Lupu on "The Blossoming Union of Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Freedom":
My friend and colleague Chip Lupu has a very interesting guest post on that topic over at Concurring Opinions. The introduction:
After approval of Proposition 8 in California last fall, who would have expected to find the movement for same-sex marriage and concern for religious freedom on common ground in the spring? As legislatures in Vermont and Connecticut have just demonstrated, however, a long-overdue reconciliation between claims of marriage equality and those of religious liberty is there for the taking.
What's really happening is that these legislators have cut the legs out from under the latest Chicken Little argument of the anti-same-sex marriage faction, i.e., that SSM will result in the criminal prosecution of traditionalist clergy.
That was never a legitimate concern to begin with under the First Amendment. These "religious liberty" components do thing to strengthen the right of traditionalist clergy to freely exercise their religious beliefs.
Only by dint of one vote in Boy Scouts v. Dale.
I figured it was only a matter of time before they just told everybody to kiss-off.
So it was anti-democratic for unelected judges to force same-sex marriage upon the citizenry, and now it's....
anti-democratic for the ELECTED LEGISLATURE to force same-sex marriage upon the citizenry.
Got it.
I would address this issue at further length, but I have to repair the damage to my marriage caused by these anti-democratic New England legislatures.
You would have the state legislatures barred from passing laws re: marriage. Should the people vote on all state legislation through referenda? Why not just disband the legislative branch altogether, and just have the people propose a series of referenda?
I didn't realize begging the state to validate their relationships was really a campaign to control their own lives.
Where did I say anything about it being anti-Democratic? And maybe you could spend a fraction of your energy being a smart-aleck to see the FIRST POST I made on this blog post. You know, if it's not too much trouble.
Civics 101. Thanks a lot.
Just because pro-SSM legislatures are afraid to let the voters decide this policy idea doesn't mean I'm against the existence of state legislatures.
And omitting it would be a slap in the face of everyone whose religion teaches that same-sex sexual relationships are wrong. It raises interesting side issues as well. Suppose someone insists on having their ceremony at a kosher facility, or catered by a kosher caterer. If the owner is Orthodox, he or she cannot participate in such an event. In any case, the Rabbinic organization who certifies the hall or the caterer as kosher, is a non-profit religious organization and cannot be forced to participate. Holding the event without a supervisor will result in the business losing its supervision. Hey, tough luck for catering (no pun intended) to a bunch of narrow-minded religious bigots, right? Find some other line of business. Better yet, if we make it impossible to operate a kosher catering business, those crazy Jews will drop their stupid opposition to same sex marriage.
Yeah, tell me again about the tolerance of "progressives".
Forget the civil unions / marriage terminology question.
Control over their lives means: gay couples have equal control over: inheritance, immigration rights, pensions, next-of-kin status, divorce, property regime, taxes, all the other benefits.
You want to deprive people of control over their lives in these areas, for your own aesthetic reasons. That is anti-democratic
As has been said, those provisions are actually redundent, and serve only to point up the lies spread by opponants of SSM.
Your made-up situation is impossible. No one can insist on having any ceremony in a private religious venue. A Muslim cannot get married at a kosher (religious) venue. A Protestant cannot marry at a Catholic venue. Why is it any different for gays?
Vermont and Connecticut don't have initiative procedures. Maine has an initiative procedure that allows citizens to "veto" recent legislation. So I don't see how the action of the legislatures in those states demonstrates that they "figured they might as well stop letting the people vote on it."
I don't think it would be impossible for a Moslem to get married in a kosher venue.
Let's say I wanted to operate an event hall and I wanted the business of a nearby large Orthodox community. It would be in my right to install a kosher kitchen (and keep up the certifications).
Once I open it as a public accommodation (that is, not the social hall of an Orthodox shul), I have to admit everyone who is willing to to abide by the rules (such as all food must be kosher, so they may not provide their own food or food handlers).
After all, though I am not an Orthodox Jew, I can eat at a glatt kosher deli where a rabbi has certified everything.
Likewise, in the example of the event hall, I can't claim that it's a violation of my religious rights if a Moslem wants to rent out my hall. They still can't serve shrimp (permitted for Moslems).
