When would slavery in the Southern States have ended...

Page 16 of 18 [ 276 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18  Next


When would Slavery have ended, had Lincoln not intervened?
By 1875 10%  10%  [ 5 ]
By 1900 14%  14%  [ 7 ]
By 1925 14%  14%  [ 7 ]
By 1950 4%  4%  [ 2 ]
By 1975 12%  12%  [ 6 ]
By 2000 2%  2%  [ 1 ]
By 2025 2%  2%  [ 1 ]
Never 26%  26%  [ 13 ]
Just show the results 16%  16%  [ 8 ]
Total votes : 50

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

21 Jun 2012, 2:16 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
While HIV is life threatening, it is not something like a gun-shot wound where you can die if you don't get immediate treatment...

The person in question can always go see another doctor, this isn't a situation like someone just had a heart-attack.


So it's acceptable for a Catholic hospital to say, "no treatment for gays," if they are not in immediate distress?

It's acceptable for an attending physician to refuse to administer drugs prescribed by a patients primary physician that continue to be medically indicated?

Make no mistake, missing doses of antiretrovirals has significant consequences for people who are HIV+. There is no room for error in the administration of these drugs, because once they become ineffective, they are then unavailable ever after. There are a limited number of effective antiretroviral therapies, and fewer still with limited toxicity.

The obligation on the physician is to treat the patient, notwithstanding her personal views, until she can put the patient into the care of a physician who is willing to continue treatment. The obligation is on her to find the other physician, not the patient.


The United States isn't like Canada yet, and hopefully Obamacare is struck down. It doesn't take several weeks to get in to see a doctor over certain medical conditions...

visagrunt wrote:
Quote:
Uh Catholic Schools generally frown on the idea of students being sexually active on school grounds. Furthermore, if you don't like the rules in a religious school, here's a novel concept, go to a different school! This isn't rocket science.


Who said anything about being sexually active?

And since when does a child--even a child in high school--get to make the decision about where they are enrolled. Once a parent has enrolled a child, the school is under a positive duty to teach the child.


In the case of college, children are over the age of 18 and are legally adults. In the case of High School, why would you be running around announcing your sexual preference. You're supposed to be learning, math, science, history, etc. in High School, it isn't a strip club...

visagrunt wrote:
Quote:
The example you gave was comparing apples to porcupines, they aren't even remotely similar.


It still stands for the principle that religious institutions are not immune from public law.


Never said they were immune, however you need to acknowledge there is a line where public laws can and will be struck down by the courts when laws are passed that violate the 1st Amendment.

visagrunt wrote:
Quote:
There are also limits on what Government can impose on Religious institutions, and you are crossing that line. The church has every right under the 1st Amendment to refuse to marry homosexual couples.


Of course the church has that right. I have always argued that churches have that right. I have never suggested that a member of the clergy of this church could ever be compelled to officiate at any ceremony that was inconsistent with the church's doctrine.


Okay so first you say one thing...

visagrunt wrote:
But when a church offers premises that it owns to the public, for public use, then the church must comply with public law. This wasn't a religious use of land, this was a commercial use of land, intended to generate money to support the church generally. Once you step outside the conduct of worship service and the teaching of scripture, then you are outside the protection of religious activity.


Then you say the exact opposite... Marriage Ceremonies is a religious use of church grounds, and the Church has to be open to the public in order to the congregation to come and worship... By your own standards, you are suggesting that the church has no religious liberties, when just a moment ago you said they did.

Further you are suggesting that churches cannot be involved in any charitable activity, without giving up their religious freedoms, which is a load of garbage.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

21 Jun 2012, 3:45 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
The United States isn't like Canada yet, and hopefully Obamacare is struck down. It doesn't take several weeks to get in to see a doctor over certain medical conditions...


Stay on topic. This has nothing to do with Obamacare, so your feeble attempt at diversion is pointless. Talk about that in another thread.

The issue is the obligation of religious institutions that operate enterprises in the public sphere.

visagrunt wrote:
In the case of college, children are over the age of 18 and are legally adults. In the case of High School, why would you be running around announcing your sexual preference. You're supposed to be learning, math, science, history, etc. in High School, it isn't a strip club...


Because sexual orientation is intrisic to self-identity. I have known that I was gay since I was 12, and the social conventions of the time meant that I was obliged to lie about it. Is this really the message that teenagers need to receive? That their emerging sexuality is something to be hidden or repressed?

