WrongPlanet.net
WP Members: > 80,000



Aspie Affection

New Today: 0
New Yesterday: 21

When would slavery in the Southern States have ended... Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 15, 16, 17, 18, 19  Next  
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Wrong Planet Autism Forum Index -> Politics, Philosophy, and Religion     

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

Kraichgauer
Phoenix
Phoenix


Joined: Apr 13, 2010
Age: 48
Posts: 20066
Location: Spokane Valley, Washington

PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 7:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

visagrunt wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
No, the courts actually denied people their Constitutional Rights. Marriage is a religious issue, not simply a state issue. Furthermore, where does this end, do we allow polygamy next? How about bestilly (or however you spell it), or worse, where does it end.


Since when is marriage a religious issue?

The state authorizes religious institutions to perform marriages, to be sure. But the legal rights and responsibilities that flow from that state are wholly and entirely defined by the law.

A priest can marry two people, but a rabbi cannot divorce two people. An imam cannot make a child custody order over the objection of one of the parents. A church cannot determine the devolution of property upon the intestacy of a deceased person.

Marriage is wholly and entirely a legal institution which religious officers have been given the privilege of creating. A privilege, incidentally that is conferred by statute.

As for polygamy and bestiality, as far as I am aware these remain matters that are prohibited to everyone, regardless of their religion or sexual orientation. Muslims and LDS members whose faiths sanction polygamy have been wholly unsuccessful is obtaining legal recognition for it. So I don't see the floodgates argument succeeding anytime soon.

Quote:
If you looked at Greek culture, Homosexual behavior was practiced in a manner that we see Sandusky currently on trial for. That behavior was accepted in Ancient Greece.

The Romans thought it was okay to amuse themselves using their slaves, even when Christianity had taken hold, this kind of behavior continued in the dark.

So if we want to be like the Greeks or the Romans, should pedophillia be legalized? How about slavery?

Just because something is seen in the past, doesn't mean it should be practiced, some things should not be seen ever again.


And no one is suggesting that non-consensual sexual behaviour is remotely acceptable. So that's all well and good, then.

In the United States, same-sex marriage between two consenting adults, neither of whom are under a legal disability, neither of whom are already married to another living person and who are not consanguinous is a benefit of law that ought properly to be extended on the same basis as any other benefit of law--within the equal protection doctrine of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The availability of divorce and remarriage has not harmed the Catholic church, the availability of same-sex marriage will not harm any other church. End of story.


As a married individual, I still recall how my pastor had told my wife and I how that the actual legal marriage contract was the signing of the birth certificate - which is a civil matter.

And in regard to equating pedophilia to homosexuality - it just doesn't wash. Pedophiles have unconsensual sex with children, whereas homosexuals have consensual sex with other adults of the same gender. Just because male pedophiles may have a preference for boys hardly means that all pedophiles are gay, or that all gays are pedophiles. In fact, the two usually don't overlap. Just remember, Sandusky is married to a woman.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SpiritBlooms
Phoenix
Phoenix


Joined: Nov 15, 2009
Posts: 1024

PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 8:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ArrantPariah wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Cornflake wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Cornflake wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
that slippery slope argument isn't always a fallacy
It's as much of a non sequitur now as it was back then.
Like I said, we appear to have entered a time warp.
Quit trying to dodge and actually answer my question.
I rather thought I was successful.


So you are admitting that you are calling me a bigot, just so we have this quite clear...


Oh-oh. He caught you out, Snowflake. The next step is for Inuyasha to report you.
The only slippery slopes I think I've witnessed in our world are those of greed (and its partner, concentrated power) and violence, and they often seem to go hand in hand.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AngelRho
Synclavier owner/operator
Phoenix


Joined: Jan 05, 2008
Posts: 4959
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 11:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Inuyasha wrote:
Cornflake wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
No, the courts actually denied people their Constitutional Rights. Marriage is a religious issue, not simply a state issue. Furthermore, where does this end, do we allow polygamy next? How about bestilly (or however you spell it), or worse, where does it end.
Wow, that takes me back to those happy, happy days of that thread... what was it now? The slippery slope fallacy or something like that?
Ah yes: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt172439.html

I'm surprised that drum of yours hasn't fallen apart yet.
Also, we appear to have entered a time warp.


