Ah, you’re making a very common mistake. You think you can look at a religion’s basic text (Bible, Koran, etc.) and think you know what it’s followers actually do.
By that logic, you believe that all Christians wear beards, don’t eat shellfish, and stone unbelievers to death.
I see this mistake alot today with Muslims - people read something in the Koran about killing infidels and say that all Muslims believe in that. You’re making the same silly mistake.
Show us how many actual members of churches today pay an involuntary tithe, and how much, and then you’ll have actual evidence. Good luck.
By your definition, pretty much everything that takes in money is a business, including you and me and every charity or non-profit out there, and also the government.
To do what? I suspect there are plenty of jobs in the NFL that could be done by a “cripple”, and if they refused to hire someone for one of them on the basis of their disability then yes, they would be bigoted.
Assuming you’re talking about as a footballer, then what should happen, as it does in many other sports, is to provide a version of the sport available to disabled people - just as is done with women’s sports. As was discussed earlier.
The problem then is not with the gay couple, it’s with the Catholic marriage. They need to provide a marriage that is suitable for gays. But thankyou for making my point for me.
I neither employ people or offer services. If I did, I would be a business.
As has been discussed earlier, women’s sports clubs are one example of a form of discrimination that, in most contexts, would be bigoted - sexual discrimination.
Discrimination based on many things is fine, such as discrimination based on ability when hiring for a job. It’s bigotry when it either is irrelevant, such as race for a job applicant (excepting actors, I can’t think of another situation where it would be acceptable), or where it should be irrelevant, such as sexuality or gender for marriages.
I actually can’t think of any situation where an organisation should be able to discriminate based on sexuality, as it’s only relevance is - or should be - to personal issues. I’d be interested if someone comes up with one I do agree with, though.
You are continually arguing against points I haven’t made, whilst accusing me of debating in bad faith… Motes, beams, etc. I assume you get the reference.
You do realize that these two statements are at absolute complete odds, right? The handicapped player cannot play in the NFL, but there are alternatives for him. A gay couple cannot marry in the Catholic church, but there are alternatives for them.
You’ve finally chased your tail to the point where you caught it, and you’re now just chewing on it to make some sort of point that you’re completely able to back down from.
Of course you employ people. You might employ a handyman to fix your home, or a kid to mow your lawn, etc.
And you have income, and expenses, and you offer the services to your employer at your job in exchange for money. You may even make a profit, which you put in a savings account.
But the church can think of ways.
Churches shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate when they act just like any other business. When they act like a religion, though, they should. Really simple. Your convoluted arguments that churches are just businesses is going to fail too.
So a club for gay men should be require to allow straight men in as members? Or women?
Should the Girl Scouts be required to admit boys?
And you just agreed that a women’s only sports league was appropriate.
Steophan, words have meanings. The word “business” has a meaning. “Employing people or offering services” is not that meaning. We have several hundred years of precedent on determining what a business is. Could you please come up with a different vector for your argument? Because even if your argument was logical, it would be entire unfeasible, as it would require rewriting a library full of laws and codes. Our society has specifically separated non-profit entities from businesses for a reason. Your argument falls apart when you ignore that separation and start spouting nonsense.
Sorry for using the word ‘cripple’, ‘disabled’ would serve my point better. (For what it’s worth, I’m 5’8’’ and 130 lbs, so I wouldn’t be physically fit to be in the NFL either).
Basically, you acknowledge here that the problem you have is with Catholic teaching about marriage, and what a marriage is supposed to be about… (Hint: it isn’t just about love and companionship). That’s great, but you should not be surprised that the Catholic Church disagrees with your basic premises, and of course therefore disagrees with you on the conclusions as well. Procreation, and defined gender roles, are key to the way a lot of Christians, not all of them Catholic, define the purposes of marriage. Romantic comedies define the purpose of marriage in a very different way, and for the most part our legal system today subscribes to the romantic comedy vision of marriage. (I’m saying that to be mildly facetious, but only mildly: the vision of marriage that’s based purely on love and companionship is a very attractive one in a lot of ways, though I ultimately don’t share it). This is why it makes sense for the state and the church to apply different tests for who can get married. Gay couples fail the test for the (Catholic) vision of marriage. Just the same as a man couldn’t marry one of Tolkien’s Elves in a Catholic church (and for some of the same reasons- no possibility of procreation).
I have continually asked for specifics from you. You continue to be vague, then whine when I accuse you of vagueness. I have continually sought specifics from you and now you whine when I extrapolate situations from the meager erroneous comments you make that those were not your arguments.
You have made claims that churches are businesses while failing to demonstrate why they are businesses.
You have claimed that churches “get paid” for marriages when they do not.
You have raised the wholly irrelevant issue that the clergy get paid. shrug
Since you refuse to be specific, I can only work with what vague claims you make.
You have failed to provide a single example of an incident that matches your claims.
In point of fact, your entire argument rests on a series of fictive claims. Fine, IF a church requires that a couple pay the church money for a wedding and IF the church provides generic weddings with no connection to the religion of the church, and IF the church is a business rather than a private association, we will strip the church of its tax exemption if the church discriminates against a couple seeking marriage due to race, sexual orientation, language, national origin, or belief. Since no church matches all of those conditions and few churches match even two of those conditions, your imaginary scenario is irrelevant to real life and you can sit back knowing that you have “won” this discussion.
The reason the disabled player can’t play in the NFL is an actual, physical reason. There is no actual, real reason that a gay couple can’t marry in a Catholic church. They could walk in there and say the words, the priest could bless them, it would be in all meaningful respects identical to any other couple.
That’s the important distinction, and the one people are ignoring, instead pretending that someone’s internal beliefs matter, not their actions.
Nope.Saying two completely different things are the same doesn’t make it so. I’ve been accused of doing that by people who don’t appear to have read my posts a few times in this thread, and it’s rather annoying.
I’m not arguing that any church does those things (except charge for weddings, which plenty do), I’m arguing that they should provide weddings in a non-bigoted fashion, and that they should be treated as a business when acting like one.
Once again, you have my argument completely backwards.
Also, a general statement that I explicitly intend to apply to all scenarios is not vague. Bigotry is wrong. Religion should not be an excuse for bigotry. Churches should be required to marry people regardless of gender, race, sexuality, disability, age, and so forth. Not vague, not even slightly.
Well, yes, and when acting in those ways - like a business, as you put it - i shouldn’t be allowed to act in a bigoted fashion.
No, when acting as religions they should not be allowed to discriminate. Really simple. It’s not a convoluted argument, it’s a straightforward statement that religion should not be allowed to be an excuse for bigotry. I’m wondering how many times I’ll have to type that before people are actually able to read it. If you disagree with it, that’s one thing, but to repeatedly pretend I’m saying something other than that is absurd.
Now that we have this out in the open, I think we can just go ahead and close this thread. Steophan is now arguing against 235 years of American history, and the basis of the Constitution. Beliefs DO matter, regardless of whether or not you agree with them. Forcing others to believe what you want them to believe is entirely antithetical to the concept of freedom. You have met a brick wall here in that regard.
You are right on one point though - bigotry IS wrong. But you will not be able to provide a logical justification for having the government force religious organizations to act against their bigoted ways. Your disdain for all religious organizations and your wish to see them eradicated is coloring your argument.