And let's be clear--heterosexual teenagers announce their sexual orientation incessantly. At any given moment, how many of them are gossipping about the boys/girls that they find attractive (or not). How many are walking down the school hallways hand in hand with their boyfriend/girlfriend of the moment? How many are stealing a few minutes behind the bleachers or under the stairs to get in some casual necking?

These are perfectly typical behaviors, and they should be understood as such. Ideally, we want teenagers to understand that there are proper spheres for these activities, but teenagers awash in hormones are going to act out, and no amount of wishing or repressive policy is going to change that.

Meanwhile, the teenager who does announce their homosexuality is just as entitled to an education as the heterosexual teenager who doesn't.

Quote:
Never said they were immune, however you need to acknowledge there is a line where public laws can and will be struck down by the courts when laws are passed that violate the 1st Amendment.


And what public law is violating the First Amendment? You seem to be trying to elevate religious freedom into the sphere of commerce.

Quote:
Okay so first you say one thing...

visagrunt wrote:
But when a church offers premises that it owns to the public, for public use, then the church must comply with public law. This wasn't a religious use of land, this was a commercial use of land, intended to generate money to support the church generally. Once you step outside the conduct of worship service and the teaching of scripture, then you are outside the protection of religious activity.


Then you say the exact opposite... Marriage Ceremonies is a religious use of church grounds, and the Church has to be open to the public in order to the congregation to come and worship... By your own standards, you are suggesting that the church has no religious liberties, when just a moment ago you said they did.


My statements are not inconsistent. The marriage ceremony is not a religious use of church property--it is a civil use of property that is owned by the church and rented to the public for commercial purposes.

This building was not a church--it was a building owned by a congregation for other purposes. No official of the church was expected or required to participate in the civil ceremony--let alone officiate. The church's connection was simply and solely being the landowner of the place where the civil ceremony was to have taken place, because it was a space routinely rented out to the public for non-religious purposes.

The Church is free to stop renting the building to the public altogether. At that point, they can preserve it for whatever use they want to put it to. But the moment they start renting it to the public, then it ceases to be a religious building and it becomes a building offered to the public for commercial--not religious--purposes.

Quote:
Further you are suggesting that churches cannot be involved in any charitable activity, without giving up their religious freedoms, which is a load of garbage.


When churches enter the commercial sphere, they become subject to general laws of ordinary application, just like the rest of us.


_________________
--James


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

21 Jun 2012, 4:03 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
The United States isn't like Canada yet, and hopefully Obamacare is struck down. It doesn't take several weeks to get in to see a doctor over certain medical conditions...


Stay on topic. This has nothing to do with Obamacare, so your feeble attempt at diversion is pointless. Talk about that in another thread.

The issue is the obligation of religious institutions that operate enterprises in the public sphere.


Actually it has everything to do with Obamacare, or did you not realize why the Catholic Church filed a lawsuit...


visagrunt wrote:
Quote:
In the case of college, children are over the age of 18 and are legally adults. In the case of High School, why would you be running around announcing your sexual preference. You're supposed to be learning, math, science, history, etc. in High School, it isn't a strip club...


Because sexual orientation is intrisic to self-identity. I have known that I was gay since I was 12, and the social conventions of the time meant that I was obliged to lie about it. Is this really the message that teenagers need to receive? That their emerging sexuality is something to be hidden or repressed?

And let's be clear--heterosexual teenagers announce their sexual orientation incessantly. At any given moment, how many of them are gossipping about the boys/girls that they find attractive (or not). How many are walking down the school hallways hand in hand with their boyfriend/girlfriend of the moment? How many are stealing a few minutes behind the bleachers or under the stairs to get in some casual necking?

These are perfectly typical behaviors, and they should be understood as such. Ideally, we want teenagers to understand that there are proper spheres for these activities, but teenagers awash in hormones are going to act out, and no amount of wishing or repressive policy is going to change that.

Meanwhile, the teenager who does announce their homosexuality is just as entitled to an education as the heterosexual teenager who doesn't.


I'm heterosexual and I didn't behave like that, just because some teenagers behave like sex crazed idiots doesn't mean all teenagers do...

In all honesty, I doubt very many kids would have reacted to you all that much as long as you didn't parade your sexual orientation every five minutes... It wouldn't surprise me at that point if you ended up with more friends that were girls than friends that were guys, simply because the girls would know that you weren't trying to get into their pants...

visagrunt wrote:
Quote:
Never said they were immune, however you need to acknowledge there is a line where public laws can and will be struck down by the courts when laws are passed that violate the 1st Amendment.


