(November 21, 2017 at 6:47 pm)Bow Before Zeus Wrote:(November 21, 2017 at 5:37 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:
bold mine
Are those same sex couples members of the religious institution? My guess is no if the institution says no. It's their club (the church), they get to make their own rules.
I think the same holds with the black/white issue. I think they can get away with it if the black/white couple are not members.
However, the exception is if the church has a history of allowing nonmembers to marry outside of the churches beliefs. That opens the door.
Not sure if this applies to Oz: https://www.quora.com/Constutional-Laws-...rientation
The church should not be allowed to not let in people based on the colour of their skin, nationality or sexual preference. I believe the "No blacks allowed" or "Whites only" signs were taken down half a century ago - notwithstanding any still left in the southern US states. It is discrimination to not allow certain groups of people join a club, team or church. The ethics of the human civilisation has progressed beyond that stage and is at least partly if not wholly protected by the rule of law. Laws of certain states/nations may still need to catch up but they are generally heading the direction of more ethical rather than less ethical.
(November 21, 2017 at 5:37 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:
bold mine
Good luck with that pie in the sky ideal.
Who's ethics? Yours when your not even in the club?
The ethics of the society. As a current member of the club called humanity, all entities, companies, people, organisations need to conform to the laws of the land. Why should a particular class of clubs called religions be exempt from being ethical? The great irony being, of course, that they always claim the higher moral ground but act otherwise.
(November 21, 2017 at 6:33 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: When did we "allow" xtians (aka Christians) to not marry mixed couples? I don't know the laws down under, but the Southern STATES in the US had LAWS forbidding the marriage of mixed race couples. Those laws had to go. If a church wants to refrain from doing something, it's their right to refrain. Mandating compulsory actions borders on fascism. As vile and disgusting as it is, I feel like these institutions ought not be compelled to do things to which they are opposed. I sense a breeze of strong anti-theism coming from you. Have you ever tried cannabis? It works wonders. If people want to be bigots and perform blood sacrifices, let them. Just don't let them anywhere near the legislative body. That's my position.
So religious groups don't need to obey the laws of the land when it comes to discrimination? What about the laws relating to murder, theft, destruction of property? How about we let the churches do what they want? The laws are there for a reason. To ensure order in society and not allow the thugs in the community take advantage of the weak. If the churches are exempt from the laws of the land, they will become the thugs despite always claiming the higher moral ground.
How old are you? It almost feels like I'm talking to yet another person suffering from chronic victim mentality.
We already have one of those.
I don't have an anger problem, I have an idiot problem.