Serving kosher food to people who are not Orthodox Jews does not de-kasher the facility. People who operate public accommodations have to make them available to the public.
Just as no restaurant can post a "No Jews" sign, nor can one post a "Jews Only" sign. A kosher caterer sells kosher food to people. They do not check the halachic status of the people eating the food.
You don't need a marriage license for those things, except marrying an immigrant, obviously.
Not that I know what you're referring to, but if you're talking about religious exemptions, to use a line commonly used by people who support gay marriage: it's not going to hurt anybody, so what's the big deal? Why do you care if it's hinged on "lies" or not. It's null outcome is justification enough, right?
Because it's the same psychology people tried to work on CA voters with Prop 8. When you go on and legalize something, people figure that's the point of no return, even if it goes on a ballot. People are less likely to vote down something that's already legal than something that isn't already implemented. Of course there are exceptions (CA being one of them), but that's the reason why people don't want it to be legal in the first place.
Yeah, tyrrany of the minority. I guess Publius got that one wrong.
Okay. Yes, if it is legally open to the public then they have to let in the public according to whatever anti-discrimination laws are on the books. If it is private then there is no such requirement. A deli is usually something public, but if it is private nothing is stopping us from having a private, "Jews Only" deli - just like we can have a Basque chess club or a gay bar with no women allowed. Religious events and ceremonies tend to be by definition not open to the public. Religious ceremonies and community events are not public services that everyone gets access too, like food or medical care are. It is a group's decision whether they want to go public or private (with respective across-the-board benefits and restrictions) Right?
Again, not related to the SSM debate (the conflict would have happened even if the civil unions had been purely symbolic, not legal)
The question is not whether anyone's rights are up for a vote, but who is doing the voting--people, legislature, executive, judiciary--and whether it takes a simple majority or a super-majority. As for Prop. 8, you might want to create a second, less churlish sign for those of us who voted for Prop. 8 in the event that the Court upholds it.
John D., I can't think of why a non-Jew would want to pay the extra cost of a kosher affair, but as you observed, there is no reason I can think of why the certifying organization (which as a religious organization would be exempt) would not furnish a supervisor in such a case to supervise the catering hall. But that's not the situation that I posited.
From your responses, I assume you know little about the Jewish religion, the kosher catering business, or how kosher certification works. Your answers do not address the situation that I posited.Made up as opposed to hypothetical, eh? But we are not talking about a private religious venue. Most kosher catering halls are privately owned, for-profit venues that offer a service to the Jewish religious community. If the exemption is limited to non-profit religious organizations, a same sex couple could indeed insist on holding its ceremony there. That couple may be Jewish, non-Jewish or mixed.
Serving kosher food to people who are not Orthodox Jews does not de-kasher the facility.
Indeed. I never said it did. It's not even necessary to my hypothetical, as this could even be a Jewish couple, G-d forbid (oh, wait a minute, He already has), and may even consider themselves Orthodox, and therefore want Kosher food at the event.
True, but serving non-kosher food to anyone does. As does preparing non-kosher food. And the same food can be kosher or non-kosher depending on who is there when it is being prepared -- it is not the presence of a non-Jew, but the absence of the Rabbinic organization's supervisor, that is the problem.
And there's the rub. Serving or preparing ANY food in the facility to ANYONE -- Jewish or not, Orthodox or not -- without the presence of the Rabbinic organization's supervisor may render the facility non-kosher, and will almost certainly be a violation of the facility's supervision contract with the Rabbinic organization. I have negotiated several of these contracts for one organization, and have seen the form used by several others. Have you so much as seen one?
Let me emphasize -- if the Mashgiach (supervisor) is not present, so much as putting food on a plate, lighting the oven, or even opening the kitchen can render kitchen non-kosher. In any event, it would be grounds for the Rabbinic organization to terminate the contract. At the very least, it can result in the organization requiring the facility to be re-kashered at considerable cost, including burning out the ovens, cleaning all work surfaces with boiling water, and purging or replacing utensils, as well as the cost of supervision during this process, labor of the owner's own employees,and "down time".
How familiar are you with the laws of bishul akum? The laws of basar nislaam me'ayin? Can you tell me the difference between a mashgich tamidi and a yotzei v'nichnas? If (as I suspect) you haven't the least idea what I just said, please don't be so quick to tell me that I have posited an impossible situation. And if you start to object that these rules do not apply to private homes, I will tell you not to waste my time, as private homes, unlike businesses, do not need to be formally certified.