And what public law is violating the First Amendment? You seem to be trying to elevate religious freedom into the sphere of commerce.


I think you are trying to falsely assert that something is within the sphere of commerce when it is not.

visagrunt wrote:
Quote:
Okay so first you say one thing...

visagrunt wrote:
But when a church offers premises that it owns to the public, for public use, then the church must comply with public law. This wasn't a religious use of land, this was a commercial use of land, intended to generate money to support the church generally. Once you step outside the conduct of worship service and the teaching of scripture, then you are outside the protection of religious activity.


Then you say the exact opposite... Marriage Ceremonies is a religious use of church grounds, and the Church has to be open to the public in order to the congregation to come and worship... By your own standards, you are suggesting that the church has no religious liberties, when just a moment ago you said they did.


My statements are not inconsistent. The marriage ceremony is not a religious use of church property--it is a civil use of property that is owned by the church and rented to the public for commercial purposes.

This building was not a church--it was a building owned by a congregation for other purposes. No official of the church was expected or required to participate in the civil ceremony--let alone officiate. The church's connection was simply and solely being the landowner of the place where the civil ceremony was to have taken place, because it was a space routinely rented out to the public for non-religious purposes.

The Church is free to stop renting the building to the public altogether. At that point, they can preserve it for whatever use they want to put it to. But the moment they start renting it to the public, then it ceases to be a religious building and it becomes a building offered to the public for commercial--not religious--purposes.

Quote:
Further you are suggesting that churches cannot be involved in any charitable activity, without giving up their religious freedoms, which is a load of garbage.


When churches enter the commercial sphere, they become subject to general laws of ordinary application, just like the rest of us.


Wrong, when you admitted the building was owned by a religious institution you admitted that you were arguing that there is no such thing as religious liberty.

The Catholic Faith for instance considers homosexuality to be a sinful behavior. To people to conduct a homosexual marriage on their property, I don't care if it is the church itself or a tool shed, would be the same as condoning that kind of behavior in violation of their religious beliefs.

What next, you going to say that they are going to have to allow prostitution to occur in that building because prostitution is suddenly legal... Don't bother trying to claim I am using a false equivalency, because we both know it actually is equivalent considering homosexual behavior is considered as bad if not worse than prostitution in Catholism.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

21 Jun 2012, 4:48 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Actually it has everything to do with Obamacare, or did you not realize why the Catholic Church filed a lawsuit...


Repeating a lie does not make it so.

Quote:
I'm heterosexual and I didn't behave like that, just because some teenagers behave like sex crazed idiots doesn't mean all teenagers do...

In all honesty, I doubt very many kids would have reacted to you all that much as long as you didn't parade your sexual orientation every five minutes... It wouldn't surprise me at that point if you ended up with more friends that were girls than friends that were guys, simply because the girls would know that you weren't trying to get into their pants...


And you are also atypical.

For my part, I am well aware of the bullying that I was subjected to--and the reasons for it. Not one of my gay peers felt secure enough to come out when we were in school, and every single one of us cites similar reasons for that unwillingness. You can speculate about what life might have been like for us--but each of us believes that social pressure conspired to keep us closeted, and each of us has had to cope with the results of that.

And for the record, I went to an all boys school, so the prospect of friends that were girls is irrelevant to my personal circumstances.

Quote:
I think you are trying to falsely assert that something is within the sphere of commerce when it is not.


Last time I checked, renting out a hall for someone's wedding was a commercial activity. It doesn't matter whether the landlord is a hotel, a community centre or a church.

Quote:
Wrong, when you admitted the building was owned by a religious institution you admitted that you were arguing that there is no such thing as religious liberty.

The Catholic Faith for instance considers homosexuality to be a sinful behavior. To people to conduct a homosexual marriage on their property, I don't care if it is the church itself or a tool shed, would be the same as condoning that kind of behavior in violation of their religious beliefs.

What next, you going to say that they are going to have to allow prostitution to occur in that building because prostitution is suddenly legal... Don't bother trying to claim I am using a false equivalency, because we both know it actually is equivalent considering homosexual behavior is considered as bad if not worse than prostitution in Catholism.


The Catholic church is free to withdraw from the marketplace if it feels that it cannot stay true to its doctrine and operate its business activities. They are at liberty to confine their property to religious use, and so long as they do so, they are free to impose their own standards of access.

