Are equal rights for gays incompatible with religious liberty?

[lunamoth]

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.

Just curious SA, do you think tax exemptions count as taking federal dollars?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

There are plenty of religious groups out there who wish to marrysame-sex couples, just a there are plenty of religious same-sex couples who wish to be married. You wish to deny them that freedom..

Marriage is a matter of civil law.

Yes, you do; and no, we don't. The Westboro Baptist Church is allowed to operate freely, are they not?

What we wish to deny you is the ability to enforce your (internally controversial) religious proscriptions on those who do not follow your religion, in a secular society.

You don't seem to understand the basic workings of American style democracy. Perhaps you live in another country.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Fair enough.
However, how are you going to feel when it is changed, yet again?

My point is that both sides of the argument have the right to try and influence it as they see fit. Regardless of the outcome following the law is practical.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

This is simply an application of "Might makes right." American democracy is supposed to be something more enlightened than that narrowminded ideology. In your view of what American Democracy is, it would be righteous/acceptable to place all of the Black people into slavery, if that is what the majority wanted. I am sorry, that is not my view of what a good Democracy is. It violates all the principles of what American Freedom stands for. It violates human decency and human liberty.

Narrow minded ideaology is fundamental to every special interest group. You just wish to impugn Christian ideology with a blanket condemnation. I just choose not to accept that or your flawed views of what my point is.

 

[standing_alone]

Just curious SA, do you think tax exemptions count as taking federal dollars?

No, I don't.

See, the only reason this whole federal dollar thing was even brought up was because of the attempt to divert the topic to federal laws applied to academic institutions. Obviously, the church down the street isn't subject to federal laws concerning academic institutions BECAUSE it's not an educational institution. I probably shouldn't have referred to both so vaguely in my post as it confuses the matter and for that I apologize.

 

[standing_alone]

You don't seem to understand the basic workings of American style democracy. Perhaps you live in another country.

Maybe you need to do some reading about American government as it's not a democracy. I'm a poli sci major. Would you like me to recommend you a text?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

What a cop-out. Do you think that bait-and-switch tactic is fooling anyone? You won't answer the question, because you would have to either lie through your teeth or admit that equal rights for GLBT wouldn't affect you at all, much less infringe on your own civil rights.

You're right. I didn't accept Green Gaia's attempt at bait and switch just to try and deflect my point.

 

[Aqualung]

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?

Read Brown v Dade Christian School. A religious institution, notwithstanding its place outside the secular life, is only allowed to discriminate if it can be proven that discrimination is doctrine. Most churches don't even have doctrine regarding marriage, let alone gay marriage, so notwithstanding a church being a religious institution, I could see them being forced to marry because they have no clearly stated doctrine on the subject.

 

[Aqualung]

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?

I never said that it was. In fact, I haven't taken a stand one way or the other in this thread. I just mentioned that it would be an infringement of religious rights.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

If we were a democracy, you might have a point. But we're not a democracy. We're a constitutional republic. We have constitutional principles -- unlike a true democracy, which amounts only to mob rule. And one of our principles -- unwritten, but vital to being an American -- is to treat people fairly. That's not something the Religious Right wants to do.

Yeah, yeah yeah, semantics. Christians have the same right as anyone else to try and influence the direction of the constitutional republic we live in as anyone else. Happy?

 

[lunamoth]

No, I don't.

See, the only reason this whole federal dollar thing was even brought up was because of the attempt to divert the topic to federal laws applied to academic institutions. Obviously, the church down the street isn't subject to federal laws concerning academic institutions BECAUSE it's not an educational institution. I probably shouldn't have referred to both so vaguely in my post as it confuses the matter and for that I apologize.

No need to apologize! Just wanted to know where you would draw the line. Obviously it is possible to make calls about discrimination, separation of church and state, religious freedom, etc. as we would not allow a religion to do just anything (i.e., criminal acts disguised as rituals). I think we get into trouble when we follow the slippery slope argument as if humans can't think through new situations based on the particular circumstances. (Does that make sense?)

 

[standing_alone]

Yeah, yeah yeah, semantics. Christians have the same right as anyone else to try and influence the direction of the constitutional republic we live in as anyone else. Happy?

Yep, but if what you're trying to influence the nation to adopt is utter bunk or goes against the Constitution, then we don't have to accept it.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Maybe you need to do some reading about American government as it's not a democracy. I'm a poli sci major. Would you like me to recommend you a text?

Yeah, yeah, yeah, poli sci major. We're a representative democracy and we influnce our society by voting for those representatives who best reflect the values we stand for yada, yada yada, There, are you happy now. Let us know when you graduate, we'll throw you a party.

 

[Aqualung]

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.

And I wish it had never become illegal to discriminate on any basis when it comes to privately owned institutions (like businesses), so we're definitely starting at different points.

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.

Because people tend to apply laws as loosely as possible. They tend to apply negative rights positively instead of allowing them to be negative. For example, the negative right to the persuit of happiness is being positively interpreted as the obligation of all people to help those further down on the economic ladder. I can forsee this happening to almost any law passed, even (especially) one about descriminiation.

 

[gnomon]

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.

But I don't think churches would stop performing marriages. Besides, I think it was the interest of the children that was considered as well.

 

[Aqualung]

I'll just put this out there: Religious institutions should be exempt from tax dollars in the first place, because a government which is seperate from the church has no right to act either in favour of or against any religion. Religion operates in an entirely different sphere, and they should not be allowed to touch each other ever.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Yep, but if what you're trying to influence the nation to adopt is utter bunk or goes against the Constitution, then we don't have to accept it.

That's the beauty of the system.

 

[lunamoth]

But I don't think churches would stop performing marriages. Besides, I think it was the interest of the children that was considered as well.

No, I don't think so either. That's why I asked SA her opinion about tax exemption.

Do you think that churches that refuse to perform gay marriages should be tax exempt?

 

[gnomon]

Why is it no one has yet actually put forth the argument that religious liberty would be restricted by allowing gay marriages.

So far all we have is one red herring and a complete non-sequitar.

Last I checked Roman Catholic priests don't have to perform a wedding ceremony for a Wiccan couple. In fact, last I checked they don't have to perform a wedding ceremony for anyone they so choose.

But hey, as long as we're just going to make stuff up.

Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because it will make some fundamentalists cry. Think of their feelings? How are they going to sleep at night with the thought that somewhere out there a gay couple is happy.

God forbid.

 

[standing_alone]

No need to apologize! Just wanted to know where you would draw the line. Obviously it is possible to make calls about discrimination, separation of church and state, religious freedom, etc. as we would not allow a religion to do just anything (i.e., criminal acts disguised as rituals. I think we get into trouble when we follow the slippery slope argument as if humans can think through new situations based on the particular circumstances. (Does that make sense?)

I was thinking it made sense until you asked if it made sense and now I'm kind of confused. Does that make sense?

I think I get your overall point though. I understand that there have been times where federal laws have trumped religious freedom, but I forget what the exact criteria was (I know there has been at least one Supreme Court decision in this area).