When the time came that most of society and most churches accepted divorce and remarriage, that the Catholic Church did not only affected those who wished to remain Catholics in good standing. Everyone else carried on, including BTW a whole bunch of nominal Catholics. So I would not be that pessimistic, aldiboronti – if in the end there are a number of churches who are holdouts WRT internal rites, but the general culture embraces equality, that’s progress and no need to force it upon anyone.
No, they’re not just rationalizations, and no, we should not–and I hope will not–ever force religious organizations not to discriminate when it comes to practicing their religions, not even if only a small minority of people in some future time are religious believers.
As several people have pointed out–see UDS in post #12 and Boyo Jim in post #35, and several other posts–the laws against discrimination (discrimination on grounds of membership in categories like race, religion, and–probably soon, though not fully implemented in this country–sexual orientation) are actually only narrowly applicable. It’s just that the narrow categories (stuff like employment and public accommodations) are really important categories, and also categories that wind up occupying a large part of our lives. You spend a large portion of your waking hours at work, and an even larger portion of your life either at work, or in public accommodations (that also typically constitute other people’s workplaces). But the areas where anti-discrimination laws apply are far from the whole of our lives. No one can force you to befriend Them, or date Them, or marry Them, or have Them over for dinner (however “They” are defined) and any society which tried to extend anti-discrimination laws to such areas of human life sounds more like a science fiction dystopia than like a place I would like to live, or like anything sane liberals and progressives ought to be working towards.
And how would extending anti-discrimination laws to religious organizations even logically work, given that religious beliefs are a protected class? Are we going to tell a synagogue that they have to hire Pastor Smith as their new rabbi, even though Pastor Smith is an evangelical Christian? And the evangelical chuch has to hire Sister Sparkle-Moonbeam as their pastor, even though she’s a Neo-Pagan? That would be absurd.
There’s a false equivalency here. In the current national conversation, opposing anti-gay Christians amounts to fighting laws they are trying to put in place to allow them to legally discriminate against others. As in, resisting efforts to deny equal treatment.
Defending Muslims is more along the lines of fighting efforts to deny them visas, implement extraordinary tracking and surveillance, and otherwise curtail their rights. As in, resisting efforts to deny equal treatment.
So it’s not hypocritical for a person to oppose Christians’ efforts to legalize discrimination against homosexuals, while also supporting Muslims by opposing efforts to legalize discrimination against them. One can also disagree with the anti-gay aspects of Christianity and Islam while also believing that adherents to both religions deserve equal treatment under the law.
If people ever start seriously talking about monitoring Christian neighborhoods, or proposing religious tests to decide whether Christian immigrants should be issued visas, and social progressives support those efforts, then you may have a point. Same goes for if a large contingent of Muslims ever organizes in the US and starts trying to fight against same-sex marriage.
Agreed. You don’t have to be a fan of religion to support religious freedom; you just have to be a fan of freedom.
That cuts both ways. No one has a religious right to open a business. Anyone who joins the club of public commerce must abide by the rules.
People who rationalize things don’t tend to think they’re doing so.
Time will tell as to what happens when the basis for the rationalization diminishes.
You’re narrowing the issue already, by limiting protection to purely social matters.
The point here is that these areas that occupy “a large part of our lives” are already subject to considerable conflict between religious tenets and public anti-discrimination (or other) goals. The extent to which religious belief trumps these other goals is what’s at stake here.
How about this?
No one has a religious right to breathe public air. Anyone who joins the club of public air breathers must abide by the rules.
Here’s something that’s not often discussed in these “religious freedom” debates. What do you consider the absolute authority for religious pronouncements?
Let’s say you want to let those bakers discriminate against gays because of religion. Fine, so they get that right. But homophobia is less present in Episcopalians. They have Gene Robinson whom they appointed as a Bishop. Should Episcopalians not be allowed to discriminate (meaning if you’re Episcopalian and you try that bakery crap, the government can force you to serve gays) but some group like the Southern Baptists are allowed to?
