Oh and this might surprise you as well…it’s not illegal for the KKK to discriminate. It is that kind of freedom, as much as it abhors me, that makes this country great.
We don’t need authority dictating what we as individuals can believe and express.
This is one of my biggest bugs about some religions: Why can’t women lead the group? Isn’t that discrimination writ large?
How in the 21st century can anyone believe women aren’t good enough to lead? The thought makes my head spin. And it has been proven wrong over and over and over.
Blaster Master already answered this probably better, but I was going to point out that these are all examples of telling religions what they must not do, as opposed to mandating what they must do when it comes to practicing their religion. So you can’t tell churches whom they must marry, or allow to be priests, or allow to participate in their religious rituals. (And I think it’s just a trick of language to say these are examples of telling churches what they can’t do by calling it discrimination. You could play that trick to overrule any religious freedom—which maybe you want to do, actually, but you’d be going against the Constitution and one of its fundamental rights that many Americans hold dear.)
No, I don’t think they do, necessarily, though some churches may run specific operations that fall into that category.
Yes, but as Omar Little points out in the post directly above yours, thinking they should do something is different from thinking they should be legally required to do something.
It is always wryly amusing to hear atheists complain “why won’t they let me into their stupid club for losers?”
This. Much the same spirit as “somebody is wrong on the Internet”. As well as the lust for vengeance.
I don’t see how that addresses the issue any better than what we have now. If you want to be married legally in some way that a given church doesn’t allow, you go to the courthouse or a justice of the peace or something and get married. If you want to be married ceremonially (so to speak) and legally, you go
to a church. If you fulfill the church’s requirements, they do both. If you don’t fulfill the church’s requirements, tough luck, but you can still go to the courthouse.
That some people think a church wedding and a civil wedding are one and the same thing doesn’t IMO justify making everybody else jump thru an extra hoop.
Regards,
Shodan
The real reason for all this is a practical one. There are a lot of religious people and many believe passionately, and if you start forcing people to violate sacred tenets of their religion what you get is religious wars. So you accommodate.
All these distinctions that people are drawing up are just rationalizations for things that are practical necessities.
Religion has been declining a lot in recent decades. If this trend continues going forward, I expect there will be decreasing tolerance for religion-based discrimination (and for religion generally).
It’s more like “Why is this club for losers income tax exempt?”
That’s not what this thread is about. We’ve discussed that issue before, in other threads.
We don’t tax any non-profit organizations. Singling some of them out for taxation based on their beliefs would itself be discriminatory.
Lots of stupid clubs for losers are tax exempt, if they’re a non-profit.
This is where I was going with my earlier post. I agree that the real reason religion is afforded special consideration is that people are lunatic fanatics who can - and do - turn violent.
OP should consider that the West has mostly (but not entirely) resolved the problem of religious violence while other parts of the world continue to suffer from sectarian civil wars. There are many nations where being the “wrong” religion or practicing your religion in the “wrong” way can be a death sentence. The Western nations solved this problem by having everyone agree to politely disagree, and making sure that government stays 500 yards away from religion at all times. Hence, government is extremely reluctant to intervene in religion and does so only when strictly necessary.
Likewise, there are actually very few occasions on which the government will intervene in cases of racial discrimination (mostly centered on housing and employment) and the burden of proof for a plaintiff that believes they have been discriminated against is quite high. The best way to deal with religion - and racists - is to win the argument rather than force them into compliance.
No we don’t. At least, the OP is not a genuine case of this phenomenon, he’s proposing a course of action that he doesn’t actually believe in as a rhetorical device.
Not really, it’s “Why does this stupid club of losers rules affect those not in the club?”
How does “This stupid club for losers won’t put on their stupid costumes and do their stupid dance for me when I asked them to” affect you?
You don’t have to join the stupid club. The stupid club doesn’t need to let you join. And they don’t have to dance for you unless they want to, you can’t use the power of government to make them dance for you.
If the only way to get the benefit of marriage was to have the head shaman of the stupid club for losers do his stupid dance, then you might have an argument that the head shaman should be obligated to dance for everyone.
Except that’s not the case. You don’t need the head shaman. You can find someone else, or you can just go to a secular official and get your marriage solemnized. Should each and every secular official be required to stamp your papers with the correct seals? As long as there is someone who will stamp your papers, and you don’t have to wait more than five minutes to find that person, then who cares?
Yes, as an individual you can legally refuse to do any of theses things. It is when you enter the public arena as a professional realtor or baker that you can’t discriminate against certain of your customers.
So you’re going to ask a priest to repudiate HIS faith so a couple won’t have to – BTW, a faith that INCLUDES a rejection of their sexuality. I would say that they are repudiating their faith by taking actions directly contrary to what their faith dictates. And I applaud them for it – people who don’t believe in the tenets of their faith SHOULD repudiate it.
It doesn’t. If you don’t want to abide by the rules, don’t join the club. But also don’t expect the rest of us to force the club to accept you as a member.
Regards,
Shodan
I want Johnny Depp to officiate at my wedding.
Why can’t I force Johnny Depp over to my house at gunpoint and make him officiate at my wedding? I’ve already got his outfit picked out, and the choreography for his ritual dance is finalized. He owes me! It’s discrimination!
If someone set up a for-profit organization to perform wedding ceremonies, that person would have to accept all legal wedding services. He would not be obliged to officiate a polygamous wedding, but he would be obligate to officiate a gay wedding, assuming that state has a non-discrimination law wrt gays.
Good post. You’re right. Although I do think the discrimination is grossly unfair I was interested to hear the arguments against forcing religions into compliance. And I have to confess that many of them are hard to argue with. So on balance I guess we’ll just have to wait until religions wither away (unlikely, superstition seems to be a basic need in most humans) or they catch up with the rest of society, and I fear that might be a long wait.
Which, phrased another way, is the simplest and most unchallengeable way to position oneself as superior to one’s neighbors.
“We have the one true church of Jesus, and all others* have fallen for snares of Satan!” - real quote overheard during a religious debate.