Are equal rights for gays incompatible with religious liberty?

[Aqualung]

Churches (and ministers - in my religion a minister decides whom he or she will or will not marry, not the congregation, although the congregation can put forth in the by-laws rules about who is married at the church, but doesn't control what the minister does otherwise) now can say who they will and won't marry. No, I don't think that it is possible that would change and to suggest such is quite obvious to me that those who use that argument against same gender marriage are grasping at straws because they know they have nothing else to throw at us.

See the thing is, if one minister or church won't marry a couple, there is another down the street that will. That is not the issue at all. The issue is that GOVERNMENT will not allow same gender couples legal civil marriage. It really has nothing to do with religion except in the minds of those who believe they and their religion own the word and definition of marriage. Therefore, equal rights for gays will not infringe upon the right of religion and churches to discriminate against whomever they choose.

Religious schools aren't allowed to deny admission based on colour. Why is this the case? Because black people have fought such things even though there is another school down the street that will take them. Even though they are a religious institution, they are subject to anti-discrimination laws. This might happen if gay marriage were allowed.

 

[Green Gaia]

Religious schools aren't allowed to deny admission based on colour. Why is this the case? Because black people have fought such things even though there is another school down the street that will take them. Even though they are a religious institution, they are subject to anti-discrimination laws. This might happen if gay marriage were allowed.

First of all, I disagree and believe that people who perpetuate that myth only do so to justify their discrimination of GBLT people. Secondly, why do you think for even a minute that a same gender couple would want to get married a church that doesn't love and affirm them? Would you want to start off your married life in such a negative environment? We are quite happy that there are some loving and accepting congregations and religions out there willing to perform a religious ceremony for same gender couples who wish one. But AGAIN, the fight for marriage equality is on a civil level and gaining equal rights and access to legal marriage which has nothing to do with religion and therefore does not and will not infringe upon the religious liberty of others who choose to shun and condemn same gender couples.

 

[gnomon]

With more and more people accepting GBLT people as they there, religious conservatives are starting to lose the argument that GBLT people are fundamentality flawed and should therefore not have equal civil rights to them. 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?

This is not a "Is homosexuality wrong?" thread or a debate on same gender marriage. Please stick to the question asked.

No. There is nothing about homosexuality that threatens religious liberty. It only threatens religious sensibilities.

 

[standing_alone]

Even though they are a religious institution, they are subject to anti-discrimination laws. This might happen if gay marriage were allowed.

Except for the fact that sexual orientation currently is not a protected status under federal anti-discrimination laws. Would allowing same-sex marriage change this? It's debatable.

 

[Darkness]

So if we were to make sure that Churches retain the right to only marry who they choose, would the religious right allow same-sex marriage?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Religious schools aren't allowed to deny admission based on colour. Why is this the case?

It's not the case.

Here's something informative: http://privateschool.about.com/od/financial/a/form990.htm according to this article, the law actually says:

"Federal tax laws govern the tax-exempt status of most not for profit private schools. These schools are usually classified as 501(c)(3) institutions. In order to maintain their tax-exempt status 501(c)(3) institutions must file a Federal Return Form 990 at the end of each fiscal year. In it they must prove compliance with federal laws regarding discrimination and political activity."

In other words, if you're going to get money from the government for your private school, no you can't discriminate against people. The government, which represents taxpayers of all races, religions, etc., cannot support a school which discriminates against certain races, religions, etc. You can still have your school, but you won't get a special tax break. I think that's reasonable.

Let's also look an an historical example: since inter-racial marriage was established as a right, have any religious institutions been forced to marry inter-racial couples? Has any attempt been made by anyone to do so?

 

[Moey]

Religious schools aren't allowed to deny admission based on colour. Why is this the case? Because black people have fought such things even though there is another school down the street that will take them. Even though they are a religious institution, they are subject to anti-discrimination laws. This might happen if gay marriage were allowed.

I hate to tell you this but some states are already developing anti-discrimination laws for GLBT. Weather or not we are allowed to marry wont matter.

 

[Storm]

It's not the case.

Here's something informative: http://privateschool.about.com/od/financial/a/form990.htm according to this article, the law actually says:

"Federal tax laws govern the tax-exempt status of most not for profit private schools. These schools are usually classified as 501(c)(3) institutions. In order to maintain their tax-exempt status 501(c)(3) institutions must file a Federal Return Form 990 at the end of each fiscal year. In it they must prove compliance with federal laws regarding discrimination and political activity."

In other words, if you're going to get money from the government for your private school, no you can't discriminate against people. The government, which represents taxpayers of all races, religions, etc., cannot support a school which discriminates against certain races, religions, etc. You can still have your school, but you won't get a special tax break. I think that's reasonable.

Thank you. I thought that sounded fishy, but I was being lazy.

 

[standing_alone]

It's not the case.

Here's something informative: http://privateschool.about.com/od/financial/a/form990.htm according to this article, the law actually says:

"Federal tax laws govern the tax-exempt status of most not for profit private schools. These schools are usually classified as 501(c)(3) institutions. In order to maintain their tax-exempt status 501(c)(3) institutions must file a Federal Return Form 990 at the end of each fiscal year. In it they must prove compliance with federal laws regarding discrimination and political activity."

In other words, if you're going to get money from the government for your private school, no you can't discriminate against people. The government, which represents taxpayers of all races, religions, etc., cannot support a school which discriminates against certain races, religions, etc. You can still have your school, but you won't get a special tax break. I think that's reasonable.

