Oh nonsense. Your burden is to disentangle the functional difference between churches and other 501(c)(3) organizations in order to defend any argument that they should be treated differently.
Tell you what. You take some time to figure out exactly what your position is here, and get back to us.
Yes, of course. Because that sort of discrimination is always bad, just as only letting men join the country club or whatever is always bad.
Of course they wouldn’t. At what point during a Catholic marriage service do they have to convert to Catholicism? They would have to tell lies about how they will act like good Catholics, but I see no reason to prevent Muslims telling the same lies as Catholics.
Unless you are going to tell me that every single Catholic who ever got married was sincere?
Of course, this argument didn’t start arguing about this situation, and I imagine that even if they could, no Jews or Muslims would choose a Catholic ceremony. That’s not true of all gays, some of whom would love to force those bigots to marry them, or at least confront the effects of their bigotry by not being allowed to marry anybody.
Not my burden at all. Not a fight I am going to make as the entrenched interests of religion is too deep in this country for any change to come in my lifetime. But what I said is actually accurate.
If you take some time to go back and read my posts, not the ones you’re imagining when you see my name at the top of them, you’ll see that, as if by magic, a coherent position emerges!
That position being that religious groups should not get a pass for bigotry.
It would have to be magic, to get a coherent position out of this confused hash you’ve been posting.
Wrong way to go about it. Let the marriage happen civilly and if the churches oppose that they will fade away as the one who is expected to perform this function. You do not want to force the issue under gunpoint nor do you want to empower anyone that it is necessary to force someone to perform the function.
There’s nothing confused about the idea that religion should not be allowed to be a shield for bigotry.
Why not?
But I AM making your argument. I’m pointing out the absurdities your logic would lead to.
So now I can’t discriminate against Nazis when hiring people for my business?
Hell no. Not negotiable, pal.
I didn’t ask you that. Should Jews not be allowed to keep Nazis out of their temple? Or their business, for that matter. Should the NAACP be required to let KKK members in? Yes or no, please.
No it’s not!
Religious freedom is NOT the freedom to join a religious group that doesn’t want you as a member. That’s an infringement on the religious freedom of the group.
Jesus H. Christ, do you ever read your posts back to yourself to hear how ridiculous they are?
The Catholic Church’s service offered is Catholic weddings. It doesn’t offer other kinds.
Does your arrogance know no bounds? Do you really have such little respect for other human beings that you won’t even give them the right to know what they believe better than you do?
So, fuck freedom of religion.
And the idea that excluding people who don’t believe in your religion, or even actively hate your religion, is “bigotry” is why you’re so whack.
Why just a bar though?
Explain exactly why my wife isn’t a bigot for having a lady’s only night.
Again, why no?
No, I’m getting closer and closer and you can’t handle it.
Religion is not a business or public accomodation. It is as personal, and subjective, as choosing friends or mates. You should stay the hell out of it.
And let’s not forget that in the United States, the freedom to practice religion is a Constitutionally guaranteed right.
Nope. The Mormon can still be Mormon and the RCC still considers the marriage, celebrated by RCC clergy, to be one, well, celebrated by RCC clergy.
When my father (non-Catholic) married my mother (at the time Catholic), my father did, in fact, have to agree to raise the children in the Catholic faith. As my mother left the Catholic church before any of us children were born, I feel safe in saying that the agreement no longer applies. (Plus, Mom and Dad were married at City Hall before they caved into Grandma’s pleading to “really get married, you know, in church, by a real (read: Catholic) priest.”)
When did the RCC change that policy or was the policy different in different dioceses or was Grandma’s parish priest exceeding his authority?
“Hey, Jewboy kike! I want to join your synagogue! You better let me in!”
“Uh, no, I’m not letting a Nazi join my synagogue, that’s absurd.”
“If you don’t, you’re a bigot!”
“Right. I’m the bigot here. Oy vey. Have you been talking to Steophan again?”
If you can’t discriminate in the intimiate, personal, spiritual, communal expirience of playing AD&D 2nd ed. with your friends, then it’s time for the pitchforks.
I also want to thank Steophan for comin clean on the “forcing churches to do whatever non-church members want”. Fianlly one of “you” said it, it wasn’t a delusion “we” had.
I believe you mean to say that the official recognition of the government is what makes people legally domestic partners. I couldn’t agree with you more about that. Exactly how is the state submitting to the church when the church has no involvement - nor should it have - in the legalities of a civil union and the state is calling all the appropriate shots?
Not whatever I want, just that they be held to the same standards as everyone else.
How about
“Hello Mr Rabbi, I want to join your synagogue”
“Are you a Jew?”
“None of your business”
“You can’t enter unless you’re a Jew”
“Bigot”
“…”
Which is actually the point. The synagogue has no more right to deny you entry based than McDonalds. So, hate speech towards the staff would be an acceptable reason to do so. Private beliefs, skin colour, gender, sexuality, religion (which is really a subcategory of private beliefs), or disability are not.