But religious purposes are limited to activities such as the celebration of worship services, the teaching of doctrine and the promulgation of scripture. So long as a congregation confine themselves to these activities, and provided that those activities do not offend public law of general application, no civil authority can gainsay their method of exercise. That is the extent of religious liberty.

But a congregation cannot exend the protection of religious liberty to activities that go beyond these actions, even if their ultimate goal is to raise money that will be used for these purposes.

Similarly, if a landowner keeps access to their property strictly private, then they are free to restrict access to and use of that land. But the moment that the landowner offers to rent the property to the public, the landowner subjects itself to the same legal obligations as every other commercial enterprise.


_________________
--James


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

21 Jun 2012, 5:16 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Actually it has everything to do with Obamacare, or did you not realize why the Catholic Church filed a lawsuit...


Repeating a lie does not make it so.


Right back at you, or is it merely ignorance on your part?

Quote:
Some of the most influential Catholic institutions in the country filed suit against the Obama administration Monday over the so-called contraception mandate, in one of the biggest coordinated legal challenges to the rule to date.

Claiming their "fundamental rights hang in the balance," a total of 43 plaintiffs filed a dozen separate federal lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the requirement. Among the organizations filing were the University of Notre Dame, the Archdiocese of New York and The Catholic University of America.

The groups are objecting to the requirement from the federal health care overhaul that employers provide access to contraceptive care. The Obama administration several months ago softened its position on the mandate, but some religious organizations complained the administration did not go far enough to ensure the rule would not compel them to violate their religious beliefs.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05 ... z1yT2po1XL

Maybe you should get your news from an actual news source, visagrunt instead of a left-wing propaganda site posing as a news site.

visagrunt wrote:
Quote:
I'm heterosexual and I didn't behave like that, just because some teenagers behave like sex crazed idiots doesn't mean all teenagers do...

In all honesty, I doubt very many kids would have reacted to you all that much as long as you didn't parade your sexual orientation every five minutes... It wouldn't surprise me at that point if you ended up with more friends that were girls than friends that were guys, simply because the girls would know that you weren't trying to get into their pants...


And you are also atypical.

For my part, I am well aware of the bullying that I was subjected to--and the reasons for it. Not one of my gay peers felt secure enough to come out when we were in school, and every single one of us cites similar reasons for that unwillingness. You can speculate about what life might have been like for us--but each of us believes that social pressure conspired to keep us closeted, and each of us has had to cope with the results of that.

And for the record, I went to an all boys school, so the prospect of friends that were girls is irrelevant to my personal circumstances.


How did you end up in an instance of girls and boys slobbering all over each other if it was an all boys school? :?

visagrunt wrote:
Quote:
I think you are trying to falsely assert that something is within the sphere of commerce when it is not.


Last time I checked, renting out a hall for someone's wedding was a commercial activity. It doesn't matter whether the landlord is a hotel, a community centre or a church.


So you are arguing that there is no such thing as the freedom of religion... Glad the Supreme Court is highly likely to disagree with you.

Quote:
The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday for the first time that federal discrimination laws do not protect church employees who perform religious duties, a major church-state decision that recognizes religious groups’ constitutionally protected right to select their own leaders.

The justices ruled unanimously that the First Amendment’s guarantee of the free exercise of religion means that even neutral laws intent on banning workplace discrimination may not be applied to a religious institution choosing “those who will guide it on its way.”

“The interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the court.

“But so too is the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith, and carry out their mission.” When those principles are in conflict, Roberts said, “the First Amendment has struck the balance for us.”
-- Washington Post

visagrunt wrote:
Quote:
Wrong, when you admitted the building was owned by a religious institution you admitted that you were arguing that there is no such thing as religious liberty.

The Catholic Faith for instance considers homosexuality to be a sinful behavior. To people to conduct a homosexual marriage on their property, I don't care if it is the church itself or a tool shed, would be the same as condoning that kind of behavior in violation of their religious beliefs.

What next, you going to say that they are going to have to allow prostitution to occur in that building because prostitution is suddenly legal... Don't bother trying to claim I am using a false equivalency, because we both know it actually is equivalent considering homosexual behavior is considered as bad if not worse than prostitution in Catholism.


The Catholic church is free to withdraw from the marketplace if it feels that it cannot stay true to its doctrine and operate its business activities. They are at liberty to confine their property to religious use, and so long as they do so, they are free to impose their own standards of access.


