(November 21, 2017 at 1:49 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: These are totally different issues. Your question is really this. "Why should religions be allowed to decide what sacramental rites they will perform in accordance with their spiritual traditions?"

Or more generally, Why should private social organizations be allowed to decide their own terms of membership?

I have no problems with atheists or gays making their own organizations and excluding me.

If it's against their religion they shouldn't be forced to do it.

(November 21, 2017 at 3:23 am)Bow Before Zeus Wrote: Ok, time for another thread. This time I am going to try to be a little more compassionate and considerate with the feelings of the xtians here in stating the truth in a more conciliatory fashion. Hope I get it right this time!

Some of you might be aware that Australia has just spent $120M on a non-binding voluntary (our parliamentary voting is mandatory) vote on same sex marriage (SSM). For the tech-heads out there, that's around 2 SpaceX rocket launches worth of voting!!!! Anyway, the votes are in and surprise, surprise, about 61% of those that voted were for SSM & 39% were against. About what phone polls (at a fraction of the cost) were already showing. So, great news for gay and lesbian couples, yes? Not so fast, speed racer! You see, we have a right wing conservative government in power at the moment so they're not going to make this so easy. They have now decided to debate a bill which ensures "freedom of religion". Which basically means religions will have the right to discriminate against a section of the community. If it is against the religion to marry gay couples, they will have the right to decline!!! So what the majority voted for is going to be rejected at the pulpit!!! We still are not getting what we voted for.

Why should religions be allowed to discriminate when the person in the street isn't allowed to? What if the section of the community they were allowed to discriminate against is blacks/hispanics/asians? Would that be fair? Or would we call that racism and not allow it? How is discrimination against gays any different to racism? Why do religions think they are above the law when it comes to common decency and ethics? I say we need freedom from religion, not freedom of religion!

Same sex marriage has nothing to claim on privately owned businesses. I think churches, malls, las vegas chapels have the right NOT to perform their rites on anyone they want.

The issue is in state given rights. And those shall remain apart from religion and other businesses.

In Portugal, SSM is perfectly legal for a while now. The world hasn't ended, christians and others still can performed their sacred stuff. SSD also began to happen, shocker. more money from legal fees to them, I guess.

Heh, a newspaper found a catholic priest with a secret lover from witch he had a child. Everyone was like, so what? As long as he is a good priest. Except for some more fanatical Catholics, the great majority, says "Meh"

(November 21, 2017 at 1:54 pm)Harry Nevis Wrote:

(November 21, 2017 at 1:23 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: That is why there are now cases before the US courts attempting to force religious businesses to recognize a civil marriage as identical to sacramental ones. There are even activists, in both the US and Australia, who want to force religious leaders and institutions to perform heretical sacraments within their sacred spaces.

Citation, please.

OHIO

IDAHO

Australian Survey results.

(November 21, 2017 at 2:25 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(November 21, 2017 at 1:54 pm)Harry Nevis Wrote: Citation, please.

OHIO

IDAHO

Australian Survey results.

The Ohio citation concerns efforts to force churches to open their space to rental for gay/lesbian weddings, receptions, and dances. While I have issues with that, being made to rent space and being forced to perform the actual service in violation of one's sacramental convictions aren't really the same thing at all. If churches are squeamish about making a few extra bucks doing something that doesn't really compromise them in any meaningful way, what do I care? Discriminate away, folks. I mean, pursue your 1st Amendment free exercise rights. Hell, it's not like anyone's asking to use publicly funded space, like schools, for prayer groups or shit like that.

The Idaho case was resolved when the wedding chapel -- a for-profit enterprise -- reorganized as a "religious corporation" so the owners could continue to perform ceremonies as their consciences dictated without opening themselves to legal sanction. Again, knock yourselves out. It's your right to discriminate if it's all done for Jesus.

(November 21, 2017 at 3:23 am)Bow Before Zeus Wrote: Ok, time for another thread. This time I am going to try to be a little more compassionate and considerate with the feelings of the xtians here in stating the truth in a more conciliatory fashion. Hope I get it right this time!

Some of you might be aware that Australia has just spent $120M on a non-binding voluntary (our parliamentary voting is mandatory) vote on same sex marriage (SSM). For the tech-heads out there, that's around 2 SpaceX rocket launches worth of voting!!!! Anyway, the votes are in and surprise, surprise, about 61% of those that voted were for SSM & 39% were against. About what phone polls (at a fraction of the cost) were already showing. So, great news for gay and lesbian couples, yes? Not so fast, speed racer! You see, we have a right wing conservative government in power at the moment so they're not going to make this so easy. They have now decided to debate a bill which ensures "freedom of religion". Which basically means religions will have the right to discriminate against a section of the community. If it is against the religion to marry gay couples, they will have the right to decline!!! So what the majority voted for is going to be rejected at the pulpit!!! We still are not getting what we voted for.

Why should religions be allowed to discriminate when the person in the street isn't allowed to? What if the section of the community they were allowed to discriminate against is blacks/hispanics/asians? Would that be fair? Or would we call that racism and not allow it? How is discrimination against gays any different to racism? Why do religions think they are above the law when it comes to common decency and ethics? I say we need freedom from religion, not freedom of religion!

Exactly what types of religious discrimination scenarios do you anticipate? 

If the people or business identify as religious then why should they be expected to perform actions against their religious beliefs? And why the hell would non religious or the conflicting religious be making requests for these actions? 

With 60% of the population approving same sex marriage I'm confident that there will be plenty of entities willing to perform the service(s). That would also apply to almost any service (don't want the damn cake thing coming up).

edit double post

(November 21, 2017 at 2:47 pm)Crossless2.0 Wrote: The Ohio citation concerns efforts to force churches to open their space to rental for gay/lesbian weddings, receptions, and dances. While I have issues with that, being made to rent space and being forced to perform the actual service in violation of one's sacramental convictions aren't really the same thing at all.

A church should still be able to decide what can and cannot occur in their sacred spaces.

Sure, unless they;re actually a business -calling- themselves a church.  In which case, not so much.   Balls in their court, if they want to be for-profit purveyors of marriage services then they probably should be held to all the same regulations as any other business...and just maybe pay taxes, too.

Good luck getting the "churches" of the world to let loose of those sweet, sweet ameros..their One True God. Eventually, they;re going to get called on that bit of bullshit..and I think it's ironic that objecting to "having to marry teh gayz" is just the sort of thing that will accelerate the coming of that day. Won;t have anyone to blame but themselves...though I;m sure it;ll be persecution this and persecution that ten ways to sunday.

Deflection to separate issue. Probably because my definition of a secular civil marriage is both rational and just.

(November 21, 2017 at 3:02 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(November 21, 2017 at 2:47 pm)Crossless2.0 Wrote: The Ohio citation concerns efforts to force churches to open their space to rental for gay/lesbian weddings, receptions, and dances. While I have issues with that, being made to rent space and being forced to perform the actual service in violation of one's sacramental convictions aren't really the same thing at all.

A church should still be able to decide what can and cannot occur in their sacred spaces.

Then the church needs to stop renting to persons/entities outside their church or denomination and make that clear in their advertising.  

If they do rent to outside persons/entities then they open themselves up to discrimination suits (which apparently they have).

So what's more important, convictions or money? If they take the money or make an agreement and make no religious stipulations in their advertising and then say "no" they should be bitch slapped all over town.