According to Steophan they do and the Jews who say otherwise are bigots.
Incidentally, I’m not saying that to insult him but because it genuinely seems to be what he honestly believes.
I have yet to hear him answer whether or not it’s bigoted for a female softball team to let me be a member because I’m a man.
Nor has he addressed the fact that many/most churches don’t charge for a wedding, striking down his “but it’s a businessssss!” screech.
Even if the ceremony has no legal implication at all? That’s more like a club meeting. Should everything done by any group be open to everyone?
I can see that you’re not going to change your mind and that’s OK. I don’t want to change it, simply get a better perspective.
Where do you draw the line?
Birthday parties?
Workers at the DMV have an end-of-year party?
Greenpeace has a fundraiser dinner?
In Peru, religious weddings have no legal standing. Priests/Pastors cannot perform a civil wedding.
Religious people like myself get two weddings: civil and religious. In fact, the Catholic Church (at least here) says you need a civil wedding before a religious one, barring some circumstances.
Morally, discrimination is almost always wrong. The only case that’s been mentioned so far where it probably isn’t is allowing sex or gender based sports events, as there are genuine differences between men and women, as opposed to the imaginary ones between religions, or the irrelevant ones between races or sexuality.
I agree that the government shouldn’t be deciding who I can invite into my home, or other truly private place. It would still be wrong of me to reject someone based on, well, anything other than their actions. When it comes to anywhere more public than that - an organised club, a business, a church, anything - bigotry should absolutely be banned. Ideally, the choice of whether to provide a service or whatever should be made in ignorance of gender, race, sexuality, religion, or anything else, and if that’s impossible (as it often would be), a sincere attempt should be made to judge as though one were ignorant of it.
So, the Catholic church is within it’s rights to insist that their marriage ceremony use certain words, including pronouns and the names they choose for their god. They are not within their rights to enquire about the gender or sexuality of the people using or responding to those pronouns, or what beliefs they have about god.
I’m well aware that in most places (including the UK) the legal marriage is the civil ceremony. That doesn’t change the unacceptable bigotry of the religious institutions.
Wait, I must have missed a memo…
Pro-civil unions isn’t the evil-fascist-bastard position anymore?
Because I’ve caught a lot of shit for suggesting that the government should simply separate out the legal rights & responsibilities from the religious requirements/ceremonies.
Thanks for the honest answer. We’re farther away than I thought
There are genuine differences between lots of groups of people, sex/gender is just one of them. However, I’ve been told several times here that sex/gender/sexuality is not black and white.
So, it’s your kid’s birthday party, someone knocks on the door and asks to come in. and I say No, because I don’t know who he is. Is it bigotry to reject him because I have no actions to work on? Is it an “always yes except is you make it a no”?
You’ve basically eliminated free association of people.
But if sex/gender is an integral part of the action, isn’t it logical to enquire about it?
Can’t a hospital doctor enquire as to sex/gender before asking for a pap smear or a prostate exam?
You definition of bigotry makes free association of people impossible.
Is your definition of bigotry limited to US protected classes?
What if I can’t pay for my caviar soaked lobster thermidor on kobe beef?
Of course it doesn’t make free association of people impossible. You can choose to associate or not with whoever you like, unless you do it in public or for money for bigoted reasons. So, if the only difference between two people is race, sexuality, or religion - the only difference - you should treat them the same if they act the same.
Why are you defending people’s right to act in a bigoted fashion?
You know, there’s such a thing as being so open-minded your brain falls out.
Except that the First Amendment doesn’t say the government can’t make free association impossible, it says that the government cannot infringe in any way. A concept that you seem to be actively avoiding.
I think we’ve found the root problem here. No, the government is not charged with telling people how to act. If you’re looking for an institution that will serve as a moral compass, might I suggest finding a nice church to belong to? Because that’s what those do, in case you were wondering.
Really? The government doesn’t make and enforce laws? What nonsense.
The government has already made a law that covers your entire line of argument for the last month or so, it’s called the First Amendment. You’ve yet to provide a reason that a single person has found adequate for forcing religious institutions to act against their core beliefs.
It’s a freedom of religion issue. The government cannot tell people how to behave with respect to religious belief. This does setup some interesting possibilities though. What if part of my religion requires virgin sacrifice? And the virgins are willing to participate? I suppose snake handling is a good example – wouldn’t passing out venomous snakes to the congregation be considered reckless endangerment at the very least? Or assault with a deadly weapon?
Actually, snake-handling IS illegal – it’s just hard to prosecute because it’s so obscure, and only practiced in very isolated areas.
I’ve not, at any point, suggested forcing anybody to act against their beliefs, except where doing so would infringe someone else’s rights. To make it clear, to go back to the subject of the thread, no church, or anyone else, should be forced to perform gay marriages. Is that clear? It’s simply that, if they choose to perform marriages, they should offer them without bigotry to everyone.
That this is even slightly controversial shows how fucked up people’s thinking about religion is. People’s delusions should not excuse bigotry.
But they’re not performing legal marriages. It’s a wedding ceremony symbolizing a religious union. That’s why we really need two different words for marriage. Religious marriage and a marriage according to the govt usually go hand-in-hand, but there’s no reason why they need to.
People who get married in a church still need to go to city hall, fill out forms, get the signatures from a witness and an officiant, etc. That’s where people cannot be discriminated against. The religious ceremony has nothing to do with the legal process. I think that’s what you are missing here.
And if you choose to hold a birthday party for your kid, you have to offer one to everyone. Me and my drinking buddies are gonna show up, and you can’t make us leave.
You mean like forcing someone to perform a ceremony that goes against the beliefs of their religion? Because that certainly infringes on a person’s rights. Look, you’ve conveniently ignored a number of questions regarding various organizations being forced to include someone outside of their group. Things like a man on the women’s softball team, a girl in the Boy Scouts, a Democrat in the Republican Convention, a Catholic in a bar mitzvah, Trinopus at your kid’s birthday party, etc.
Organizations set expectations and guidelines for inclusion all the time. Letting them do so on their own terms is a benefit to society, not a detriment. We allow and encourage free association because providing incentives for groups to easily congregate strengthens our communities, even if those organizations practice a certain degree of discrimination in who they allow to join their group. This builds diversity, rather than homogenization.
I’m in complete agreement. That there even exists a slight controversy around this shows how fucked up some people’s think is.
Well, you might have caught some shit if you’ve argued that the religious side should have the exclusive right to the word “marriage”. Plenty of people who were married by a judge/mayor/registrar would be quite offended if you said they weren’t really “married” because it wasn’t a religious ceremony.
On the other hand, if you’re just arguing for a separation of religious marriage from civil marriage, don’t we already have that? I mean, there’s an optional entanglement in that clergy can also sign off on the civil paperwork, but otherwise the concepts are already separated. If more people understood that I feel like the gay marriage debate would be easier…
I miss that John McCain.
You don’t seem to have a lot of respect for the first amendment. You are a good example of why there is so much opposition to gay marriage in the first place. You don’t just want equality under the law, you want everyone else to treat you the way you want to be treated.
No, discrimination is not almost always morally wrong. It is frequently morally neutral, and sometimes morally good (see Affirmative Action).
Because it is their constitutional right.
Noone has a right to be married by catholic priests. They have a constitutionally protected right to conduct their sacraments in accordance with their religious beliefs even if their religious beliefs say that men can’t marry other men.