Got news for you Cornflake, that slippery slope argument isn't always a fallacy, in fact there have frequently been times when it is a completely accurate assessment of a given situation.


Other situation here that a lot of people are missing is that marriage has been tied to religion long before the United States even existed.

So, I'm going to throw this back in everyone's face. What right do you have to order the Catholic Church to marry people of the same gender in violation of their religious doctrine? Fact is, you don't because it violates the 1st Amendment.

Again Marriage isn't simply a state issue, it is a religious issue and to be quite blunt polygamy actually has a better argument for being allowed than homosexuality, because there are actual religions that recognize polygamy.

There is a genetic argument that can be used against polygamy, similarly the lack of ability to have offspring similarly is a valid argument against gay marriage.

Also, Cornflake are you trying to imply that I'm a bigot, I just want to be sure I'm understanding you correctly...

For what it's worth, I'm on your side. But I'd also like to point out the common response that nobody is going to compel a religious group to perform a marriage ceremony if same-sex relationships are in violation of those religious beliefs.

But at the same time, it's also true that a Christian church has faced legal action for barring a same-sex wedding ceremony on its own property. What happened was that the facility was supposed to be open to the public. A gay couple wanted to get married there, at which point the church raised an objection. They in turn sued the church for discrimination.

Article
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LKL
Phoenix
Phoenix


Joined: Jul 22, 2007
Age: 38
Posts: 7590

PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 1:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Welcome back, 'Yahsha.

Wrt. the Ocean Grove Boardwalk, the church was receiving tax breaks specifically for having the facility open to the public:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/nyregion/18grove.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AngelRho
Synclavier owner/operator
Phoenix


Joined: Jan 05, 2008
Posts: 4959
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 8:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

LKL wrote:
Welcome back, 'Yahsha.

Wrt. the Ocean Grove Boardwalk, the church was receiving tax breaks specifically for having the facility open to the public:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/nyregion/18grove.html

THAT was the article I was looking for. Thanks.

And yes, the church should have been aware of what could happen under an arrangement like that. You make a deal with the government, you have to live under the government's rules. If you receive welfare benefits of some sort, you owe it to the taxpayers to spend that money in a way the taxpayers would approve--basic needs to ensure survival rather than frivolous purchases and recreational or highly addictive (and unnecessary) drugs. This isn't regulated as such yet, but it's not like legislators haven't thought of it before. The government is well within its authority to mandate drug tests and the like for something like this. Obamacare is another prime example of persons and groups figuring out that the government deal is not the best because of the strings attached. All those government bailouts to banks and auto manufacturers ended up being a bad deal that they hurried to get away from.

That church didn't realize that they were putting themselves in a position where they'd have to violate a matter of conscience. From a strictly legal perspective, the court probably made the right decision.

What bothers me about the whole thing, though, is the couple that got barred from having a ceremony there seems to have been well aware that the property was owned by a church. It appears to me that something like this is an attempt to coerce or manipulate a religious institution into violating its own values. It's an opening strike in the battle against freedom of religion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AngelRho
Synclavier owner/operator
Phoenix


Joined: Jan 05, 2008
Posts: 4959
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 9:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Looks like we backwards Southern Baptists have finally come around:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/19/southern-baptists-elect-1st-black-leader/?test=latestnews

Sorry for linking to foxnews, but it IS a story from the AP. Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ArrantPariah
Phoenix
Phoenix


Joined: Mar 31, 2012
Posts: 8800

PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 9:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

AngelRho wrote:
Looks like we backwards Southern Baptists have finally come around:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/19/southern-baptists-elect-1st-black-leader/?test=latestnews

Sorry for linking to foxnews, but it IS a story from the AP. Laughing


All the same, congratulations. salut
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
visagrunt
Polymath
Phoenix


Joined: Oct 17, 2009
Age: 47
Posts: 6070
Location: Vancouver, BC

PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 1:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Inuyasha wrote:
Quit trying to dodge and actually answer my question.