And there's the problem. No reputable Rabbinic organization is going to send a supervisor to an event that is prohibited by the Torah, whether the event is a same sex ceremony,a wedding of two Jews one of whom is has received a civil divorce from her prior husband but not a religious divorce, a Jew who wants to marry a non-Jew, or a heterosexual swingers party. And without an exemption, that puts the owner in an impossible position.
Also, despite BSA v. Dale. The gay Nazis are gonna outlaw all Christianity as bigotry. The Constitution means nothing to the Sodomites!
Too many people think that proper role of religion is restricted to what you say and do in church one hour a week and what you say on your knees at bed time. As a friend of mine explained to a Christian colleague who told him how inconvenient keeping kosher and Sabbath observance seemed to her, "either your life runs your religion or your religion runs your life -- and if your life runs your religion, you don't have a religion, you have a hobby."
They have the right to do that... as long as they aren't on the public dole.
In the future before the license such groups they can just ask -" will you comply with state non-discrimination statutes and understand that if you don't comply your tax exemptions can be rescinded?" That way no one need do what they shouldn't, state or private organization.
So how is a Moslem eating in a certified kosher deli different from one eating in a event hall where the food is prepared by Orthodox Jews? All the Judaica you brought up was irrelevant to my main question.
I stipulated that the event hall could insist on its own employees and food (just as I can't go into a restaurant with food, barge into the kitchen, and prepare it for myself).
Your hypothetical was this:
My understanding is that "under rabbinic supervision" does not mean that a rabbi is present at all times. They come in and inspect.
I suspect that kosher caterers often bring kosher food into non-kosher homes and establishments.
I don't think your hypothetical is related to any real-world concerns.
As for the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association (not actually a church), they had a pavilion on public property. There was a dual exemption involved, one for operating a private concern on public property, the other a tax exemption for agreeing to operate it in accord with all state laws.
The best way to describe this is "a religious group makes an agreement with the state and then reneges on it."
Ironically, after they agreed to pay taxes, they were able to turn another group away.
Churches and parsonages are special exceptions and if they deserve them or not is upto debate. But an ancillary organization - taking a tax break is most definitely being on the public dole. I'd be more prone to removing the other exemptions than giving them all a pass.
"And there's the problem. No reputable Rabbinic organization is going to send a supervisor to an event that is prohibited by the Torah, whether the event is a same sex ceremony,a wedding of two Jews one of whom is has received a civil divorce from her prior husband but not a religious divorce, a Jew who wants to marry a non-Jew, or a heterosexual swingers party. And without an exemption, that puts the owner in an impossible position."
Are you saying that a Rabbinic organization would currently be forced to participate in a Jew/non-Jew wedding? If the rules clearly state that we cannot have a kosher facility if we do certain things (like serving shrimp, even to non-Jews) on our premises. Is this not already protected? How would SSM obligate them to rent out their facility to a gay couple any more than the fact that shrimp is legal in the United States would force them to serve shrimp? It's against their rules, end of story, right?
First of all, it takes very little energy for me to be a smart aleck.
Second of all, I did read your FIRST POST, and I could only conclude that it was silly. Here's what you said:
So help me out here, because I'm spending too much time being a smart aleck, and I don't read carefully.
Your complaint is that the legislature's ONLY reason for passing same-sex marriage legislation is to stop the people from voting on the matter, ala Prop 8?
Yet this alleged intentional vote-stopping scheme is NOT, in your view, an example of the legislature trying to thwart the will of the people?
And your complaint, whatever it is, applies even in states that don't have initiatives or referenda?
I think maybe your problem is that when COURTS extend marriage rights to homosexuals, bigotry can hide behind criticisms of judicial activism. But when the legislature acts, there is no place to hide. Legislative action extending marriage rights to homosexuals is fundamentally democratic. And there is no obvious constitutional problem with this legislative action, since the legislature is increasing (or perhaps the better word is equalizing) a minority's rights.
Finally, the resulting "harm" to the alleged silent opposing majority is, so far as I can tell, a wholly speculative claim made by people who just don't like homosexuals.
