What are your thoughts on Chruch's refusing to wed gays?

[leibowde84]

Governments have no right to tell someone "You have to marry these two" What business is it of theirs? It's their church. It's nobody's business. What if you were against polygamy. Would you be comfortable wedding someone who was a polygamist? Marriage isn't part of the federal government's job. It should at least be on the state level. What if all Jews were required to work on the Sabbath or if Muslim store owners had to sell pork and beer, or if Zoroastrians had to uncover their heads or Sikhs had to shave their beards and take their turbans off. These laws don't do anything but violate the religions beliefs and rights of these people.

I really don't like the idea that somehow making gay marriage legal is promoting equality, while it violates so many religious beliefs, and not just Christian beliefs, too. It's not just a Christian thing to be against gay marriage,. Most religions, even the Baha'i Faith don't like it There will be some liberal groups within these religions but not too many religions support such things.

Why do they even need to be married? Why not just have a civil union or partnership? We already know the definition of marriage and changing the idea of it doesn't make sense. It's like calling a rose a sunflower, when it isn't. It's a rose. Call it what it is.

This is just a bunch of straw men crammed together. No one, besides judges maybe, are being forced to "marry" any same-sex couples. We are discussing an administrative duty completed after the marriage has already taken place before the court.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I think someone might think that if the church wants to be free to discriminate because of some invisible entity in the skies, then it should get at least financial independence, instead of letting everybody else, incuding the victims of the discrimination, paying taxes for them.

Ciao

- viole

This argument is impractical in USA, because it imposes religious views on churches. Maybe it would help if I point out that where I live there are no state churches, and marriages here have to be approved by the govt. not by a church. Some people choose to get married in churches, but some people do not. Either way they have to get the license through the government (I think). At minimum no one needs a church to get married, so its not like churches can prevent marriages here.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Anyways, I think that the relevant social change has already occurred in that churches are no longer in control of marriages. They are really irrelevant to the process in any legal sense -- except in countries where there is a state church. I think state churches are in a different situation. If the church is a state church, then it is a participant in politics, and then I think it should be required to abide by the govt. rulings. At the same time I think state churches are not a great idea to have.

 

[Katzpur]

No. Again, you misunderstand my comment. I am saying that, if the majority of people helped by a religious organization are member of that religion, it points to the religion itself being exclusive to some degree. If a charitable organization directs any efforts toward members of a specific religion of faith, I don't think they should be exempt from paying taxes. The fact that you agreed that "most of the people helped by Mormon Charities are Mormon themselves" is troubling to me, if the church was (hypothetically) fighting for charitable organization status.

I didn't misunderstand you; you misquoted me.

There is a huge difference between "a lot" and "most." I said "a lot" and you misquoted me as saying "most." In 2013 alone, LDS Charities provided help to nearly two million people in 132 countries (I was unable to find the 2014 figure). That far exceeds the number of Mormons who receive help from the Church in any given year. Furthermore, every penny donated is used to help those in need -- without regard to race, religion, or ethnic origin. There are no string attached (listening to missionaries, etc.) and most of those who benefit from the donations don't even know where the help came from. They just know it's there. That's true charity.

 

[Smart_Guy]

I don't think we have the right to force others to provide us with services that have specific rules we want to bend.

I still recommend people become flexible and forviging in providing services to others if there is possibility to do so. It is up to them to decide whither they bend their own rules, but not to be forced to.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I believe Thomas jefferson was in error because the wall keeps government out of the churches but does not keep churches out of the government.

Keeping churches out of government stops any one church from using the power of government to disadvantage other churches. That's the whole point: freedom of religion is aided by freedom from religion... at least in terms of the influence of religious institutions and organizations on government.

The American Revolution happened in the wake of (and in many senses was inspired by) the English Civil War. The American Founding Fathers were very familiar with a history that showed that when Catholics gained power, Protestants were oppressed, and when Protestants were in power, Catholics were oppressed. They created a system where no church was in power, so that no church would be oppressed.

Also, in 1776, the states had a mix of approaches to religion: some were officially Anglican, some were officially Congregationalist, some had no official religion (but in the case of Maryland, was predominantly Catholic and very sensitive to the potential for intolerance by Protestants). The Federal level, i.e. the level to which the First Amendment originally applied, the intent (IMO) was to create a system of government that assured all the states that no state's religion would have undue influence over the others. To do this, they engineered a system where religion does not have influence over the federal government, other than the influence of individual voters' consciences. With the Fourteenth Amendment, this system was extended to the states.

TL/DR: you're completely wrong.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't think we have the right to force others to provide us with services that have specific rules we want to bend.

I still recommend people become flexible and forviging in providing services to others if there is possibility to do so. It is up to them to decide whither they bend their own rules, but not to be forced to.

I disagree, because the existence of their business will often prevent another, more tolerant business from existing.

Say I want to build a grocery store in my town. If there isn't any available land zoned for a grocery store, I'll have to apply for a rezoning. As a condition of the rezoning (i.e. to get permission to build a grocery store on a new parcel of land), I'll probably have to do a market study to show that my grocery store won't negatively impact other nearby stores that already exist. If the market study shows that they will be negatively impacted, I won't be allowed to build my store.