@ visagrunt

Actually polygamy is rather prominent in the religion of Islam.

Saying that homosexuality must be legal, means that you must also recognize polygamy, otherwise you are discriminating against Muslims.


By no means. Because marriage is a civil, rather than a religious institution, the availability of marriage must be based on civil law principles, not religious law principles.

Muslims are free to cohabit with as many women as they choose, and they are free to consider themselves married to those women. But the law will extend no recognition to a person who purports to be a spouse when the other party has a legal spouse still living. And if a person purports to got through a form of marriage with such a person it is bigamous.

But so long as no attempt to create or imply the creation of a legal relationship is undertaken, the polygamous person is free to carry on.
_________________
--James
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
ArrantPariah
Phoenix
Phoenix


Joined: Mar 31, 2012
Posts: 8800

PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 2:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

visagrunt wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Quit trying to dodge and actually answer my question.

@ visagrunt

Actually polygamy is rather prominent in the religion of Islam.

Saying that homosexuality must be legal, means that you must also recognize polygamy, otherwise you are discriminating against Muslims.


By no means. Because marriage is a civil, rather than a religious institution, the availability of marriage must be based on civil law principles, not religious law principles.

Muslims are free to cohabit with as many women as they choose, and they are free to consider themselves married to those women. But the law will extend no recognition to a person who purports to be a spouse when the other party has a legal spouse still living. And if a person purports to got through a form of marriage with such a person it is bigamous.

But so long as no attempt to create or imply the creation of a legal relationship is undertaken, the polygamous person is free to carry on.


I think that polygamists in Utah still get prosecuted, even if only one wife is defined as the legal one.

I don't know whether it still is, but US immigration law was pretty strident against polygamists--you had to swear that you not only were not a polygamist, but that you personally were not in favour of polygamy. I was looking at some of my grandfather's old immigration papers recently, and it seemed rather odd. I think that you also had to swear not to be an anarchist.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
visagrunt
Polymath
Phoenix


Joined: Oct 17, 2009
Age: 47
Posts: 6070
Location: Vancouver, BC

PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 4:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

AngelRho wrote:
But at the same time, it's also true that a Christian church has faced legal action for barring a same-sex wedding ceremony on its own property. What happened was that the facility was supposed to be open to the public. A gay couple wanted to get married there, at which point the church raised an objection. They in turn sued the church for discrimination.

Article


First of all, while the owner of the property was a religious institution, the property in question was not, itself, a church. This was a "retreat house" that was owned and operated by a religious organization, but rented to the public for other uses.

Second, the church was not compelled to celebrate the marriage--the marriage was to have been conducted by civil officiant.

A church's practice of religious services are generally immune from civil interference (but those human sacrifices are still gonna be stopped! Wink ) but when a religious institution seeks to enter the marketplace and operate a social enterprise, then that enterprise must be run in a fashion that is consistent with the law. A religious institution ceases to enjoy its constitutional immunity at the moment when it ceases to restrict itself to worship service, the preaching of scripture and the teaching of doctrine.

A Roman Catholic hospital cannot refuse to treat a homosexual patient, a Christian school cannot expel a homosexual student, and a Christian owned rental property cannot refuse to rent to a homosexual couple.
_________________
--James
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
visagrunt
Polymath
Phoenix


Joined: Oct 17, 2009
Age: 47
Posts: 6070
Location: Vancouver, BC

PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 4:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ArrantPariah wrote:
I think that polygamists in Utah still get prosecuted, even if only one wife is defined as the legal one.

I don't know whether it still is, but US immigration law was pretty strident against polygamists--you had to swear that you not only were not a polygamist, but that you personally were not in favour of polygamy. I was looking at some of my grandfather's old immigration papers recently, and it seemed rather odd. I think that you also had to swear not to be an anarchist.


The crucial aspect is going through a form of marriage with a second person when you have a legal, living spouse. If you just invite a few more people into your house, but you do not purport to go through a legal ceremony, you are fine. But the moment that a legally authorized officiant celebrates a service of marriage that would purport to create a legal marriage, or might reasonably lead a person to believe that it was intended to create a legal marriage, then bigamy has taken place.

