Freedom from religion

[Neo-Scholastic]

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.

And what if it has nothing to do with LBGT issues? Must a parochial school rent its auditorium for a divorce party?

[brewer]

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.

And what if it has nothing to do with LBGT issues? Must a parochial school rent its auditorium for a divorce party?

If the parochial school rents to the general public, makes no stipulations in their rental advertisements/agreements and does not inquire as to the nature of the party, then yes. 

There is this thingy called "due diligence". Due diligence needs to be applied in the face of their convictions.

Edit: If the school/church has a history of rentals to entities that do not hold their convictions, the school/church has opened the door and forfeited their right to say no.

[Neo-Scholastic]

And what if it has nothing to do with LBGT issues? Must a parochial school rent its auditorium for a divorce party?

If the parochial school rents to the general public, makes no stipulations in their rental advertisements/agreements and does not inquire as to the nature of the party, then yes. 

There is this thingy called "due diligence". Due diligence needs to be applied in the face of their convictions.

Edit: If the school/church has a history of rentals to entities that do not hold their convictions, the school/church has opened the door and forfeited their right to say no.

There is difference between renting to a celebration/organization that takes no express position contrary to the churches beliefs (like a chess club) and ones that do, like a divorce party, craft beer fair (for temperance denominations), or bingo fundraiser (for those opposed to gambling).

I'm very suspicious of the notion that the government can force people to do things they don't want to do for the privilege of being allowed to do the things they want to in the absence of a compelling state interest. It presumes that individual rights are granted by the state to be given and taken away at its discretion.

[Minimalist]

This time I am going to try to be a little more compassionate and considerate with the feelings of the xtians here

This will be boring.

[The Grand Nudger]

The government doesn't force anyone to operate a for profit business. Those who choose to do so, must, however, adhere to all applicable laws..including anti-discrimination laws.

It's not that hard, honestly. Anytime someone thinks that jesus would want them to be a dick to someone, they can ignore that impulse and stay clear of breaking the law. Most people don't have such a reliable indicator that they're breaking the law to begin with..so, thank christ, I guess?

[Minimalist]

It presumes that individual rights are granted by the state to be given and taken away at its discretion.

They are.  Your right to hate is subject others' right to live.  But you can go home and bitch and moan about it afterward and it is okay.  But when you are out in public obey the fucking law, jackass.

BTW, that's not my opinion.   It's in your fucking bible.

13 All of you must obey those who rule over you. There are no authorities except the ones God has chosen. Those who now rule have been chosen by God. 2 So whoever opposes the authorities opposes leaders whom God has appointed. Those who do that will be judged.

Romans

[Bow Before Zeus]

I crimped the following text from another thread HERE because, this seems like the more relevant thread and I put quite a bit of effort into it.

There can be a civil institution equivalent to marriage without being considered equal to it. For example tea is functionally equivalent to coffee but they are essentially different substances. Civil marriages have an essential character that makes them different from other types of social institutions recognized by the state. They have an objective definition: an on-going legal bond between one man and one woman involving physical intimacy with the potential to produce off-spring. That is what differentiates a marriage from roommates (of any sex), live-in caregivers with power of attorney, business partnerships, casual lovers, kissing cousins, free-love communes, and yes, homosexual unions. It should be noted that many states in the USA have so-called common law marriages, automatically conferring marital status to long-time cohabiting heterosexuals who have been physically intimate. Apart from the traditional definition we get absurd results like Felix and Oscar becoming common law. This is not a "slippery slope" argument; but rather, an illustration of the unique character of civil marriage as an objectively definable and secular social institution.

As a practical matter, the state generally does not impose fertility tests or automatic dissolution of marriages when a couple is beyond child bearing years. If someone wanted to debate the merits of such policies I would be willing to listen but personally I would consider someone a spoiler for advocating those kinds of tests and measures. Also as a practical matter, the state allows religious leaders to officiate weddings, so that a civil marriage and sacramental marriage occur simultaneously as part of the ceremony. If someone wants to propose that religious leaders not be allowed to officiate civil ceremonies I am open to listening to that as well. Again however, that seems like the stance of someone willing to inconvenience millions just to be a spoiler.

So-called "marriage equality" erases the vital line between civil and sacramental marriages. For example, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist or even Swedenborgian weddings are sacraments tacitly accepted, for practical reasons, by the state as civil ceremonies. It is not a civil ceremony in-and-of-itself. 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. Again, I am open to the idea that the state has a legitimate state interest in legally recognizing homosexual unions as functionally equivalent to marriages, however, the state has no business making people perform religious sacraments against their will or to recognize nontraditional unions as equal, meaning identical, to sacramental ones.

This is very relevant so thanks for brining it here. The No campaign in Australia also argued that marriage is a union between a man and a woman for the purpose of having a family, however the majority of the country disagreed so that argument has been put to bed. But there are civil and religious ceremonies and I'm pretty sure in Australia they are essentially legally equivalent. I do find it difficult to understand why some same sex couples want to marry in a religious institution but they do. So the question remains, why should religious institutions be allowed to discriminate?