Ah, it kind of sounds like that's talking about Title IX. Title IX excludes institutions run by religious organizations when issues of gender equality (okay, so it's gender, BUT...) are imcompatible with fundamental beliefs of that particular religion. Considering that sexual orientation is not a protected status under federal anti-discrimination law and the exceptions religious organization run institutions get from Title IX, this is another non-issue.

 

[standing_alone]

Ah, it kind of sounds like that's talking about Title IX. Title IX excludes institutions run by religious organizations when issues of gender equality (okay, so it's gender, BUT...) are imcompatible with fundamental beliefs of that particular religion. Considering that sexual orientation is not a protected status under federal anti-discrimination law and the exceptions religious organization run institutions get from Title IX, this is another non-issue.

Also, does anyone else see the bringing up of anti-discrimination laws and how they are applied to academic institutions as a complete diversion from the actual topic at hand? I mean, a religious academic institution operates quite differently and have different aims than the church down the street (that is, anti-discrimination laws such as Title IX are not going to apply to the church down the street because it's not an academic institution). Educational anti-discrimination laws are comletely irrelevant to the topic of the OP.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Let's also look an an historical example: since inter-racial marriage was established as a right, have any religious institutions been forced to marry inter-racial couples? Has any attempt been made by anyone to do so?

And furthermore, if I may add to what I just posted, would the prospect that one day religious institutions might be forced to marry inter-racial couples be a good reason not to support the legality of inter-racial marriage?

 

[Green Gaia]

Also, does anyone else see the bringing up of anti-discrimination laws and how they are applied to academic institutions as a complete diversion from the actual topic at hand?

Yup... I thought it was just me being *****y about staying on topic again.

 

[Pah]

Yes, let's just dismiss this entire point because it's not true right now.

It certainly IS true and I've heard of no compulsory marriage performed in the homophobic churches of Massachusetts. Have you, now that you've been reminded of reality?

So the point is not dismissed but in IS, in fact, a VALID point.

The fact of the matter still stands. IT MATTERS HOW YOU DEFINE EQUAL. It's NOT a non-issue no matter how much you want it to be, because THE WORD HAS NOT BEEN DEFINED.

Equal is equal. What nuance makes you think it isn't?

Religious institutions can deny to perform marriage BECAUSE GAY MARRIAGE IS NOT ALLOWED.

We've taken care of that ignorance above.

If gay marriage were allowed, I don't find it that unlikely that any preacher who wanted to deny marrying gays because they are gay would be jailed for discrimination (just like I have the right to hire or not hire anybody I want, but if I don't want to hire a black person because they are black that's discrimination and I am forced to).

Why would anyone go where they are not welcomed when there are plenty of places where Christ's love is found?

 

[Aqualung]

First of all, I disagree and believe that people who perpetuate that myth only do so to justify their discrimination of GBLT people.

Well that's silly, considering the fact that I don't discriminate against GBLT people.

Secondly, why do you think for even a minute that a same gender couple would want to get married a church that doesn't love and affirm them?

There are people who love a good lawsuit. There are people who want to be married by a church whose doctrines they otherwise agree with. For example, I'm sure a gay mormon might feel a desire to be united with their gay partner for time and all eternity. There are people who want to force others to accept them, rather than just letting them remain in their hate.

But AGAIN, the fight for marriage equality is on a civil level and gaining equal rights and access to legal marriage which has nothing to do with religion and therefore does not and will not infringe upon the religious liberty of others who choose to shun and condemn same gender couples.

Marriages are quite often performed by religious institutions. To claim that marriage and religion are completely seperate is to change the meaning of marriage. Have we entered that into the debate yet?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Funny, the Founding Fathers called it "the tyranny of the majority" and took steps to prevent it.

You mean like veto power and two houses of congress and representative democracy or did you have something else in mind?

Nowadays, reasonable folk just call it theocracy. If the majority of our populace were Muslim, would you be content to live under Shariah law?

Your definition of theocracy is skewed if you are applying to what I was saying

 

[Aqualung]

Except for the fact that sexual orientation currently is not a protected status under federal anti-discrimination laws.

If it became illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation for marriages it would probably become illegal in other areas.

Would allowing same-sex marriage change this? It's debatable.

It is debatable. Good thing this is a debate thread.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

The debate is about whether or not you, as a Christian, have the right to deny others basic civil liberties which in no way infringe upon your own, simply because your religion disapproves of them.

Not much of a debate from where I sit.

P.S. I posted that in response to you saying that people who seek equal rights for GLBTs are practicing bigotry, which has nothing to do with "the character of legal marriage," either. Not that that's the topic.

Your confused. My post was about some people denying the basic constitutional right of Christians to influence the society they live in. Christians have the same right to influence legislation that any other citizen has.

 

[Aqualung]

I hate to tell you this but some states are already developing anti-discrimination laws for GLBT. Weather or not we are allowed to marry wont matter.

Why do you hate to tell me that?

 

[standing_alone]

If it became illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation for marriages it would probably become illegal in other areas.

And I would certainly hope that it would become illegal to discriminate against people based on sexual orientation when it comes to emloyment and education and things of the like.

However, I don't see how adding sexual orientation as a protected status in federal anti-discrimination laws would force any religious institution to accept any persons they object to. As we can see, religious institutions (as long as they are not taking federal dollars) do not have to comply with anti-discrimination laws.

Non-issue.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Well that is not what the thread is about, if you don't like it go start your own thread and discuss whatever you wish. You can't just come in here and derail a thread and change the subject.

Is this just another example of how you try and control people who do things you don't agree with. My book calls this hypocrasy.