In other words, don't confuse you by bringing up actual requirements of the Jewish religion as to what is and is not required for the preparation of kosher food. I see that you must have read a pamphlet some time on the subject. Among other things, you seem to be laboring under the misconception that kashrus is purely a physical trait. It is not.
Your understanding is correct in some cases but by no means all. It all depends on the nature of the operation and the requirements of the supervising organization.
You suspect right. But if no supervisor is there, the caterer will not send it on his own dishes. Not many people want their wedding catered on disposable plates and dishes. Without the supervisor's cooperation, the plates and utensils cannot be brought back to the caterer's facility. And besides, suppose the couple want their event to be held in the caterer's facility? Again, if the suervising organization refuses to send a supervisor, that's the end of the discussion.
Yes.
Wrong. The problem is not what the law can force the rabbinic organization to do; it's what the private business who relies on that organization can be forced to do. If you can force the private caterer to cater the event, and the rabbinic organization cannot in good conscience participate, the caterer is forced to choose between losing his certification and liveliehood or being sanctioned by the state for refusing to cater the event.
Given the conflict, I would err on the side of religious freedom. This would become a problem if we had same-sex couples or another group unable to access a variety of public services in their area. I also see a qualitative difference between non-essential services like marriage catering or adoption, and essential services (a homeless shelter refusing to feed homeless gay teenagers, or a pharmacist refusing to give someone HIV medication on religious grounds). It's a question of proportion and which group is placing an unacceptable burden on the other. Again, it is separate from the SSM issue. Some European countries have SSM but allow discrimination in services, and vice versa
I agree as well, but religious freedom doesn't mean much if it applies only to religious organizations, and not to adherents of the religion. ("Sorry, Mr. Penn, but you are a Quaker lay person and not clergy, so I'm afraid you have no right not to bow before His Majesty.")
I agree, which of course applies to a variety of contexts and not merely same sex couples.
Also agreed. Are you aware of any such instances?
Sadly, many in the US (and elsewhere) today have lost any sense of proportion.
they had been placing children with same gender couples for some time, they had a policy change. And it had nothing to do with same gender marriage or civil unions, it was about the a state licensed entity not following the state civil rights statutes.
I ask the same question vis a vis the wedding photographer in NM.
You mean you really don't know that the photographer didn't politely refuse with any one of a dozen possible excuses but made a specific point to tell the couple exactly how sinful they were and hammered it with the big 'your a sinner' stick?
I agree as well, but religious freedom doesn't mean much if it applies only to religious organizations, and not to adherents of the religion
That would be a rationalization for anything thing then - "My religion makes me do it". They have a right to their religion, they don't have a right to pretend that others share their religion. Case in point - what religious tenet would the photographer violated by taking pictures of the ceremony? Are the conducting the ceremony? No. Are they condoning sin? No, the people don't share her religion - they can't sin. Exactly what 'religious freedom' is involved in taking photos?
In other words, The People are united against SSM, and they should have a direct vote on it, so that they can vote against it in their wisdom. But once SSM is allowed, these same People are too stupid to realize what's been done to them, and are less likely to vote down something that's already legal.
It might be that the real reason people are less likely to vote down something is that they see that all the fearmongering from people like you was completely worthless.
And so far, none of the policians who voted for SSM in Mass has been voted out of office.
Let me guess, you didn't actually live it, right? COs only avoided carrying a gun, not combat. They still served, they still served those that were doing the very things they would not do themselves.
Using this rationale means the photographer would be forced to be in a gay wedding, it doesn't get them out of providing support for a gay wedding.
United States v. Holmes being a lot like Boy Scouts v. Dale, except for turning out the wrong way of course.
Religious freedom means nothing if an ordinary individual is prevented from living out his beliefs. If these beliefs violate laws in dramatic ways (animal sacrifice, a commandment to stone someone to death, or the Quakers' religious obligation to help slaves escape) then the religious person will be forced to accept the legal punishment as the cost of following the belief. But we try to avoid these situations by allowing some added flexibility to individuals who are acting on their beliefs in ways that do not have a huge impact on society. That's why we have religious accomodation for holidays, clothing, things like that.