In other words you are saying they are free to close their doors and no longer hold religious service...

visagrunt wrote:
But religious purposes are limited to activities such as the celebration of worship services, the teaching of doctrine and the promulgation of scripture. So long as a congregation confine themselves to these activities, and provided that those activities do not offend public law of general application, no civil authority can gainsay their method of exercise. That is the extent of religious liberty.


The Church has every reason to object, just as they would have every right to object if someone tried to put a casino in that building... Maybe you aren't familar with US Law, but it's highly likely the church would win if this ended up in court.

visagrunt wrote:
But a congregation cannot exend the protection of religious liberty to activities that go beyond these actions, even if their ultimate goal is to raise money that will be used for these purposes.


Wrong, the building was on church ground, generally one of the stipulations that churches make quite clear, is that they will not allow one of their buildings to be used for anything that is considered morally objectionable. Homosexual Marriage would classify as morally objectionable.

visagrunt wrote:
Similarly, if a landowner keeps access to their property strictly private, then they are free to restrict access to and use of that land. But the moment that the landowner offers to rent the property to the public, the landowner subjects itself to the same legal obligations as every other commercial enterprise.


Actually, they don't they are a religious institution, they set their own ground rules as to what can happen within their property, just the same as any other property owner can do. I'm sorry but it is rather likely that the contracts for people to rent the building for a day or a few hours probably has the stipulation about not allowing anything that is considered to be morally objectionable to occur on church grounds (and that building is on church grounds).

It is highly likely that the court (at least in the US where we actually have freedom of speech and freedom of religion), would rule overwhelmingly in favor of the church in question, considering the unanimous decision that I reference earlier in this post.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

21 Jun 2012, 5:25 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
The Church is free to stop renting the building to the public altogether. At that point, they can preserve it for whatever use they want to put it to. But the moment they start renting it to the public, then it ceases to be a religious building and it becomes a building offered to the public for commercial--not religious--purposes.

Quote:
Further you are suggesting that churches cannot be involved in any charitable activity, without giving up their religious freedoms, which is a load of garbage.


When churches enter the commercial sphere, they become subject to general laws of ordinary application, just like the rest of us.


Wrong, when you admitted the building was owned by a religious institution you admitted that you were arguing that there is no such thing as religious liberty.

The Catholic Faith for instance considers homosexuality to be a sinful behavior. To people to conduct a homosexual marriage on their property, I don't care if it is the church itself or a tool shed, would be the same as condoning that kind of behavior in violation of their religious beliefs.

What next, you going to say that they are going to have to allow prostitution to occur in that building because prostitution is suddenly legal... Don't bother trying to claim I am using a false equivalency, because we both know it actually is equivalent considering homosexual behavior is considered as bad if not worse than prostitution in Catholism.

Strictly looking at from the angle of legal technicalities, the church was in the wrong. It seems that the church was renting the place out to the public under the assumption that activities carried out there would have been in keeping with the character of church doctrinal guidelines. Homosexual marriage ceremonies on church properties constitute such a compromise of conscience.

I find it difficult to believe that the couple in question didn't know that. I understand there are circumstances such as medical care, especially emergencies, and such in which it is improper and illegal to withhold services because of sexual orientation. However, saving a life or providing general goods and services are not actions that directly support or encourage the behavior of people with living practices that might be theologically objectionable. Making church property available for same-sex marriage DOES directly enable behavior and violate matters of conscience.

Other ways this principle might be invoked would be requiring all OB/GYNs to also be trained in and perform abortion services on demand. Many OBs I happen to know wouldn't be caught dead near an abortion clinic--religion would only be ONE problem they have with it. Some pharmacists may be reluctant to fill birth control prescriptions, and certainly the might take strong religious issue with "emergency contraception" and the so-called "abortion pill." It would be a clear violation of religious freedom to compel them to provide services that they could not do with a clear conscience.

Part of the motivation my wife had in working in bankruptcy law was our strong mutual objection to divorce, which was something she at one point had to regularly deal with. It was depressing. Eventually she worked things out with her co-workers so that she only worked bankruptcy and avoided dissolving marriages. Part of that objection is a religious one, and her employer at the time understood that. There was always the risk that she might have to draw up divorce papers, but she managed to avoid it most of the time.

In THIS case, the couple could have made a different choice. But they took advantage of a legal technicality to stick it to the church that owned the property. I find that morally and ethically questionable. If the church had any idea that they might have enemies who'd take advantage of the property's status, they might have done something else with it (like not filed for tax exemptions on it, or maybe even sold it off).