So long as there's no attempt at a legal service, there's no offence in law.

As for immigration, the legislature has a pretty wide discretion to determine the conditions for admission. Provided those can survive constitutional scrutiny, of course. Given than bigamy is a criminal offence, a requirement on an immigrant to swear that the immigrant is not a polygamist or in favour of polygamy can be rationally connected to the criminal law prohibition against it.
_________________
--James
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
ArrantPariah
Phoenix
Phoenix


Joined: Mar 31, 2012
Posts: 8800

PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 4:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

visagrunt wrote:
The crucial aspect is going through a form of marriage with a second person when you have a legal, living spouse. If you just invite a few more people into your house, but you do not purport to go through a legal ceremony, you are fine. But the moment that a legally authorized officiant celebrates a service of marriage that would purport to create a legal marriage, or might reasonably lead a person to believe that it was intended to create a legal marriage, then bigamy has taken place.

So long as there's no attempt at a legal service, there's no offence in law.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/us/12polygamy.html

Quote:

Polygamist, Under Scrutiny in Utah, Plans Suit to Challenge Law
By JOHN SCHWARTZ
Published: July 11, 2011

Kody Brown is a proud polygamist, and a relatively famous one. Now Mr. Brown, his four wives and 16 children and stepchildren are going to court to keep from being punished for it.

The family is the focus of a reality TV show, “Sister Wives,” that first appeared in 2010. Law enforcement officials in the Browns’ home state, Utah, announced soon after the show began that the family was under investigation for violating the state law prohibiting polygamy.

On Wednesday, the Browns are expected to file a lawsuit to challenge the polygamy law.

The lawsuit is not demanding that states recognize polygamous marriage. Instead, the lawsuit builds on a 2003 United States Supreme Court decision, Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down state sodomy laws as unconstitutional intrusions on the “intimate conduct” of consenting adults. It will ask the federal courts to tell states that they cannot punish polygamists for their own “intimate conduct” so long as they are not breaking other laws, like those regarding child abuse, incest or seeking multiple marriage licenses.

Mr. Brown has a civil marriage with only one of his wives; the rest are “sister wives,” not formally wedded. The Browns are members of the Apostolic United Brethren Church, a fundamentalist offshoot of the Mormon Church, which gave up polygamy around 1890 as Utah was seeking statehood.

Making polygamous unions illegal, they argue, violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment, as well as the free exercise, establishment, free speech and freedom of association clauses of the First Amendment.

“We only wish to live our private lives according to our beliefs,” Mr. Brown said in a statement provided by his lead attorney, Jonathan Turley, who is a law professor at George Washington University.

The connection with Lawrence v. Texas, a case that broadened legal rights for gay people, is sensitive for those who have sought the right of same-sex marriage. Opponents of such unions often refer to polygamy as one of the all-but-inevitable outcomes of allowing same-sex marriage. In his dissenting opinion in the Lawrence case, Justice Antonin Scalia cited a threat to state laws “based on moral choices” against “bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity.”

The head of the Roman Catholic Church in New York, Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan, made a similar comparison on his blog on Thursday in an essay criticizing the state’s legalization of same-sex marriage and the possible “next step,” which could be “another redefinition to justify multiple partners and infidelity.”

Such arguments, often referred to as the “parade of horribles,” are logically flawed, said Jennifer C. Pizer, a professor at the law school at the University of California, Los Angeles, and legal director for the school’s Williams Institute, which focuses on sexual orientation law.

The questions surrounding whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry are significantly different from those involved in criminal prosecution of multiple marriages, Ms. Pizer noted. Same-sex couples are seeking merely to participate in the existing system of family law for married couples, she said, while “you’d have to restructure the family law system in a pretty fundamental way” to recognize polygamy.

Professor Turley called the one-thing-leads-to-another arguments “a bit of a constitutional canard,” and argued that removing criminal penalties for polygamy “will take society nowhere in particular.”

The Supreme Court supported the power of states to restrict polygamy in an 1879 case, Reynolds v. United States. Professor Turley suggests that the fundamental reasoning of Reynolds, which said polygamy “fetters the people in stationary despotism,” is outdated and has been swept away by cases like Lawrence.

