ADVERTISEMENT

This is what "tolerance" really means re: same-sex marriage

G

GMM

All-American
Oct 29, 2001
7,850
0
36
The owners of a wedding chapel in Idaho are going to be forced to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies or face fines or jailtime. There are numerous similar cases like this. You can forget about freedom of association.

It was never about "live and let live". No, everything the left does is utlimately about forcing others to conform to their demands. Keep that in mind the next time they lecture you about "tolerance".

Owners will close before performing gay weddings
 
of course, your the guy who thinks "tolerance" and "freedom of association" means someone can refuse to serve someone based on their gender or color of their skin, right?

Yes, in a racist uber-libertarian world, your point makes sense. In a normal society, it doesn't.
 
of course, your the guy who thinks "tolerance" and "freedom of association" means someone can refuse to serve someone based on their gender or color of their skin, right?

That also happens to be exactly what those words actually mean.

In your bizarro leftist world, "tolerance" and "freedom of association" and living in a "normal" society are crimes.


This post was edited on 10/20 4:31 PM by GMM
 
Originally posted by qazplm:
of course, your the guy who thinks "tolerance" and "freedom of association" means someone can refuse to serve someone based on their gender or color of their skin, right?

Yes, in a racist uber-libertarian world, your point makes sense. In a normal society, it doesn't.
Click to expand...
As much as I hate to say this, GMM has a point. There has always been a distinction between genuine religious reasons for not doing something and plain old discrimination.

I am and will remain a full supporter of the legalization of gay marriage (or some other legal solution that guarantees equal rights under the law for same gender couples). However, I am and will remain against any attempt to force those whose sincerely held religious beliefs place them in opposition to gay marriage to perform ceremonies when there is an alternative.

I have many clergy friends who are opposed to same-sex marriage. The denomination I serve remains opposed to same-sex marriage. Even if the state of Indiana allows it, I cannot perform a same-sex marriage ceremony without standing in violation of the covenant I made with my church. Now, that may change and the denomination may change its stance, but until it does, my sincerely held religious beliefs require I act a certain way regardless of the law.

You might try to argue that clergy are an exception, but I'm not so sure.

There is, of course, a difference between saying, "I will not perform a same-sex wedding ceremony" because of my "sincere religious beliefs" and because "I hate all gay people." The latter is definitely discrimination. The former lives in the nebulous gray area between personal religious freedom and corporate prohibition of discrimination.

EDIT: Reading the article again, I caught the "for profit" element of the business. That changes things a little bit, but I'm not sure it completely removes the ambiguity.
This post was edited on 10/21 9:05 AM by pastorjoeboggs
 
The problem is that this is a chapel that is being run as a for profit business. Obviously, none of us think that businesses should be able to discriminate against gay people. You don't get the same religious freedoms on a for profit business.

It sucks they may have to shut down but there were plenty of businesses that probably shut down when minorities were given equal rights too. I'd recommend they open up a not for profit church instead.
 
EDIT: Reading the article again, I caught the "for profit" element of the business. That changes things a little bit, but I'm not sure it completely removes the ambiguity.

No, it doesn't change it at all. We have the right to do business with, or not do business with, anyone we choose. Wouldn't you agree? Or, do you believe that the government should force people to engage in business transactions against their will.
 
It doesn't matter if its religious or non-religous, profit-based or non-profit. We have the right to do business with, or not, with anyone we choose. That's the basis of individual liberty.
 
Originally posted by GMM:
It doesn't matter if its religious or non-religous, profit-based or non-profit. We have the right to do business with, or not, with anyone we choose. That's the basis of individual liberty.
Click to expand...
That is not even remotely true.
 
Then explain what is the basis of individual liberty and how having the government force people to do business they otherwise wouldn't is not a violation of individual liberty.
 
Originally posted by GMM:
Then explain what is the basis of individual liberty and how having the government force people to do business they otherwise wouldn't is not a violation of individual liberty.
Click to expand...
You could probably consider it a violation of "individual liberty" just like you can't yell fire in a theater. However, this was your comment:
"It doesn't matter if its religious or non-religous, profit-based or non-profit. We have the right to do business with, or not, with anyone we choose."
That is not true and it hasn't been for decades. Businesses operate in the public space and are subject to rules that restrict certain types of activity that have been considered unacceptable by our society. One of them is there are certain protected classes that you can't discriminate against.

