It interests me that you state the secular claims are 'righteous' (in an ironical sense) and that the religious ones are 'convictions'. Do you think one should hold sway over the other? I'm not prejudging your answer on that, I think it's a tricky question that is at the heart of this issue.
I think religious freedoms (RF) outweigh secular righteousness (SR), in this case. This case being that SR wants something from RF that RF doesn't wish to provide due to inherent nature of RF.
I too think it's a bit tricky, because I probably disagree with RF on this topic, but feel the principle outweighs the topical concern. Helps that SR has more than one place, usually to obtain whatever it is that is wanted. But even if that somehow weren't true, I think principle outweighs SR.
I also think if somehow the shoe were on the other foot that SF would outweigh RR. I'm thinking no secularist type would disagree with this, but I may be mistaken.
I'm an S, which doesn't even get me a guernsey in the LGBT space, and feel pretty passionately about this. If anything, that would be by simple answer to the OP. Many fighting against marriage equality are similarly 'S's. I think it behooves us to look beyond personal impact.
I mostly agree, but as noted in my first post, in terms of impact, it doesn't go far enough IMO, so I just brought it up to say my bias is, to some degree aligned with 'the community' even while I think there's principle of 'marriage equality' that, on this issue, is inherently limited. I believe that is because of political reality. I do think once the RF debate is settled, it would open door for other things that consenting adults may wish to do in terms of marital relationships.
Have whatever belief you want, by all means, but when said belief impacts on others, your own personal religious convictions becomes secondary in my opinion. I would say similar to an anti-theist who doesn't like people preaching in a public space, fwiw.
IMO, this is where principles matter in the debate. I think you are not being consistent, but we'll get to that in a moment.
As have S's. But ultimately, you're going to have to make up your own mind. Ultimately, whenever you can be the bigger person, I find it works out healthier in the long term. It can be the harder path, I get that. Also, the warts on this aren't restricted to one side of the fence.
Agree the warts aren't restricted to one side, but the particular wart of "you're homophobic" is IMO on par with "you're damed to hell for your sinful behavior." I see both as equally zealous and in case stated earlier on the thread, is as delusional. Hence, why I said I question, "do I want to be on the same side as that?" The obvious answer is, not really.
For me, knowing I'm consistent on all marriage equality has me routinely feeling like I'm the bigger person, and yet very willing to be patient, cause I realize that topically, not everyone is able to go there yet. Not everyone is operating under the same (basic) principle.
Used to be that there was little choice BUT to be polite about it. Generally, human nature is unchanged, I find. The environment has changed substantially, and that impacts directly on approach and behavior.
I think the political reality, via the agenda, noted earlier is that you must comply with our beliefs, if you don't we will act like the Borg and seek to assimilate you, resistance is futile, or worthy of calling you homophobic because you don't tow the line. Whenever that type of thing is not occurring in discussions such as this, I rejoice.
This is the crux of the entire issue, really. Why should group A be able to discriminate against group B in everyday life? Why are they set apart from society? I'm not one who would favour forced inclusion to religious ceremonies (eg. pastor forced to marry homosexuals), but in terms of my shopfront, I shouldn't be able to prevent black people coming in. Or allow them to sit only at the back. Or prevent guide-dogs. Or prevent homosexuals. Or atheists.
It's sometimes hard to remember this if living in a Christian dominant society, but this is not anti-Christian or anti-religious freedoms. This is, in fact, quite the opposite. I don't want some atheist shopkeeper refusing to serve Catholics. I don't want to legitimize Muslim 'No-go' zones in London. I don't want Satanists legally culling. Wherever you land on the 'religious rights' vs 'secular rights' question, it needs to be something that can be consistently applied if you are to avoid cognitive dissonance. I would suspect you are too thoughtful to be able to comfortably live with inconsistent philosophy.
Given the religious aspect, I'm not sure if it is inconsistent. And given that businesses can discriminate on any number of items in terms of who deserves service, I feel even less sure it is inconsistent, or that I can't comfortably live with it.
You're hypothesizing that underage marriage is legal?
Yes. To make a point, and to get at the item I said I would come back to.
Whether straight or gay, I would march in the streets against that, since the principle of informed consent appears to be broken.