Douglas Kmiec, a law professor at Pepperdine University, said today’s courts might not agree with the sweeping societal conclusions of the 19th-century courts, but noted that more attention has been paid in recent decades to the importance of internal family issues as part of the public policy sphere. Questions of child abuse and spousal domination, he said, could figure into a judicial examination of polygamy.

“We’re more sensitive to the fact that a household can be quite repressive,” he said, and so reservations about polygamy “might be even more profound.”

Professor Turley disagreed, noting that “there are many religious practices in monogamous families that many believe as obnoxious and patriarchal,” and added, “The criminal code is not a license for social engineering.”


Mr. Brown followed your formula of being formally wedded to only one, and counting the others as "sister-wives." It looks like the cops still came after them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ArrantPariah
Phoenix
Phoenix


Joined: Mar 31, 2012
Posts: 8800

PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 4:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Okay, the charges against them were recently dropped.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sister_Wives

Quote:

Before the Browns starred in the series, attorneys and legal experts claimed that, because polygamy is illegal in the United States, the Browns could potentially have opened themselves up to criminal prosecution through their involvement in the series. Video footage of a marriage ceremony between Kody Brown and Robyn Sullivan could be used as evidence against them if subpoenaed by the state attorney general of Utah.[6] Kody Brown has claimed the family is breaking no laws because only the first marriage is a legal marriage, while the others are simply commitments.[40] However, experts claim the fact that the family has been a unit for 16 years and includes children from all three wives could lead prosecutors to characterize the non-marriage unions as common-law marriages.[6] Sullivan said the family was worried about legal repercussions and had discussed the matter thoroughly, but decided the positive effects their show could have toward the public perception of polygamy was worth the risks.[16] In anticipation of legal scrutiny, the producers of the show contacted the Utah Attorney General's office months before the series was broadcast. The office has not ruled out pursuing a case against the Brown family, but also stated they do not have the resources to go after polygamists unless they are suspected of serious crime such as child abuse or child trafficking.[41][42] Prior to the Sister Wives premiere, it had been nine years since anyone in Utah had been prosecuted for practicing polygamy.[43]

Wikinews has related news: Utah police investigate polygamist family from reality show 'Sister Wives'

On September 27, 2010, the day after Sister Wives debuted, police in Lehi, Utah, announced they are investigating Kody Brown and his wives for possible charges of bigamy, a third-degree felony,[41][42] which carries a possible penalty of 20 years in prison for Kody and up to five years in prison for each wife.[31] Once the investigation concluded, the police turned their evidence over to the Utah County Attorney's office for review.[14] Despite the fact that Brown is only legally married to one woman, Lehi police have noted that state code identifies bigamy through cohabitation, not just legal marriage contracts.[41] In response to the investigation, the Browns released a statement: "We are disappointed in the announcement of an investigation, but when we decided to do this show, we knew there would be risks. But for the sake of our family, and most importantly, our kids, we felt it was a risk worth taking."[2][44] The Brown family hired constitutional law scholar Jonathan Turley, a vocal critic of anti-polygamy laws, to prepare a legal defense in the event that charges are filed.[14] As a result of the series and legal scrutiny that came with it, Meri lost her job in the mental health industry shortly after Sister Wives debuted, even though her employer knew about the polygamist marriage before the show aired.[45] Additionally, Kody said the show negatively affected some of his advertising sales, with some clients opting to take their business elsewhere due to publicity from the show.[46]

On July 13, 2011, the Browns filed a complaint in United States District Court to challenge to Utah’s criminal polygamy law[47] and released the following statement:

“There are tens of thousands of plural families in Utah and other states. We are one of those families. We only wish to live our private lives according to our beliefs. While we understand that this may be a long struggle in court, it has already been a long struggle for my family and other plural families to end the stereotypes and unfair treatment given consensual polygamy. We are indebted to Professor Turley and his team for their work and dedication. Together we hope to secure equal treatment with other families in the United States.”[48]

On 1 June 2012, the case against the Browns was dropped.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Inuyasha
Phoenix
Phoenix


Joined: Jan 13, 2009
Posts: 9745

PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 6:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

visagrunt wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
But at the same time, it's also true that a Christian church has faced legal action for barring a same-sex wedding ceremony on its own property. What happened was that the facility was supposed to be open to the public. A gay couple wanted to get married there, at which point the church raised an objection. They in turn sued the church for discrimination.

