(October 22, 2014 at 12:53 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: When did discrimination become an integral part of Christianity?

It started immediately. Accrding to Jesus logic, only Jews could become Christians. Everyone else was not the chosen people.

(October 22, 2014 at 12:37 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Haven't you been paying attention? We're talking about minority groups here; small segments of the population. For all the shrill panic mongering we sometimes here, it's actually much easier for large segments to oppress smaller ones, than it is to do the reverse.

Which also ignores the fact that we're talking about people here, regardless of how small a segment of the population it is: do you endorse blanket denial of service for minorities based on religious discrimination?

Additionally, though Min phrased his question in the traditionally Minnish way, it is relevant: where do you draw the line? If a religious business had, as a belief, the commandment that if a person of another religion walks onto their premises they should be immediately murdered, would you be arguing for their right to do that? It's the same basic situation: secular laws are rubbing up against this hypothetical business owner's right to free practice of his religion. Do you draw a line there?

And if you do, how are you differentiating the situations such that one is enfolded in your idea of religious protection, where the other isn't?

In responding to your post, I am also going to make some responses to points other people made

First amendment rights do not go away because a person engages in business. The claim that since these ministers are in the marriage business they are no longer protected under by the First Amendment is just wishful thinking up a justification to deny someone's whose behavior you do not like....their First Amendment rights. Jenny A did an awesome job of explaining that the First Amendment has no clause which excludes people from being protected if they are engaged in for profit business. If this argument is brought up again, just expect me to ignore it. I have examined it thoroughly and reject it. You're just going to have to accept that.

Second, the reason the First Amendment does not protect a person from murdering another on religious grounds is that the First Amendment does not protect you from violating laws that apply to everyone. Nobody or no group is exempted from being prosecuted for murder. However ministers preforming church weddings are exempted from the law that prohibits everyone else from discriminating. The anti discrimination law does not apply to everyone so it doesn't necessarily trump the First amendment.

Last, there must be a compelling government interest. A compelling government interest is not forcing people to behave in a way you think they should behave. You can argue that is a government interest make sure gay couples are not disenfranchised. However the Hitching Post policy of not preforming gay weddings is not substantially disenfranchising gay couples since they can walk a mere 400' and have the county clerk or judge marry them.

It's so bizarre reading the words of a Southern African American defending the same arguments, today, discriminating against two people of the same sex to get married, that, yesterday, argued he wasn't allowed to marry a white woman because he is a "colored".

Same argument. Same discrimination. Different qualifiers for who to discriminate against. But same religion used to justify both platforms.

You are a really good follower of the religion your ancestor's masters forced on your family.

What a disingenuous thread title!

It seems to me that If the religious institution is not empowered to formalize such a marriage as would be recognized by the generally applicable law of the land, ie married in the eyes of some God but the civil law rightly could not give a fuck, then by all means the religious can practice whatever discrimination they deem necessary to pretend to make up for in the next life the respect they would lose in this one.

But if they were to offer marriage services recognized as valid under generally applicable laws, yhen they must be bound to generally applicable standards of nondiscrimination.

It seems to me what the fuckwarts want is all the benefit of secular recognition without having to meet any of the normal standards demanded for secular recognitions.


The bullshit about first amendment is utterly disingenuous. No one is abridging the right of the religious to say anything they like. What is being denied them is what they were never entitled to in the first place but were given as an ill considered courtesy, which is qualification as substitution for recognized civil secular institution.

(October 23, 2014 at 2:26 am)Chuck Wrote: The bullshit about first amendment is utterly disingenuous. No one is abridging the right of the religious to say anything they like. What is being denied them is what they were never entitled to in the first place but were given as an ill considered courtesy, which is qualification as substitution for recognized civil secular institution.

For most of Western History marriage was simply a private contract between two families and the state had nothing to do with it. The concept of the state granting you permission to get married by issuing you a license is a relatively recent concept and in my opinion....an immoral one. Marriage is a personal liberty and not some privilege that is granted to people by the state.....or a Church for that matter.

You make it sound like the state granted religion the power to marry people which is bull shit. Marriage ceremonies were being preformed by religious and recognized by society at large well before the state ever got involved. State recognition of religious marriage ceremonies was not some courtesy as you errantly suggest. It was just a convenient way for the state to take over an aspect of peoples lives they previously had no part of.

Hey, wake the fuck up, world progresses, all sorts of institutions fall by the way side because we do thing better now. what had been done before progress is not an excuse for rejecting progress. if you want the benefit of a modem civil state, don't pretend medieval conceptions and ways of doing things somehow has precedence.

(October 23, 2014 at 8:22 am)Chuck Wrote: Hey, wake the fuck up, world progress, all sorts of institutions to by the way side because we do thing better now. what had been done before progress is not an excuse for rejecting progress. if you want the benefit of a modem civil state, don't pretend medieval conceptions and ways of doing things somehow has precedence.

Having to get permission from the state to get married is not progress. It is shackling.

Civil marriage = benefits from the state

(October 23, 2014 at 8:45 am)DramaQueen Wrote: Civil marriage = benefits from the state

The benefit of being legally married to a woman without ever asking her to marry you? I'll pass!