When the legal conflict comes up, the individual usually has to show some evidence (a letter from a rabbi, a certificate from the Quaker Meeting) that he or she is really a part of a religious organization or community with such a restriction. This is to prevent just random people from taking off work or in this case maybe refusing to offer a service just because they don't feel like it.
It's no fun to be discriminated against but there are no laws that forbid offending each other.
@ Yakev
The Bush administration's conscience objections in principle allow emergency rooms to refuse rape victims emergency contraception, and HIV medication to gay people (there is a time-sensitive medication that can save you from getting the infection in the first hours after an at risk sexual act, so refusal can have very serious consequences). I don't know how many people this happened to, and I know one of the first things Obama did was to start reversing this. There have been state laws proposed that would allow doctors to refuse to treat gay patients but I think there was an exception for emergency room care.
I don't agree with religious freedom that can negatively impact other people's safety or health
What an ironic statement.
I wasn't complaining. But yeah, I do think they would rather just institute it rather than put it on a ballot.
It is, to an extent.
Now how would it pertain to a state that doesn't have initiatives or referenda?
Riiight. Perhaps you should go look at my first post in the "Gay marriage in Maine" post.
Just because your so simple-minded that this issue comes down to your personal feelings about homosexuals doesn't mean everyone else thinks that way.
Not quite. But people effectively think an issue is decided when it's put into law. And the longer it is law, the harder it is to convince large masses of people to vote against it.
Nah. That sounds like it might be true, but it's not.
Proof?
Why would that be? Clearly, the only reason supporters of SSM have is to utterly destroy marriage. And of course, that WILL happen when SSM is legalized. So The People will see this and vote to overturn the law, right?
Classic.
That is true of some CO's. Others did community service. It depended on the nature of their objection.
As to your guess, you would be wrong. I am a Vietnam Veteran from the time when the draft was going strong.
I have a friend who was a CO on non-religious grounds. He was sent to federal prison. I respect him for his commitment to his principles, that he would do that rather than slink off to Canada like other people I knew.
I have a friend who was a CO on non-religious grounds. He was sent to federal prison. I respect him for his commitment to his principles, that he would do that rather than slink off to Canada like other people I knew.
I've always said that Don't Ask Don't Tell will be gone the second a draft is ever re-implemented in this country. Slinking off to Canada is a lot more of a hassle than just saying the magic words "I'm gay" to that military recruiter.
It's possible. OTOH, people used all sorts of tricks to get out of the draft. Hardly anyone I know was drafted, although a few of us volunteered. A friend carefully studied anatomy, and then shot himself in the leg and got a "nutso" deferment. Another used a weak acid to create lesions on his feet, mentioned a recent trip to Brazil and how he couldn't get rid of the fungus, and got off. Several graduated from college (losing their student deferment) and took jobs at defense contractors. Given all of that, you can appreciate the moral courage of my friend who went to prison due to his objections.
OTOH, when I was taking my induction physical, a centrifuge full of test tubes of blood screwed up and splattered it all over the place. The medic running it said "there's 50 that pass" and started checking off names on his clipboard.
I wouldn't be surprised if a few "I'm gay"'s got arrested after the FBI found them in a heterosexual relationship, though.
No problem. All they have to say is that they found Jesus and repented. Then they could be poster boys for Exodus.
No, they would then be drafted.
BTW, Exodus was a book and movie about the founding of Israel, unless you mean the book in the old testament, also Jewish. If you're going to insult religions, you might want to at least know the difference.
Cheers,
Exodus is also the name of a Christian ex-gay ministry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_International
Exodus is also the name of a Christian ex-gay ministry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_International
BobVB
You mean you really don't know that the photographer didn't politely refuse with any one of a dozen possible excuses but made a specific point to tell the couple exactly how sinful they were and hammered it with the big 'your a sinner' stick?
I agree as well, but religious freedom doesn't mean much if it applies only to religious organizations, and not to adherents of the religion
That would be a rationalization for anything thing then - Thye don't pretend that at all. Saying that I must approve what someone else does because their religion approves it is demanding that I adopt their religion. My religion says somethings are prohibited to adherents of my religion (e.g. eating shellfish) and some things are prohibited to everyone (e.g. murder, sex between two men, adultery). Other religions, I realize, are more universal in their demands.