Let's use an equivalent example to show what I mean. If a black African man and a white Australian woman wanted to marry and they turn up to a church in Australia, is the priest allowed by law to say to them "Sorry but the church does not believe in mixed marriages - marriage is between a white man and a white woman only". Would they get away with it? No, because it is racial discrimination and there are laws that protect against that happening by any organisation or person in the country. Yet it is being argued that the church should be allowed to discriminate against a section of community based on their sexual orientation.

The more interesting question is why religious leaders want to be unethical. This is something that I don't understand. I say stop all discrimination and if we have to legislate to stop it, then so be it.

[Bow Before Zeus]

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!

First paragraph - we should be able to invade any religion at will.

Second paragraph - we should be free from religion.

Am I missing something here?

You're missing so much, it's too much work to keep filling in the gaps for you. Read the other posts.

---

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?" Properly rephrased the question answers itself. Because a free society does not allow the state to dictate the religious beliefs and practices of its citizens. As Sartre correctly pointed out, the ultimate freedom is the ability to say no.

They are not different issues - they are equivalent.

If you want to remain with your "spiritual traditions", how often do you sacrifice a lamb to your god? You don't? How unchristian of you. Or is it because you would be charged for cruelty to animals?

We should not allow religions to be unethical just because it is written in their primitive iron-age texts. They should not be allowed to discriminate against individuals because of colour of skin nor because of sexual preference.

---

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?" Properly rephrased the question answers itself. Because a free society does not allow the state to dictate the religious beliefs and practices of its citizens. As Sartre correctly pointed out, the ultimate freedom is the ability to say no.

I have to agree with this. It is one thing to give gays the right to get married. It is quite another to force institutions to conduct ceremonies which they do not wish to. For better or worse, people have the right to be bigoted. The important thing is to make sure that the government doesn't have bigoted policies.

Fine, so let's go back to allowing xtians to not marry mixed couples and performing ritual blood sacrifices on the church alter. That will take the ethics we have developed in modern society a few millenia back.

---

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

They should be forced to perform actions against their religious beliefs when those primitive iron-age religious beliefs contradict the ethical structure of modern society. No animal sacrifices and no discrimination against people for any reason. Non religious people should be making requests or even demands of religious institutions on ethical grounds. And, yes, the "damn cake thing" did come up in parliamentary debate!

[brewer]

If the parochial school rents to the general public, makes no stipulations in their rental advertisements/agreements and does not inquire as to the nature of the party, then yes. 

There is this thingy called "due diligence". Due diligence needs to be applied in the face of their convictions.

Edit: If the school/church has a history of rentals to entities that do not hold their convictions, the school/church has opened the door and forfeited their right to say no.

There is difference between renting to a celebration/organization that takes no express position contrary to the churches beliefs (like a chess club) and ones that do, like a divorce party, craft beer fair (for temperance denominations), or bingo fundraiser (for those opposed to gambling).

I'm very suspicious of the notion that the government can force people to do things they don't want to do for the privilege of being allowed to do the things they want to in the absence of a compelling state interest. It presumes that individual rights are granted by the state to be given and taken away at its discretion.

If the entity (person/organization) is religion neutral and the church/school has performed due diligence to ensure that the event does not conflict with their beliefs then fine, rent away. However, if the church/school has a history of looking the other way on some religious issues and/or is not consistent in belief application to renters that becomes discrimination and the state has every right to step in. They can't have their cake and eat it to.

---

This is very relevant so thanks for brining it here. The No campaign in Australia also argued that marriage is a union between a man and a woman for the purpose of having a family, however the majority of the country disagreed so that argument has been put to bed. But there are civil and religious ceremonies and I'm pretty sure in Australia they are essentially legally equivalent. I do find it difficult to understand why some same sex couples want to marry in a religious institution but they do. So the question remains, why should religious institutions be allowed to discriminate?

Let's use an equivalent example to show what I mean. If a black African man and a white Australian woman wanted to marry and they turn up to a church in Australia, is the priest allowed by law to say to them "Sorry but the church does not believe in mixed marriages - marriage is between a white man and a white woman only". Would they get away with it? No, because it is racial discrimination and there are laws that protect against that happening by any organisation or person in the country. Yet it is being argued that the church should be allowed to discriminate against a section of community based on their sexual orientation.

The more interesting question is why religious leaders want to be unethical. This is something that I don't understand. I say stop all discrimination and if we have to legislate to stop it, then so be it.

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

---

They should be forced to perform actions against their religious beliefs when those primitive iron-age religious beliefs contradict the ethical structure of modern society. No animal sacrifices and no discrimination against people for any reason. Non religious people should be making requests or even demands of religious institutions on ethical grounds. And, yes, the "damn cake thing" did come up in parliamentary debate!

bold mine

Good luck with that pie in the sky ideal. 

Who's ethics? Yours when your not even in the club?

[Neo-Scholastic]

The government doesn't force anyone to operate a for profit business. Those who choose to do so, must, however, adhere to all applicable laws..including anti-discrimination laws.

It's not that hard, honestly. Anytime someone thinks that jesus would want them to be a dick to someone, they can ignore that impulse and stay clear of breaking the law. Most people don't have such a reliable indicator that they're breaking the law to begin with..so, thank christ, I guess?

Right, you can practice your religion just dont expect to be allowed to make a living. Yeah, that's how a free society works. < sarcasm>