However, let's get to the chase. Do you think segregation should be legal?
 
always?

Some have religious reasons for slavery, or racism, or gender differences in work/value. Should we honor those as well?

And those reasons are genuine, as in legitimately held.

They are not forced to do anything, anymore than someone is forced to serve African Americans or hire the disabled. If you truly don't want to do that, you can simply not engage in business anymore (or you can pay a fine or whatnot). No one is going to jail, or having a gun pulled on them.

But, if you choose to run a for profit institution, then you are going to have to abide by certain rules, including non-discrimination. If you run a private institution, like a church, then you will be able to discriminate a lot more.
 
no freedom is absolute

none, never has been. Not religion, not speech, not property, not association. So yes, there's a bizarro world here alright, the one that thinks freedoms are absolute.
 
Figures

You're mistaking laws for rights. Just because there are laws restricting our business rights doesn't mean those rights don't exist.

However, let's get to the chase. Do you think segregation should be legal?

Yes, freedom should be legal. You are aware that "segregation" is prevelant all over this society and is a natural reflection of our desires, right?
 
As usual

You have to exaggerate. Nothing bizarro about that. No, its your typical tactic.

It should be clear to everyone that you're against freedom. You believe our "rights" exist only so far as you and your fellow leftists approve of them.
 
To summarize your worldview

"You're not forced to do anything except when you are forced to do something."
 
Yeah . . . . I mean, there's the issue of it being a for-profit chapel, instead of a non-profit religious institution. However, its very
business is based on religion. I can see both sides of this, but I am leaning more in favor of the chapel in this case for a couple reasons: 1) This feels like a major step toward forcing all churches toward having to perform services in violation of their firmly-held religious beliefs; 2) the very service they provide is a religious one.

Taken from their website: "At the Hitching Post, ordained ministers will marry you using a traditional, religious ceremony."

It would appear that they only offer religious ceremonies, and not non-religious ceremonies. Further, from what I can gather based on perusing their site, they don't even offer Catholic ceremonies. The for-profit aspect of this gives me pause . . . but I think I'm still siding with the Hitching Post on this, because they are offering a religious service (for profit or not), and not just a non-religious service. To me, that is the major takeaway, here. If they were merely a venue where people brought their own ministers (or if that were an option), I would side against them. But from what I can see, they are religious people offering a religious service. If they were merely religious people offering a non-religious service, it would be a different story.

I'm interested in seeing how this winds up.

EDIT: Weird spacing

This post was edited on 10/21 1:15 PM by beardownboiler
 
pretty poor summary

If you want a summary..."no man is an island" is a pretty good one. Society demands giving up absolute freedom in exchange for the benefits therein, aka the social contract, aka stuff that's been talked about since man gave up hunter-gathering.
 
it's a pretty clear demarcation line. Not for profit v for profit. No one is going to the Catholic Church saying you must marry gays. No one would remotely be successful anywhere with said argument, nor should they be. However, if you are going to go for profit, then you cease to be a not for profit religious entity and you become a business.

I mean this is settled law. All they have to do to avoid this is to make it a not for profit.
 
yes

I'm the one exaggerating v. the person who is pro-legal segregation. lol Sorry, except for the one or two folks on here who think like you but are afraid to admit it, no one is buying THAT one, even folks who don't like me aren't going to side with you on this one.
 
Originally posted by qazplm:
it's a pretty clear demarcation line. Not for profit v for profit. No one is going to the Catholic Church saying you must marry gays. No one would remotely be successful anywhere with said argument, nor should they be. However, if you are going to go for profit, then you cease to be a not for profit religious entity and you become a business.

I mean this is settled law. All they have to do to avoid this is to make it a not for profit.
Click to expand...
It's not settled. That's the very reason this is a question. They explicitly state that they provide religious marriage ceremonies. That is what they offer. So, if the religion behind these ceremonies forbids homosexuality, what service are they to render?

EDIT: I need to add that if they provide ministers of multiple faiths (even multiple Christian denominations), I switch to the other side. As a for-profit business, I think they would be required to go get a minister of a faith who could perform the ceremony. If all the ministers are of one faith, I don't think they would be required to get another minister. A major point in this is that the chapel isn't merely a venue; it also provides the ministers.