They are, and they may be facilitating it, as well.
All depends on the religion and on the photos, doesn't it? E.g. some religions prohibit their members from going into certain places. If the photographer is forced by law to go into one of those places to take the photos, would you agree that her religious freedom has been violated?
I didn't know that. Can you point me to a source? I have not met many Christians who act in that fashion -- most believe that all humans are sinners and that self-righteousness is a tremendous sin in and of itself.
No, they aren't. Those people can't sin as they don't share the religious law, sin is a violation of religious law. It would be like worrying about 'chipmunk sin', it just doesn't exist to a Christian UNLESS they pretend the people share their religion which they have no right to do. I mean if you can pretend someone has committed a crime and get away with denying them service because of that that pretty much means you deny anyone anything anytime you want.
And your 'e.g.' is pretty much a strawman, again, what religious freedom of the photographer's were violated?
I didn't know that. Can you point me to a source?
No I can't - this is all very old news - it was an interview with the couple probably on advocate.com or 365.com but nothing is showing up on a Google scan. And there are many people who are claiming to be Christian that have absolutely no compulsion to act christ-like. There are basically 2 camps of Christians today - those that think Jesus was a teacher and to be emulated and those that think his death was more a 'get out of jail free' card and make no apparent effort to be emulate him at all and actually act more like the Pharisees in their obsession with who is and isn't following 'the rules'.
Again, there were probably a dozen ways the photographer could have demured on doing the photo shoot without the couple being any the wiser, she choose to make it clear it was due to prejudice and a clear violation of the state civil rights law for public accommodations.
The Pharisees were the group of Jews in Talmudic times who practiced what is normative Orthodox Judaism today. The other camp, the Sadduccees, practiced a form of Judaism that was and is considered heretical, and that died out shortly after the Temple was destroyed. For reasons having to do with the politics of the day and their campaign to popularize the Christian religion among non-Jews, Christian Bible uses the term Pharisees to mean "hypocrite". When you say Pharisee, you are saying "Believer in the Jewish religion." It is an ignorant and bigoted usage, no less than "Jew him down". I suppose that under your standard for the wedding photographer, I should see about having you prosecuted in NM if this blog appears there.
As Miss Manners would say 'how very nice for you' but if I don't and if the acts aren't illegal they are of no interest or importance to me as a customer and you have no right to assume I share your religious view point. If you can say I am violating a law we both have a presumptive consensus acceptance of, like our legally defined ones, you have a point. But a made up one that only you share? Sorry that means I can deny services to all of the superstitious at my discretion. So should all civil rights laws be rescinded and all can do as they will or do we set limits, one being that I don't have to share your religion if I don't want to and still have a right to do business with you regardless?
When you say Pharisee, you are saying "Believer in the Jewish religion."
No, I'm saying Pharisee, the guys with white sepulchers for hearts - or are YOU saying that is a quality followers of the Jewish faith have? You once again are projecting what you think I should think upon me just like the photographer, you don't have that right.
Its all mythology - might as well be talking about what Captain Kirk would do or the divinity of Superman. Who cares what history says - we are talking a about people who think the suns stopped in the sky - its comic book stuff, which is fine - I know lots of people really into comic books, star wars, and the like. But they can't pretend I'm a Sith Lord and deny me service in a public accommodation.
Some stricter Christian sects may view non-monotheists (Hindus, Buddhists, Native Americans) as carrying out idolatry or devil-worship. Do they get a religious exemption from offering services (catering, photographing, adopting to) that require some degree of support or participation? Just to make sure this applies across the board...
The photographer was asked to take photographs and unless the very act of taking photographs of someone was making them violate their faith anything beyond that is 'their problem' not their customers. If you start allowing exemptions for other than direct actions that depend only on presumption of violations of purely religious law at their will there is effectively no enforceable civil rights legislation left.
Migh be a bit harsh but refusing to photograph my totally legal wedding because you think I am a sinner or that my wedding itself is a sin is no different than refusing to do it because you think I am a Sith Lord or that my wedding advances the Sith agenda. Either way is that how we really want to go as a society?
