Swedish LGBT Writer Demands Mosques Welcome and Include Homosexuals

[Circe]

Yes, we have a law that protects the free exercise of religion, and that's a good law.

It's hardly free if people have to do things that they believe they shouldn't do. I'd say the balance has fallen well over to the state side of the line in these times.

 

[Circe]

The old render unto Caesar argument.

the thing is it's freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

Also considering the current LGBT+ belief structure really mimics a religion, this is a belief vs belief fight anyway.

Never heard that, but it's common to say Global Warming is a religion, and I would give that some credit. Impervious to evidence, belief is Faith, etc.

 

[para bellum]

Fire codes and occupational limits don't impact any known scriptural rules on sexuality that I know of. SSM sure as hell does.

You are still holding scripture above the law. I used those examples to show that.

Simply because a law does not violate scripture is irrelevant as to whether or not it is followed.

Actually they do, because laws that impact their free exercise are inherently unconstitutional unless a compelling government interest is found, and even then any remedy must be as limited as possible.

Yes the court must apply strict scrutiny when a Constitutionally protected right is involved. I have no problem with that.

Their "special status" is enshrined in the Constitution.

I was referring to the tax code. If they want exclusivity, they can pay taxes. And they can still expect some scrutiny...

 

[martybegan]

You are still holding scripture above the law. I used those examples to show that.

Simply because a law does not violate scripture is irrelevant as to whether or not it is followed.

Yes the court must apply strict scrutiny when a Constitutionally protected right is involved. I have no problem with that.

I was referring to the tax code. If they want exclusivity, they can pay taxes. And they can still expect some scrutiny...

The whole point of the 1st amendment is laws shouldn't impact someone's exercise via scripture unless there is a overwhelming compelling government interest. There is no overwhelming interest in making a Catholic Church perform a SSM wedding.

They are non-profits, and are handled via the tax code as a non profit.


You just want to punish people who think differently than you, or worse, cheer on while government punishes them.

 

[para bellum]

It's hardly free if people have to do things that they believe they shouldn't do. I'd say the balance has fallen well over to the state side of the line in these times.

You may be right, at least a lot of people would agree with you. I actually try to avoid value judgements, even though it might not seem like it.

All I know is the laws get passed, and when a church is granted an exemption it's usually written into the law. So if it's not there, it should be assumed it's not intended to be there.

The viewpoints on both sides are strongly held, and if it was easy it would already have been solved. It's one right conflicting with another, and those are hard to resolve.

 

[para bellum]

The whole point of the 1st amendment is laws shouldn't impact someone's exercise via scripture unless there is a overwhelming compelling government interest. There is no overwhelming interest in making a Catholic Church perform a SSM wedding.

Well, that is for the courts to determine. They have to apply the strict scrutiny standard in doing so. We don't decide if the gov't interest is compelling enough, so your conclusion is your opinion. Which is fine- you are entitled to your opinion.

They are non-profits, and are handled via the tax code as a non profit.

Yes, it allows them to collect money and not pay taxes on the money, and it allows the donors to not pay taxes on the income they give to the church.

If they want to be an exclusive club, let'em pay taxes.

You just want to punish people who think differently than you, or worse, cheer on while government punishes them.

And you were accusing me of a logical fallacy, lol.

I won't presume to tell you what you think, but you seem to me to view the church as kind of a "gay-free safe space", and I wonder why someone would need that...

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I was referring to the tax code. If they want exclusivity, they can pay taxes. And they can still expect some scrutiny...

The entire point of religions being tax-exempt is to protect them from the sort of government meddling that goes along with taxation.

Your argument is to demand that religions submit to unjustifiable government meddling as a condition of being protected from such meddling. On its face, your position is absurd.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The whole point of the 1st amendment is laws shouldn't impact someone's exercise via scripture unless there is a overwhelming compelling government interest. There is no overwhelming interest in making a Catholic Church perform a SSM wedding.

Well, that is for the courts to determine.

No, it absolutely is not. The matter should have been considered settled with the ratification of the First Amendment, which absolutely forbids exactly the sort of government intrusion into religion that you are demanding.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Well, scripture still does not overrule law.

God's laws will always be higher than Man's laws.

Always.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

That's the difference between our representative republic, and theocracies.

No, that is the difference between God's theocracy, and Satan's. Disguising Satan's theocracy as “secular law” does not change not hide what it truly is.

And advocating that churches be compelled or coerced to embrace that which is evil and immoral, and completely contrary to God's stated will, makes it very clear which side you are on.