I disagree with this. While we might take umpteen pages to hash out such disagreement, I'm saying go with the hypothetical. Especially if allowing all the hypotheticals you brought up earlier, none of which are occurring (based on religious freedoms), but are semi-relevant to the discussion because of it being what a business wants. Given that you would 'march in the street against this,' I'm now under the impression that if this were the law, you'd not allow yourself/your business to provide service for such a couple. So, let's have you be very clear on what your conviction here would be. If you say instead you would follow the law of the land, I may stand corrected, but see if you can work with the hypothetical because I think for some it's equally as distasteful, and/or immoral to consider that as it is for others to consider marriage between two people of the same sex.
This would apply even were the marriage between a man and girl, and even were it fully supported by religious belief. Which is actually not so hypothetical at all. If the law approved of this, then the law would be an arse.
Guess how many anti-SSM people think the law is an arse for allowing SSM.
But I think offering this up as an argument against consensual adults marrying is beyond the pale.
I very much disagree. And in some ways, you are helping to identify why convictions outweigh political agendas.
If you're instead suggesting that societal ills should be demonstrated against regardless of personal impact, then I agree. In so demonstrating, I run the risk of being arrested, or for others to vocally disagree with me. Which is what is happening here. I cannot expect to demonstrate against a popularly held belief (as in your hypothetical) and not face opposition. To be clear, though, claims of Christian persecution in Western society far outweighs Christian persecution in Western society. Two gay people marrying, even if right in front of a Christian, is not persecution. Just as me masturbating is not, whatever their beliefs on that as a sin.
But this issue is, should the Christian be civically forced to comply with all such service requests? Or going with my hypothetical, would you be okay with being forced to provide service to that couple, or would you actively resist to the point of saying your conviction disallows you to participate?
Some may. Take my answers and let me know, I guess.
I think you've missed the point, but feel my reply will bring it home. I think your options currently are to argue the consent item, hope you can win on that and deny the hypothetical (further missing the point) or backtrack and stay consistent with the item(s) you asked me and hinted that I'm the one being inconsistent. I wish you luck.
This seems to be applied very inconsistently. Are bakers going to reject atheists? Blacks? Muslims? Uncircumcised males? People who are marrying in mixed fabrics?
Part of the inconsistency, you are raising, is the type of person. I'm guessing if you had a business and were asked to service a 15 year old person individually or a 52 year old person individually, you'd have no problem, right? But if those same two people were marrying each other, then suddenly it's not about the people exactly, is it? I think the same holds true on this topic, in that the businesses aren't discriminating against the people, per say (as individuals) but on the religious conviction of who is worthy of marriage, in their understandings of their own religious tenets. For those people, such a topic is worthy to march in the streets for how opposed they are, regardless of it being 'law of the land.' I think they are able to tolerate it up to the point of - as long as 'my business isn't asked to provide service that essentially sanctions that ceremonial event.'
To what benefit is such an approach, in terms of society? Why does society have to subjugate human rights to a plethora of religious beliefs? What the heck is 'freedom' in the context with which you are using it? Why does divorce never come up in these discussions? Which biblical interpretation is accurate, and who is the authority, or is this purely around what people THINK. Anyway, this line of discussion seems to be wheeled out as an argument of convenience, as near as I can tell, rather than consistently applied to all such issues. It is generally disingenuous. I've never met anyone pursue it consistently across all groups. I'm sure such people exist. They're rare.
I think in all your hypotheticals, and the one I noted, if it can truly be pointed to before such a couple enters the business, requesting the service, it has a better leg to stand on in terms of actual religious freedom. If one day a prejudice person says, I will not serve your kind here, because, um, oh I guess it's against my religious beliefs, then I'd really like to see that backed up with whatever source they wish to provide. If it is 'made up on the spot,' then let that be known, as publicly as possible. If it's based on interpretation of existing doctrine that's been around for years (like thousands) and can be pointed to well before the situation arises, then I think that is (politically) different than what the other hypotheticals are seeking to get across. With my hypothetical, your conviction, as far as I can tell is based on idea that a 15 year old can't possibly consent. I disagree with such rhetoric, and am saying forget the current politics and deal with that hypothetical as if it is now law of the land. Do you (as a business) participate in providing your services? If not, what are you basing it on? And for me, that last question is rhetorical, cause I kinda get what you might base it on to quell such a discussion, but in the hypothetical, surely you'd realize things would change (IMO, only slightly from where they are now) to arrive at the place where the hypothetical is 'now true.' And believe it or not, I'd really rather not have the debate with you, not cause I t think I'll lose, but mostly cause neither of us will change our mind on the matter, and it IMO still serves as a very good hypothetical pertaining to this issue. More so than the ones that say 'type of person' can be refused service and that is seen as (most) relevant hypothetical.