The US usually allows people to subject themselves to religious strictures, if it doesn't affect others. On the other hand, in France they passed a law saying that Muslim women have to accept to be treated by male doctors and nurse, even though this is a sin. In the US, for Jehovah's witnesses, accepting a blood transfusion willingly is seen as a sinm, to the point of no longer being considered as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Many Jehovah's Witnesses carry a signed and witnessed advance directive card absolutely refusing blood and releasing doctors from any liability. But there have been cases where doctors have gone to court to get permission to give blood to children against the wishes of parents who are Jehovah's Witnesses.
So it seems that in American law, whether your religious stricture affects other people is a big distinction. Also What degree of a burden you are imposing (denying a blood transfusion to a child and not photographing a wedding seem to be very different). So what exactly should the cut-off point be? Should we exempt specific professions? Specific actions?
Again, NONE of this is related to SSM. All of these questions exist whether the SSM event is a legal marriage or not.
It wasn't an insult. Exodus is the leading 'ex-gay' organization. They claim that they can turn you from gay to straight by having gay men cross their legs like straights, snap rubber bands against their skin every time they are tempted by another man, attend football games, among other dubious and unproven methods. Lesbians are taught to wear make up and told to avoid tools and sports.
I wasn't aware of that meaning of the term in the gay context. Sorry.
BTW, there's no reason to believe that there are not "ex-gays" - although many homosexuals have no choice, that can't possibly be true for all, given the many gradations of sexuality. Through much of history, there were few homosexuals, only bisexuals.
The Exodus group does seem loopy, though.
No, I am saying that like the Samaritans, the Pharisees were real people who lived in a given place at a given time, not mythical creatures, that the Christian Bible attributes to the Pharisees any number of undesirable qualities, and that historically, the Pharisees' religion was what today is referred to as Orthodox Judaism. Don't take my word for it, check into it. This is religious and cultural history, and can be documented just as any other intellectual history, and has indeed been documented. Google "pharisees rabbinic judaism" and find out for yourself. I realize that most Americans do not know that the Christian Bible uses Pharisee to mean "Jewish hypocrite" and most people who use the term today do not intend the "Jewish" part, but it was there in the original.
No, I am being ironic and pointing out that for someone who gets so easily offended at other people's religious beliefs, you are capable of inadverently giving offense yourself.
Which explains why you are readu to do away with the right of free exercise if it causes you the least inconveniences or hurts your feelings.
Well, we agree on that at least.
See that's totally backwards - it was the photographer that was easily offended that people don't share her belief system. I am open to people worshipping anything as long as they don't make the mistake of pretending I'm participating too.
Which explains why you are readu to do away with the right of free exercise if it causes you the least inconveniences or hurts your feelings.
Again, they are the ones that don't support others not practicing their beliefs, not me. Who is it refusing to photograph someone who doesn't share their belief system because they are pretending they do? Again, I can't sin - its impossible, I have no religious laws to violate. You can't say I'm a sinner because I don't share your religious law - you can only decide if YOU are a sinner - your right to your religion stops at my nose, to paraphrase.
Most of the time if we experience discrimination it is usually a flippant sort from non-religious people who then scramble to come up with an on-the-spot religious or political justification, but let's not forget that there are people whose religions are an essential part of their identity. Those people are not doing it just to spite us..
Which means that all discriminatory practices can be justified and might as well rescind all civil rights legislation.
Let's agree to take people's religious beliefs seriously and not compare them to Superman
So I should lie, or just keep my opinion to myself? Again, it is the grandiose narcissism of some and their religion that leads to their presumption that everyone has to play their game with them. Again, I think its about as likely Superman exists as Jehovah and I am as offended and perplexed at saying I can't do business with them because Jehovah said so as much as if they said its because I'm a Sith Lord.
That's where the ire comes from - the deal was 'you get to practice your religion and i get NOT to practice it and in return I won't make you kowtow to my beliefs' - if they violate that deal by pretending I do share their beliefs and I can't get public accommodation because of it I think I have a right to be upset - they are basically stealing, making me play their game while I have specifically avoided making them play mine. It is such violations that lead to in kind retaliation.