 

[Papageorgio]

There is no question that their is an issue with Muslims and gays just like their is with many Christians and white supremacists. Prior to 9/11 our Muslims had brought it out in the open and were talking about it and being answered on tv. There was movement. Unfortunately 9/11 and afterwards caused them to be scared and to move within and now on the whole they will not talk.

So Christians and white supremist don't get along just like the Muslims and the gays? Interesting theory.

 

[para bellum]

The entire point of religions being tax-exempt is to protect them from the sort of government meddling that goes along with taxation.

Your argument is to demand that religions submit to unjustifiable government meddling as a condition of being protected from such meddling. On its face, your position is absurd.

Tax exempt status is a recognition that an entity is incorporated for a social or charitable purpose and provides a public benefit of some kind. "Doctors without Borders" enjoys the same status. There are all sorts of non-profit corporations and classifications under Section 501(c).

"Government meddling" is a red herring. Show me where churches are granted tax exemption as a protection from government. It's the gov't that recognizes them as churches to begin, with as far as the tax code is concerned. I can't just claim I'm a church and stop paying taxes. There are conditions that have to be met.

I make no demands on anyone, but to follow the laws of the land. The Pope does not make the laws in the US.

You are free to say there is a "higher law", but if you don't follow the "lower law" you may still be held to account by the "lower authority". The conviction may be reversed upon your final judgement, but it won't alter the facts on earth.

 

[para bellum]

No, that is the difference between God's theocracy, and Satan's. Disguising Satan's theocracy as “secular law” does not change not hide what it truly is.

And advocating that churches be compelled or coerced to embrace that which is evil and immoral, and completely contrary to God's stated will, makes it very clear which side you are on.

This presumes we share the same worldview. We don't. I do not take sides in imaginary conflicts.

The question for me is a rule of law question, not a "what is your preferred ideology" question. I would have the same view if it was the Church of Satan who wanted an exemption to the law based on their holy books or Satanic texts, or whatever you want to call them.

As a rule of thumb, I think when a collective right such as this (the right of a church to make their rules based on their own scripture) comes into conflict with an individual right (the right of a gay person to exercise his own first amendment rights, on an equal footing with a straight person), I generally tend to favor the individual over the collective. Can't tell you why, I just do.

 

[para bellum]

I would just add this point. I did not say churches should be forced to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies. I think they should do it, but I don't think it should be coerced.

The reason is that the church wedding is a religious ceremony, not a legal one. The legal marriage is the wedding license and signature of the government official, and the recording in the county office- not the pronouncement of the religious person.

I do say that if the legislatures say you can't discriminate against gay people, that prohibition extends to their first amendment free exercise right.

From the IRS guide for churches:

Tax-Exempt Status
Churches and religious organizations, like many other charitable organizations, qualify for exemption from federal income tax under IRC Section 501(c)(3) and are generally eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions.

To qualify for tax-exempt status, the organization must meet the following requirements (covered in greater detail throughout this publication):

• the organization must be organized and operated exclusively for religious, educational, scientific or other charitable purposes;
• net earnings may not inure to the benefit of any private individual or shareholder;
• no substantial part of its activity may be attempting to influence legislation;
• the organization may not intervene in political campaigns; and
• the organization’s purposes and activities may not be illegal or violate fundamental public policy.

It's this last one that I highlighted that is the question. Non-discrimination laws are fundamental public policy.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

This presumes we share the same worldview. We don't. I do not take sides in imaginary conflicts.

There is no neutral ground on which to stand.

You are either on God's side, or on Satan's side.

Your advocacy of the abuse of government power to attempt to coerce God's religions into embracing Satan's theology makes it very clear what side you are on.

This is no imaginary conflict. It is the eternal and very real struggle between good and evil, and you have explicitly taken the side of evil.

I would just add this point. I did not say churches should be forced to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies. I think they should do it, but I don't think it should be coerced.

No, just that if they don't, then government should tax them, and from there, interfere in other ways as well. No coercion there, right?

 

[alexa]

So Christians and white supremist don't get along just like the Muslims and the gays? Interesting theory.

That wasn't what I was saying. Right wing Christians and White Nationalists are the same as Muslims in their position towards gays.

 

[miketx]

white supremacists.

Blacks and Mexicans don't like queers either.

 

[alexa]

Blacks and Mexicans don't like queers either.

Never heard of them wanting to kill them.

 

[1srelluc]

That gay weirdo has some balls, probably not for long though.

Indeed, the "religion of peace" does not make idle threats.

 

[TheParser]

With all due respect, that activist should not be telling the mosque what to celebrate.

What the activist should be doing is to encourage his government to stop its "generous" policy of welcoming so many people from certain anti-gay cultures.