The judge in the court case made the right decision in protecting the rule of law. I get that. But they (the couple) knew what would happen, and it really is a direct attack on a religious institution.



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

21 Jun 2012, 6:03 pm

Hospitals that are owned by the Catholic Church absolutely refuse to perform tubal ligations and (whatever the male operation is called)



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

21 Jun 2012, 6:08 pm

AngelRho wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
The Church is free to stop renting the building to the public altogether. At that point, they can preserve it for whatever use they want to put it to. But the moment they start renting it to the public, then it ceases to be a religious building and it becomes a building offered to the public for commercial--not religious--purposes.

Quote:
Further you are suggesting that churches cannot be involved in any charitable activity, without giving up their religious freedoms, which is a load of garbage.


When churches enter the commercial sphere, they become subject to general laws of ordinary application, just like the rest of us.


Wrong, when you admitted the building was owned by a religious institution you admitted that you were arguing that there is no such thing as religious liberty.

The Catholic Faith for instance considers homosexuality to be a sinful behavior. To people to conduct a homosexual marriage on their property, I don't care if it is the church itself or a tool shed, would be the same as condoning that kind of behavior in violation of their religious beliefs.

What next, you going to say that they are going to have to allow prostitution to occur in that building because prostitution is suddenly legal... Don't bother trying to claim I am using a false equivalency, because we both know it actually is equivalent considering homosexual behavior is considered as bad if not worse than prostitution in Catholism.

Strictly looking at from the angle of legal technicalities, the church was in the wrong. It seems that the church was renting the place out to the public under the assumption that activities carried out there would have been in keeping with the character of church doctrinal guidelines. Homosexual marriage ceremonies on church properties constitute such a compromise of conscience.

I find it difficult to believe that the couple in question didn't know that. I understand there are circumstances such as medical care, especially emergencies, and such in which it is improper and illegal to withhold services because of sexual orientation. However, saving a life or providing general goods and services are not actions that directly support or encourage the behavior of people with living practices that might be theologically objectionable. Making church property available for same-sex marriage DOES directly enable behavior and violate matters of conscience.

Other ways this principle might be invoked would be requiring all OB/GYNs to also be trained in and perform abortion services on demand. Many OBs I happen to know wouldn't be caught dead near an abortion clinic--religion would only be ONE problem they have with it. Some pharmacists may be reluctant to fill birth control prescriptions, and certainly the might take strong religious issue with "emergency contraception" and the so-called "abortion pill." It would be a clear violation of religious freedom to compel them to provide services that they could not do with a clear conscience.

Part of the motivation my wife had in working in bankruptcy law was our strong mutual objection to divorce, which was something she at one point had to regularly deal with. It was depressing. Eventually she worked things out with her co-workers so that she only worked bankruptcy and avoided dissolving marriages. Part of that objection is a religious one, and her employer at the time understood that. There was always the risk that she might have to draw up divorce papers, but she managed to avoid it most of the time.

In THIS case, the couple could have made a different choice. But they took advantage of a legal technicality to stick it to the church that owned the property. I find that morally and ethically questionable. If the church had any idea that they might have enemies who'd take advantage of the property's status, they might have done something else with it (like not filed for tax exemptions on it, or maybe even sold it off).

The judge in the court case made the right decision in protecting the rule of law. I get that. But they (the couple) knew what would happen, and it really is a direct attack on a religious institution.


I'm well aware of the legal technicalities involved AngelRho, however it is rather likely that on appeal the Church would ultimately win the lawsuit at least in the US. The Supreme Court has made it clear this past year that there are instances where churches are exempt from some Federal Statutes on the basis that they are a religious institution under the protection of the 1st Amendment. Assuming that the no morally objectionable behavior was in the contract, it is rather likely that the judge's decision would be thrown out, at least in the United States, especially considering the fact the last ruling in favor of religious liberty was a unanimous decision, which is unheard of.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

21 Jun 2012, 6:43 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Right back at you, or is it merely ignorance on your part?

Quote:
Some of the most influential Catholic institutions in the country filed suit against the Obama administration Monday over the so-called contraception mandate, in one of the biggest coordinated legal challenges to the rule to date.

...


All right, I'll hand you this one, the contraception mandate falls within the ambit of my issue.

And as far as I am concerned, these plaintiffs are on the wrong side of the law. If they are employers and if they are providing health care benefits to their employees, they cannot then interfere in the physician-patient relationships of their employees by restricting coverage for contraceptives. Their religious freedom does not extend to controlling the medical care of their employees. I'll even go a step farther and say that this also includes the medical benefits extended to employees who perform religious duties.