Unfortunately for your neat little world view, many religions do not define sin the way you do. You define sin as going against one's religious beliefs. That's understandable, since you told us that you believe all religion is hooey. But to many religions, sin does not mean going against one's own religious beliefs, it means going against the will of G-d. You believe there is no G-d, which may or may not be the reason that you apparently do not want to acknowledge that this definition exists.
No, but I find it ironic that this is exactly what you are demanding that people with religious scruples against facilitating same sex sex to do.
Again, it is the grandiose narcissism of some and their religion that leads to their presumption that everyone has to play their game with them. Again, I think its about as likely Superman exists as Jehovah and I am as offended and perplexed at saying I can't do business with them because Jehovah said so as much as if they said its because I'm a Sith Lord.
That's where the ire comes from - the deal was 'you get to practice your religion and i get NOT to practice it and in return I won't make you kowtow to my beliefs' - if they violate that deal by pretending I do share their beliefs and I can't get public accommodation because of it I think I have a right to be upset - they are basically stealing, making me play their game while I have specifically avoided making them play mine. It is such violations that lead to in kind retaliation.
Okay, so you're offended and perplexed. Things happen every day that offend and perplex me, and I am by no means unique in that regard. Learn to live with it and find your own way to cope with it short of fining and jailing people to bend them to your will.
Some might even say that believing no one has a right to offend or perplex you is a symptom of grandiose narcissism.
No one's asking you to practice it; they are asking you not to force them to violate it.
But of course you do not scruple to force them to kowtow to your belief as to what sin does or does not mean, and whether their religion does or does not permit them to do something, or for that matter whether their religion is real or is mere superstitious nonsense. Again, what wonderful irony.
-Which no one has done -- not the photographer, not the Catholic adoption agency, and not any of the people in my hypothetical.
Be sure to wear some gloves while you keep punching that straw man -- straw under the fingernails can be very painful.
At all, or simply from the provider who declined for religious reasons? If there is money to be made at accommodating you, will it be that difficult to find a business willing to accommodate you? Especially as acceptance of same sex couples grows?
Nu, so be upset. You have every right to be upset. What the heck, be outraged.
Uh-huh. You might want to re-read Orwell some time.
They are forcing you to go to their church? They are forcing you not to marry your same sex partner? Here I thought they were simply sitting still and declining to participate.
And you have avoided that how? By demanding the right to use the law to bludgeon them into accommodating you?
Fine -- so decline to use their business. Unless your idea of "in-kind" means hitting them with thousands of dollars in fines and legal fees.
Tell me again the part about grandiose narcissism. A good chuckle at an outrageous bit of irony is one of the things that perks me up when I am offended and perplexed.
We are just going to have to disagree - you seem to be saying that people can judge others by their own beliefs and deny them public accommodation. I would say that means civil rights statutes aren't worth the paper they are written on.
Again, I'll play the game anyway you want as long as its decided ahead of time. If I can be religiously discriminated against then I will do the same as I see fit too.
No whining now when that happens.
Uh, no, it's not a sin to own a gun. We're allowed to hunt, you know.
But regarding your statement, any private business has the right to exclude firearms, if they so choose. So what exemption are you contemplating here?
Should the US be like some European countries where there are NO anti-discrimination laws in providing services? (Until recently in Italy, it was totally OK for a landlord to tell a tenant, "I only rent to people from countries A, B, C") Should we be like that? Europe is moving away from that. I guess we would want to allow a religious-based exemption rather than just an ideology- or personal preference-based exemption. For which professions? Do athiests get exemptions to decline to photograph and cater to religious events? There are a lot of questions to resolve
BTW, there's no reason to believe that there are not "ex-gays" - although many homosexuals have no choice, that can't possibly be true for all, given the many gradations of sexuality. Through much of history, there were few homosexuals, only bisexuals.
The Exodus group does seem loopy, though."
No problem. I should have been more clear.
I agree, there may be some gays who can change -- I never doubted that. The number is quite small though, and I'm not sure if they are really bisexual and they just repress their gay side. I don't know, and I don't pretend to know the real answer.
But yes, all ex-gay groups are loopy. The one good thing about them, especially the 'camps' that cater to changing teens and young people, is that they bring a lot of gay people together for, usually, the first time in their lives, and many gay people report that their first real gay sexual experience in these camps. Sweetly ironic, if you ask me!
Indeed
Cheers,
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.