Article


First of all, while the owner of the property was a religious institution, the property in question was not, itself, a church. This was a "retreat house" that was owned and operated by a religious organization, but rented to the public for other uses.

Second, the church was not compelled to celebrate the marriage--the marriage was to have been conducted by civil officiant.

A church's practice of religious services are generally immune from civil interference (but those human sacrifices are still gonna be stopped! Wink ) but when a religious institution seeks to enter the marketplace and operate a social enterprise, then that enterprise must be run in a fashion that is consistent with the law. A religious institution ceases to enjoy its constitutional immunity at the moment when it ceases to restrict itself to worship service, the preaching of scripture and the teaching of doctrine.

A Roman Catholic hospital cannot refuse to treat a homosexual patient, a Christian school cannot expel a homosexual student, and a Christian owned rental property cannot refuse to rent to a homosexual couple.


I would point out the following fallacies in your logic:
1. A Hospital wouldn't refuse to treat someone based on their sexual orientation, quite frankly they wouldn't even ask that question...
2. Unless we're talking about high school or college students I think children are too young to know what their sexual orientation is, and if they think they know what it is before they are teenage at the minimum, I would honestly suspect they are victims of child abuse.
3. Not allowing someone to get married on church property is not even remotely equivalent to human sacrifices (which are not allowed in Christian, Jewish, or Muslim religions anyways).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
ArrantPariah
Phoenix
Phoenix


Joined: Mar 31, 2012
Posts: 8800

PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 6:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Inuyasha wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
But at the same time, it's also true that a Christian church has faced legal action for barring a same-sex wedding ceremony on its own property. What happened was that the facility was supposed to be open to the public. A gay couple wanted to get married there, at which point the church raised an objection. They in turn sued the church for discrimination.

Article


First of all, while the owner of the property was a religious institution, the property in question was not, itself, a church. This was a "retreat house" that was owned and operated by a religious organization, but rented to the public for other uses.

Second, the church was not compelled to celebrate the marriage--the marriage was to have been conducted by civil officiant.

A church's practice of religious services are generally immune from civil interference (but those human sacrifices are still gonna be stopped! Wink ) but when a religious institution seeks to enter the marketplace and operate a social enterprise, then that enterprise must be run in a fashion that is consistent with the law. A religious institution ceases to enjoy its constitutional immunity at the moment when it ceases to restrict itself to worship service, the preaching of scripture and the teaching of doctrine.

A Roman Catholic hospital cannot refuse to treat a homosexual patient, a Christian school cannot expel a homosexual student, and a Christian owned rental property cannot refuse to rent to a homosexual couple.


I would point out the following fallacies in your logic:
1. A Hospital wouldn't refuse to treat someone based on their sexual orientation, quite frankly they wouldn't even ask that question...
2. Unless we're talking about high school or college students I think children are too young to know what their sexual orientation is, and if they think they know what it is before they are teenage at the minimum, I would honestly suspect they are victims of child abuse.
3. Not allowing someone to get married on church property is not even remotely equivalent to human sacrifices (which are not allowed in Christian, Jewish, or Muslim religions anyways).


lmao
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Wrong Planet Autism Forum Index -> Politics, Philosophy, and Religion   
Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 15, 16, 17, 18, 19  Next  

 
Read more Articles on Wrong Planet



Wrong Planet is a Registered Trademark.
Copyright 2004-2014, Wrong Planet, LLC and Alex Plank. Alex does public speaking for Autism.

Advertise on Wrong Planet

Alex Hotchalk / Glam 

Alex Plank  Aspie Affection 

Terms of Service - You must read this as a user of Wrong Planet | Privacy Policy

Subscribe: RSS Feed  Wrong Planet News  Wrong Planet Forums




fine art