Quote:
How did you end up in an instance of girls and boys slobbering all over each other if it was an all boys school? :?


How did you draw that inference? I posted remarks about the behavior of teenagers, generally. Fortunately I was largely spared the spectacle (other than at school dances to which our sister schools were invited).

That did not, of course, stop the majority of my classmates from all manner of heteronormative behaviour in the nature of descriptive comments of their adolescent fantasies (including some of those who have later come out as gay).

Quote:
So you are arguing that there is no such thing as the freedom of religion... Glad the Supreme Court is highly likely to disagree with you.

Quote:
The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday for the first time that a major church-state decision that recognizes religious groups’ constitutionally protected right to select their own leaders.

The justices ruled unanimously that the First Amendment’s guarantee of the free exercise of religion means that even neutral laws intent on banning workplace discrimination may not be applied to a religious institution choosing “those who will guide it on its way.”

“The interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the court.

“But so too is the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith, and carry out their mission.” When those principles are in conflict, Roberts said, “the First Amendment has struck the balance for us.”
-- Washington Post


Thank you for making my point for me. Please note that the Supreme Court said that, "federal discrimination laws do not protect church employees who perform religious duties," [emhasis added]

There is the crux of the issue--when performing religious activities, churches religious freedom is established. As soon as they depart from the ambit of religious activities, that protection ceases. My statement is entirely consistent with this judgement.

Quote:
In other words you are saying they are free to close their doors and no longer hold religious service...


No, they are free to close their doors, and only hold religious services. That's an entirely different characterization.

Quote:
The Church has every reason to object, just as they would have every right to object if someone tried to put a casino in that building... Maybe you aren't familar with US Law, but it's highly likely the church would win if this ended up in court.


But what are the purposes for which they rent out the building? They don't rent it to the public for the purpose of holding casinos, or hosting a brothel or any of these other types of objectionable activities. So they can properly say, we don't rent to anybody for these uses. A black man can't complain that they didn't rent him the pavillion for a casino because they can turn around and say, "we don't rent to anybody to hold a casino."

On the other hand, they do allow at least some people to rent it for the purpose of holding weddings. So, having agreed that weddings are an acceptable use of their premises for public rentals, they cannot then turn around and prohibit Jewish, black, or same-sex weddings from taking place.

Quote:
Wrong, the building was on church ground, generally one of the stipulations that churches make quite clear, is that they will not allow one of their buildings to be used for anything that is considered morally objectionable. Homosexual Marriage would classify as morally objectionable.


They run afoul of anti-discrimination statute when they do so, and because they are participating in a commercial activity, their religious objection fails.

If they prohibit using the building for any weddings of any type, then they are free to ban same-sex weddings within that overall prohibition. But having allowed some, they must allow all.

Quote:
Actually, they don't they are a religious institution, they set their own ground rules as to what can happen within their property, just the same as any other property owner can do. I'm sorry but it is rather likely that the contracts for people to rent the building for a day or a few hours probably has the stipulation about not allowing anything that is considered to be morally objectionable to occur on church grounds (and that building is on church grounds).

It is highly likely that the court (at least in the US where we actually have freedom of speech and freedom of religion), would rule overwhelmingly in favor of the church in question, considering the unanimous decision that I reference earlier in this post.


A contract that violates statute is void to the extent that it violates that statute. I can write up a lease for my house that says, "no black people," but the law will set forth that this provision in the lease is of no force or effect because it violates anti-discrimination statutes. The fact that the church attempts to insulate itself with an unenforcable clause does not demonstrate immunity from public law.

And let's be clear: the court has already made at least one ruling on this issue, refusing to halt the investigation into the couples' human rights complaints. So it seems that the federal courts are not so quick to rule overwhelmingly in favour of the unvarnished position of the church as you think.


_________________
--James


AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

21 Jun 2012, 7:59 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
I'm well aware of the legal technicalities involved AngelRho, however it is rather likely that on appeal the Church would ultimately win the lawsuit at least in the US.

I'm afraid I don't share your optimism.

I mean, maybe the Church really would ultimately win, and I'm also aware that there are already cases where the church has won lawsuits as plaintiff and appellant.

But I also think there's a bigger problem to consider here. A successful defense is costly, and not all churches have the financial resources to win. Megachurches both have the income and are at least wise enough not to wander out into those kinds of waters in the first place. Churches that have a central unified structure like UMC, Roman Catholic, and others should be able to out-lawyer their enemies. But this isn't always the case since this represents a tiny minority of Christian churches.