Say that nearby existing store refuses to sell to some group of people (a particular race or sexual orientation, for instance). The fact that this store already exists will stop me from building my store.

Basically, the government has artificially limited competiton. That grocery store and its owner benefits from this: they get to charge higher prices and make more profit. I think it's entirely reasonable to ask that they do basic things (e.g. behave ethically) in exchange for this benefit.

Same for licensed professions (e.g. doctors, nurses, engineers, lawyers, skilled trades): they don't work in a pure free market. They've received benefit from society, and they owe benefit to society in exchange.

 

[Smart_Guy]

I disagree, because the existence of their business will often prevent another, more tolerant business from existing.

Say I want to build a grocery store in my town. If there isn't any available land zoned for a grocery store, I'll have to apply for a rezoning. As a condition of the rezoning (i.e. to get permission to build a grocery store on a new parcel of land), I'll probably have to do a market study to show that my grocery store won't negatively impact other nearby stores that already exist. If the market study shows that they will be negatively impacted, I won't be allowed to build my store.

Say that nearby existing store refuses to sell to some group of people (a particular race or sexual orientation, for instance). The fact that this store already exists will stop me from building my store.

Basically, the government has artificially limited competiton. That grocery store and its owner benefits from this: they get to charge higher prices and make more profit. I think it's entirely reasonable to ask that they do basic things (e.g. behave ethically) in exchange for this benefit.

Same for licensed professions (e.g. doctors, nurses, engineers, lawyers, skilled trades): they don't work in a pure free market. They've received benefit from society, and they owe benefit to society in exchange.

Yes, I could be wrong in my conclusion and I welcome your disagreement which is well put.

If I understand you correctly, do you mean the govt. has the right to force a kosher butchery store to sell pork and shellfish that are against the code of kosher, or a fisherman to sell beef that fishermen don't know how to deal with? Likewise, forcing churches to marry two of the same sex which is against the christian code that marriage is between a man and a woman only?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, I could be wrong in my conclusion and I welcome your disagreement which is well put.

If I understand you correctly, do you mean the govt. has the right to force a kosher butchery store to sell pork and shellfish that are against the code of kosher, or a fisherman to sell beef that fishermen don't know how to deal with?

No, I don't. Any shop will have products they sell and products they don't. It isn't a major imposition on society if my local butcher shop doesn't sell bacon but does sell kosher Montreal smoked meat. I'll still be able to eat.

OTOH, if that butcher shop decides to ban Muslims, that IS a major imposition on society. If enough people do the same, Muslims in that community might not be able to buy food at all.

Likewise, forcing churches to marry two of the same sex which is against the christian code that marriage is between a man and a woman only?

I think that forcing churches to marry people against the tenets of their faith is too extreme... though if a church rents out their parish hall to the public, I don't think they should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion as to who they rent it to.

 

[Smart_Guy]

No, I don't. Any shop will have products they sell and products they don't. It isn't a major imposition on society if my local butcher shop doesn't sell bacon but does sell kosher Montreal smoked meat. I'll still be able to eat.

OTOH, if that butcher shop decides to ban Muslims, that IS a major imposition on society. If enough people do the same, Muslims in that community might not be able to buy food at all.

I think that forcing churches to marry people against the tenets of their faith is too extreme... though if a church rents out their parish hall to the public, I don't think they should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion as to who they rent it to.

I think your point is clear to me now.

Thank you for answering my questions

 

[Jumi]

I think "forcing churches to marry gays" has more to do with countries where there isn't a separation between church and state. That's how it has been in my country. Now the church follows the attitudes of today and changes with the law. Only that church here will be required to accept everyone who is a member of their church.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

so a government should not be able to force a business to sell a certain product but should be able to force to sell to people they don't want to sell to

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

“Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court. Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.”

It’s inconceivable that a Catholic Church – or any house of worship – could be forced to perform gay marriages, even if their religion prohibits it. And if they don’t, they could lose their status as a “church.”

Is this unintended consequences, or was it liberal, gay-rights advocates’ intention to destroy the institution of religion too?

Thoughts?

The judges are bored with themselves, and seek to make themselves the center of attention by making a mess of the laws.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

it seems that courts are doing everything they can to make the practice of one's religion difficult

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

so a government should not be able to force a business to sell a certain product but should be able to force to sell to people they don't want to sell to

They should be able to ensure that businesses don't discriminate, yes. Why would this be an issue?

it seems that courts are doing everything they can to make the practice of one's religion difficult

Only when "the practice of one's religion" involves hurting people.

 

[BenTheBeliever]

They should be able to ensure that businesses don't discriminate, yes. Why would this be an issue?


Only when "the practice of one's religion" involves hurting people.

Other then hurting people feelings how is refusing to marry people in a church hurting people?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Other then hurting people feelings how is refusing to marry people in a church hurting people?

Why would you think I was talking about refusing to marry people in a church?

 

[BenTheBeliever]

Why would you think I was talking about refusing to marry people in a church?

Because that is the topic of this thread

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because that is the topic of this thread

The conversation has expanded since then. My post that you quoted was part of a conversation about discrimination by Christians in the context of business.

 

[columbus]

The conversation has expanded since then.

It isn't hard to grasp the misunderstanding though.
Ben is new and the OP title is very pointed.
Tom