.

But a hard look at the facts lends little reason to take these possibilities very seriously. And a hard look at history shows that laws gauranteeing equality for Jews and equality for blacks and women haven't lead to priests being forced to marry Jews, or religious schools forced to accept blacks, or women. They can discriminate to their hearts' content.

 

[Sunstone]

Don't confuse me with facts, Mr. Spinkles! That's the devious and cunning way your pro-gay side always wins these debates. It's simply not fair for you to use ammunition that my anti-gay rights side can't come up with!

Instead of facts, let's discuss the REAL PROBABILITY that gay rights will lead to every home in America being forced to have a disco ball in the living room!!!

 

[MaddLlama]

Don't confuse me with facts, Mr. Spinkles! That's the devious and cunning way your pro-gay side always wins these debates. It's simply not fair for you to use ammunition that my anti-gay rights side can't come up with!

Instead of facts, let's discuss the REAL PROBABILITY that gay rights will lead to every home in America being forced to have a disco ball in the living room!!!

Now, what exactly do you have against disco?

 

[Sunstone]

Now, what exactly do you have against disco?

Disco is gay music and will turn little children into interior decorators! Sure, you think I'm making that up, but just ask any interior decorator you know whether he or she has ever heard a disco tune. The unfailing answer will be "yes". Proof that disco turns people into interior decorators!

Worse, if I became an interior decorator due to listening to disco, I might feel compelled by mysterious forces to get rid of the trampoline in my living room, replacing it with a retro lava lamp or something. And that would seriously -- and I mean seriously -- hamper the practice of my religion.

 

[lilithu]

Don't confuse me with facts, Mr. Spinkles! That's the devious and cunning way your pro-gay side always wins these debates.

Win? We never win these debates, whether it's BGLT equality or the Iraq war or anything else. We spend a fair amount of time researching facts, analyzing, composing a coherent argument, thinking that maybe finally our logic will convince someone... and then the response is usually something like "Anyone can lie with statistics." or "You're just being pc."

You call that winning?

 

[MaddLlama]

Win? We never win these debates, whether it's BGLT equality or the Iraq war or anything else. We spend a fair amount of time researching facts, analyzing, composing a coherent argument, thinking that maybe finally our logic will convince someone... and then the response is usually something like "Anyone can lie with statistics." or "You're just being pc."

You call that winning?

Which is why I think it's all a bit of a waste of time. Except for being able to stretch some intellectual muscles. Then again, there are other and more productive ways to do that too.

 

[Sunstone]

Win? We never win these debates, whether it's BGLT equality or the Iraq war or anything else. We spend a fair amount of time researching facts, analyzing, composing a coherent argument, thinking that maybe finally our logic will convince someone... and then the response is usually something like "Anyone can lie with statistics." or "You're just being pc."

You call that winning?

Speaking somewhat seriously, for once, the gay rights issue seems to me one of the very few issues in this world in which the opponents have not brought up any legitimate reasons for their opposition. That's exceptional. Most issues have good arguments on both sides, but on the gay rights issue it seems all the sound arguments are on one side only. At least so far that seems to be the case.