This post was edited on 10/21 1:44 PM by beardownboiler
 
it is settled. It's a question because people don't want to treat gays the same as other people. Thus, the whole but what about religious beliefs thing comes up. What if this church didn't want to marry blacks for religious reasons? Would you feel the same? Plenty of folks in not so distant past history have come up with all sorts of religious reasons for why blacks are inferior to justify slavery or segregation.

What if they didn't want to marry agnostics? Or Jews? or Muslims? Still ok? Again, we aren't talking about a church, we are talking about a for-profit business.

Why are gays different?
 
Re: Figures

We are talking about government granted rights which goes back to the forming of our country and evolves under the processes they instituted. We aren't talking about whatever you have made up in your mind. Who else would be granting rights besides the society in which we live? You don't get to decide your own personal rights.

That is simply what is happening in this case. A majority of Americans have decided that it is wrong for public businesses to discriminate against certain groups. This for profit business has to follow those rules even when they are inconvenient or find another way around it.
 
A similar challenge was made when anti-segregation laws were made. A bbq place claimed it was against their religion to serve black people. They lost.

It's the same reason Chik-Fil-A can't put "No Gays Allowed" up on their door. They have to find other more subtle ways to discourage them from coming in.
roll.r191677.gif
 
Originally posted by boilergeek:
A similar challenge was made when anti-segregation laws were made. A bbq place claimed it was against their religion to serve black people. They lost.

It's the same reason Chik-Fil-A can't put "No Gays Allowed" up on their door. They have to find other more subtle ways to discourage them from coming in.
roll.r191677.gif
Click to expand...
Is BBQ and Chikin a form of religious service? This isn't merely a venue. This is far more nuanced than those cases.
 
That's not even remotely true

We are talking about government granted rights which goes back to the forming of our country and evolves under the processes they instituted.

Backwards. Completely backwards. Its mentalities like this which paves the way for tyranny.

Governments do not grant rights. They either protect them or violate them.

Who else would be granting rights besides the society in which we live?

When's the last time you read the Declaration of Independence? Have you ever read it?


This post was edited on 10/21 2:00 PM by GMM
 
Re: pretty poor summary

Since no one on this board is talking about "absolute freedom" stay on the topic at hand. Go ahead and admit you don't believe in freedom or individual liberties. Instead you believe in the government forcibly rearranging society and controlling people's actions according to what you think is good.
 
Originally posted by qazplm:
it is settled. It's a question because people don't want to treat gays the same as other people. Thus, the whole but what about religious beliefs thing comes up. What if this church didn't want to marry blacks for religious reasons? Would you feel the same? Plenty of folks in not so distant past history have come up with all sorts of religious reasons for why blacks are inferior to justify slavery or segregation.

What if they didn't want to marry agnostics? Or Jews? or Muslims? Still ok? Again, we aren't talking about a church, we are talking about a for-profit business.

Why are gays different?
Click to expand...
This isn't "but what about religious beliefs." That guy who didn't want to make a gay wedding cake? Ridiculous. Make the damned cake (though, honestly, I'm not sure I'd want the guy making my cake).

If the religion of the chapel forbids marrying non-church members (it appears to be run-of-the mill evangelical Christiantity, but it's unclear), they shouldn't have to marry non-members. The kicker here is that they provide the ministers.

The for-profit aspect eliminates a protection they would have otherwise. What this can come down to is if they provide an array of different ministers (across a spectrum, even if it's just different forms of Christianity). If that's the case, due to their for-profit status, they will have to provide a minister who will marry gay couples. And that is absolutely how it should be. However, if they only provide services in accordance with one specific religion (and all-Christianity doesn't work, because IIRC Unitarians are cool with gay marriage), it's a different story.
 
Correction

No one is going to the Catholic Church saying you must marry gays.

No one is going to the Catholic Church saying you must marry gays yet.

There fixed it for ya. Give your fellow leftists enough time and they will most certainly demand this. The instant you say "No, that will never happen" is the instant you either forget or lie about what your crowd say about gay rights every step along the way. They always promised things like "No one is going to be forced to do X" yet here we are.

The left's appetite for destruction and control is insatiable.
 
lol

if you believe the right to freedom of association extends to outright segregation/discrimination in business, then yeah, you believe in "absolute freedom."
 
Chik-Fil-A and "No Gays Allowed"

Well, I see the news and entertainment media have done their job.
 
then, again, it's real simple

if you are doing this as religion, than do what actual religions do, do it for non-profit. Then you get the same protections a church gets to only marry, religiously, those folks you want to.

but you aren't doing it as a religion, you are doing it as a business with a civil component to it. And there is no evidence that these folks are limiting it to their religion, whatever sect they are a part of.
 