What ends up happening is that repeated lawsuits by the same groups of people continually chip away at the resources of local congregations until they're financially beaten into submission, or at least into silence. The church can win all the appeals it wants. But at the end of the day there's a lawyer who goes home with a big, fat check. For the other side to win, they don't necessarily have to win the court battle.

What I think should happen is that every time someone brings this kind of lawsuit against a church, the church should counter-sue on civil rights violations. It's not so much that I think churches should be involved extensively in the legal process or file frivolous claims. I don't think that's very Christ-like. But I also think that if various groups can sue the church into silence, it's only fair that an individual church can act to prevent the same thing from happening to others.



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

22 Jun 2012, 10:07 am

What if all of the church members just pray, really, really hard?

Then, BOOM! No more homosexuality, no more contraception, no more fornication, no more hanky-panky, no more hinky-pinky, no more NUTHIN'!



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

22 Jun 2012, 12:06 pm

AngelRho wrote:
What ends up happening is that repeated lawsuits by the same groups of people continually chip away at the resources of local congregations until they're financially beaten into submission, or at least into silence. The church can win all the appeals it wants. But at the end of the day there's a lawyer who goes home with a big, fat check. For the other side to win, they don't necessarily have to win the court battle.

What I think should happen is that every time someone brings this kind of lawsuit against a church, the church should counter-sue on civil rights violations. It's not so much that I think churches should be involved extensively in the legal process or file frivolous claims. I don't think that's very Christ-like. But I also think that if various groups can sue the church into silence, it's only fair that an individual church can act to prevent the same thing from happening to others.


I don't think these predatory lawsuits from leftist bigots are going to work for much longer. Some states are starting to pass laws where using junk lawsuits as a form of harassment is an actually a crime and legal action can be taken against people in that advent.

Considering the majority of Americans have woken up, which is why the Democrats suffered the biggest off-year election defeat since the 1930s, I seriously doubt leftwing ideologues are going to be able to continue this form of harassment.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

22 Jun 2012, 12:25 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
I don't think these predatory lawsuits from leftist bigots are going to work for much longer. Some states are starting to pass laws where using junk lawsuits as a form of harassment is an actually a crime and legal action can be taken against people in that advent.

Considering the majority of Americans have woken up, which is why the Democrats suffered the biggest off-year election defeat since the 1930s, I seriously doubt leftwing ideologues are going to be able to continue this form of harassment.


The problem with your logic is that this isn't a junk lawsuit.

The church tried to get the complainants human rights complaint terminated. A judge has already ruled that the complaint has sufficient merit to proceed. You can't call something a "junk lawsuit" if a judge has already ruled that it's not.


_________________
--James


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

22 Jun 2012, 12:30 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
I don't think these predatory lawsuits from leftist bigots are going to work for much longer. Some states are starting to pass laws where using junk lawsuits as a form of harassment is an actually a crime and legal action can be taken against people in that advent.

Considering the majority of Americans have woken up, which is why the Democrats suffered the biggest off-year election defeat since the 1930s, I seriously doubt leftwing ideologues are going to be able to continue this form of harassment.


The problem with your logic is that this isn't a junk lawsuit.

The church tried to get the complainants human rights complaint terminated. A judge has already ruled that the complaint has sufficient merit to proceed. You can't call something a "junk lawsuit" if a judge has already ruled that it's not.


This isn't a human rights lawsuit, this homosexual couple did this to bully a religious institution.

While you may consider the church to be a bunch of bigots, I consider the homosexual couple and the groups that funded their predatory lawsuit to be a group of bigots. They could easily have found a place to host their wedding that was not owned by a church, they chose that location deliberately in order to be able to sue. That is using lawsuits as a form of harassment visagrunt, something that I'm glad more and more states are considering lawsuit harassment to be a form of criminal behavior.



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

22 Jun 2012, 12:31 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Considering the majority of Americans have woken up, which is why the Democrats suffered the biggest off-year election defeat since the 1930s, I seriously doubt leftwing ideologues are going to be able to continue this form of harassment.


The party in power typically loses seats during the midterm elections.

We're still sleeping. Mitt Romney hasn't aroused us yet.



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

22 Jun 2012, 12:32 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
This isn't a human rights lawsuit, this homosexual couple did this to bully a religious institution.


Those damned militant gays always bullying people!! !


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do