What does the EDL have to do with the marching season in Northern Ireland?
Did you mean you’d love to tell the Irish Catholics of West Belfast during any if their Marcus they’d have to allow Orangemen to enter celebrating the Protestant conquest of Ireland?
Similarly, I’m sure you’d like to see the look on the faces of Native Americans in Canada and the US being told they have to allow people to march in their parades celebrating the European conquest of America.
Thankfully that will never happen because no one, except possibly you, actually believes the crap you’ve been promoting in this thread.
Who has said anything on this thread about Synagogues being bigoted other than yourself?
The fact that you used such a stupid example which showed complete ignorance of Judaism shows that you really don’t know nearly enough about this subject to do anything but get people to laugh at your arguments.
Look, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, assume you’re serious, but just don’t know much about either Christianity or Judaism and give you some tips.
Next time, say you think that from now on all Synagogues have to allow men and women to pray together, have to allow women to be Rabbis, and can’t refuse to let women to be Cantors.
Making such an argument would have been more effective than that silly hypothetical you posted.
Well done for showing that you’re not following the thread… I responded to an over the top hypothetical about Nazis with another one. I know you can’t help yourself in your attempts to show I’m wrong, but it won’t work if you don’t at least try to follow what’s happening.
And in doing so ignored vastly better arguments and showed rather extreme ignorance about Judaism.
Huh?
I remember you making bizarre statements about the jury in the Emmett Till case making the right decision and that you’d have voted not guilty as well , but other than that, you really don’t make a strong impression on me.
Anyway, this thread isn’t about how you feel I behave towards you so I say let’s drop such comments unless you want to start a pit thread.
Apologies to other readers for unintentionally provoking a thread hijack.
It’s interesting, “Ladies nights” with reduced drink prices have been found to violate various statutes in different states (and found to not violate them in others).
But anyway, that’s completely irrelevant anyways, because a church is not a business, and the rules are very different.
So it’s okay to discriminate in certain situations?" Hmmm. You’re starting to crack.
So do Jews have to let non-Jews into their synagogues? All of them who want to join? Pretty soon, it would be majority-Christian. The new members could vote to convert it to a church.
It’s clear that on this thread his is the only/lonely voice. I’ll even stipulate that on the SDMB he is part of a tiny minority. I don’t think, however, that it’s a lunatics-only idea.
I think that, for the general public, it’s a much more agreeable position.
I’d be surprised that, again, for the general public, an idea like “churches have to marry anyone who can legally get a civil marriage or lose tax exemptions” would get less than 20% of approval.
Oddly enough, I AM a secular liberal. It’s frustrating that these discussions always boil down to a few usual suspects wailing out with, “but religions are BUSINESS!”, yet offer zero argument for why they believe that. And when the IRS regulations are laid out, and the historical reasoning behind non-profits’ tax-exemptions are explained, they still refuse to budge. It’s a massive blind spot, in my opinion.
^ Also a secular liberal. A semi-militant atheist, in fact. I don’t really get what the MLK reference is supposed to do to make us uncomfortable; white supremacists also used the Bible to justify their views.
What papal decrees? The tax codes, like all our law, largely descend from English law - which did tax churches at the time of the Revolution.
A Catholic priest refused to marry a male friend of mine, age 63 at the time, because he was ‘living in sin’ with his 65 year old girlfriend. He was completely flabbergasted.
Well, if that is true, I stand in ignorance of the tax laws of the time and concede the point. I thought the Church of England was tax free though and a continuation of what the RCC use to have.
The Church of England has been tax-exempt in varying degrees at different times. It currently has no special tax status at all. More importantly, other churches have never been exempt (except the Catholic Church pre-Henry VIII).
Thanks for those. While as a non-Catholic I find the latter almost painfully condescending (and the former tickled me with the “evil” of cohabitation), it’s a valid point. You want a Catholic wedding? You accept the Catholic definition of marriage, as interpreted and enforced by your officiant. Same with any other wedding in any other faith. Not willing to accept that definition? Find another officiant.
Since almost everyone today who is in a serious relationship is ‘living together’ with someone, these priests are wasting their time. It’s idiotic, especially for a couple in their 60s! he had never been married, but she had, and was divorced and has adult children.
I would advise these couples to keep their mouths shut.
But I would advise people who want to engage in the rituals specified by a particular faith to be prepared to actually, yanno, participate in those rituals. If you don’t want a Catholic wedding, don’t ask for a Catholic wedding.
And really, any lifelong RC who is “flabbergasted” by a priest adhering to Catholic doctrine needs to either find a more liberal priest or a more liberal church. And needs to be less easily flabbergasted.