Re: Chik-Fil-A and "No Gays Allowed"

Originally posted by GMM:
Well, I see the news and entertainment media have done their job.
Click to expand...
He didn't say that they actually did that CfA does that. It was a poor analogy, but you're acting like Sarah Palin with her death panel talk.
 
Re: then, again, it's real simple

Originally posted by qazplm:
if you are doing this as religion, than do what actual religions do, do it for non-profit. Then you get the same protections a church gets to only marry, religiously, those folks you want to.

but you aren't doing it as a religion, you are doing it as a business with a civil component to it. And there is no evidence that these folks are limiting it to their religion, whatever sect they are a part of.
Click to expand...
There is evidence (some, it's unclear based on their actual website). This would be far easier if they were actually a non-profit. That is a MAJOR point (and one that works against them). And you're glossing over the numerous stipulations that go with my current stance. It's not simple. That's the issue. The type of ministers they provide is a vital unknown, here. If they provide even two types of ministers, this all goes out the window. But we don't know, and the argument that "it's religious" likely collapses (and they'd be forced to provide a minister who will perform the gay marriages) if they provide ministers of multiple faiths.

You're really clinging to the splash headline on this. Unlike many cases, this one has to be closely examined. It's not just a guy who happens to make wedding cakes.

This post was edited on 10/21 2:07 PM by beardownboiler
 
you need to slap your civics teacher

SOME rights are not government granted (or at least that's the conceit). Of course the reality is they absolutely are granted by the government because the power to take away presupposes the power to grant, but the conceit is that they flow either from "Nature" or God depending on which Enlightenment philosopher you want to go with.

Of course, those rights that are "inalienable" are broadly defined and fairly useless at the practical day to day level. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness doesn't tell you what to do when you are dealing with whether cops have to knock or announce in exigent circumstances. Of course, the Declaration has zero legal effect, the Constitution on the other hand...

And THAT document, the one that actually matters, is filled with exceptions and limitations on every single right. The government coming and taking your stuff over your objection? Absolutely fine so long as you receive "just compensation."
Having your person and home searched? No problem so long as said search is "reasonable."

Of course, different societies emphasize different rights and different limits. So yes, the society you live in is part of the rights (and the limitations of those rights) a citizen of that society has.
 
you are arguing a very slender reed

Effectively you are saying if they REALLY look like a church and not a non-profit business that doesn't like gays (for religious reasons) then this is a hard call.

But if they really looked like that, then it would be really easy to turn into a non-profit church. I mean, really easy.
 
Re: you are arguing a very slender reed

Originally posted by qazplm:
Effectively you are saying if they REALLY look like a church and not a for (assuming this is what you mean)-profit business that doesn't like gays (for religious reasons) then this is a hard call.

But if they really looked like that, then it would be really easy to turn into a non-profit church. I mean, really easy.
Click to expand...
It'd also be really easy for gays to get married elsewhere. But that's not how it works. Don't play that game, because it's a poor one, and doesn't actually mean anything. Rights aren't about ease of use. That's a GMM argument.

This is a very close call. I'm not arguing in favor of general discrimination. Religious book stores cannot ban gays from purchasing books. Wedding chapels that do not provide their own ministers cannot bar gays from marrying within that chapel. Even wedding chapels that DO provide ministers (but provide more than one variety of minister) cannot bar gays from marrying within that chapel.
 
It is as much religious as a for profit marriage company is.

That is the whole point. There are ways for this group to turn it into a protected religious organization. They just can't then operate like a business.
 
Re: Chik-Fil-A and "No Gays Allowed"

Chik-Fil-A is pretty open about not accepting the gay lifestyle. If it was legal to do so, I think there is a good chance they would not allow gay people to come to their stores.
 
nope it's exactly how it works

if you want to discriminate against folks you can't charge money for profit, particularly for protected classes.

if you want to discriminate against folks, then there are a couple of legit, remaining paths, and one of them is a private, not-for-profit religious entity.

Like I said, you are narrowing the parameters so much that basically you are describing a church holding a religious-only ceremony.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

tjreese

This can't be true or we would have heard about it on CNN, MSNBC, CBS and ABC or other media. Besides,

Replies
14
Views
2K
Free Board: General Discussion Forum
typeviic
typeviic
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back