Breaking it down even further, should we have an official government bible standard, where all fables, lessons, and interpretations are categorized, classified, sub-divided, and cited so that you can use this passage from “X 2:15” to discriminate against gays, but if you want to discriminate against blacks, you have to use “B 14:2” but only if it doesn’t match the situation in “L 7:16”. Turn the bible into a lawbook essentially, because if Christians are going to cite the bible as an excuse to do something, then they must all believe the same thing. Maybe Southern Baptists can only reap the benefits and negatives from the Old Testament, but the Episocopalians are allowed to use the New Testament? If someone’s going to cite from the bible, they can’t just say “The bible says its ok”, but where does it say its ok? And are you using those lessons correctly? Because if you say the whole Garden of Eden story in Genesis is about anti-immigration, then shouldn’t the government be able to tell you you’re wrong, that’s not the point of the bible, and that the story of Eden actually means X, Y, and Z?
All of this is of course just a cover for who really gets to decide what the bible actually says is right or wrong. There’s tons of contradictions in the bible. Now I’m sure you fundamentalists have an excuse for everything, but I’m not going by your definition, I’m going by the official government definition, which states that Genesis 1 and 2 contradict each other in the order that things in the universe were created. So here, I’m right, and you cannot use Genesis to state certain things because you’re objectively wrong. There is precedent for my viewpoint and only mistakes for yours, so you’re objectively wrong about the bible.
The above is what I think about every time some Christian says the bible excuses his assholish behavior. I’m sure with little effort, I can find another Christian who says the opposite. The bakers, or the wedding photographers operate using a bible that I don’t agree with, one with little authority except their own and those like them. My biblical god is loving of gays, so hell yeah they should be forced to serve gay people. As far as I’m concerned, loving gays, transgendered people, and anyone on the sexual orientation line is a Christian thing to do. I am enforcing Christianity when I vote to support those who would ban sexual orientation discrimination, I am enforcing Christianity when I vote to allow gays to marry, and there’s nothing your objectively wrong version of the bible can say to disprove that. Besides, that whole thing about kills gays? You know that’s just an allegory, right? ;p
I have no problem with that. The constitution does not give the government the authority to control the air.
A church isn’t a business.
Regards,
Shodan
Each individual can decide his own religious beliefs. That’s kind of what “freedom of religion” means.
No. Too much like imposing sharia law on Muslims.
No, that would be an establishment of religion, which the Constitution frowns on.
It also does not give the government the authority to control religion or free association.
Regards,
Shodan
Tell that to the EPA.
Exactly. And a business isn’t a church.
None of the Bill of Rights are absolute.
I guess that’s what you and the bill of rights have in common.
Omar, I don’t entirely understand your comment but in the off chance it was meant as an insult don’t do it again.
If it is taken as an offense, I clearly apologize. It was intended to convey that nothing is absolute. In that context, what’s the point of having this conversation, because North Korea could invade tomorrow, and throw us all into darkness and we’ll wish for the good ole days when churches could discriminate.
No its not. You can’t say you refuse to work on Mondays due to your religion. You religion must at least have history, enough believers, probably a written set of codes, etc. You don’t get to claim religion for justifying your personal beliefs, which is exactly what these bakers have done
And Christians trying to make homophobia an official tenet of their religion is like imposing a Christian Sharia onto everyone else. The point is, you don’t get to do that, Muslims don’t get to do that, nobody gets to do that. And in the absence of religious uniformity on gays, you default to civil rights and allowing the gays to shop at any business, or get their services from any public entity
You’ve proven my point. Christians are trying to get “Christians hate gays!” as an official part of their religion to be recognized by the government. Good thing Obama is having none of that. Plenty of Christians have no problems with gays. The homophobes do not have a monopoly on Christian dogma. Therefore, no matter what religion those bakers or wedding photographers are, they should never be allowed to claim their religion allows them the right to discriminate against gays. Either make the damn cake, or don’t have a business. That’s the only fair outcome
No they aren’t. I already said that churches do not get to impose their rules on anyone who is not a voluntary member.
I’m not sure what this means. You are the one suggesting an official, government-approved version of the Bible. I am the one pointing out that the government has no authority to do this.
Regards,
Shodan
YogSothoth, I think you are confusing Shodan’s comments. People are free to be bigoted, discriminate, even hate others. People that feel the same way can gather together under the auspices of a church and share their beliefs. That’s freedom of religion. Now if a person that is a member of that church also owns a business and decides to illegally discriminate, well that’s against the law. The situations are different.