Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Syriusly]

Frankly, I don't see how anyone can pretend there are any consistent principles at work in civil rights law. It's straight-up, authoritarian, social engineering, and has nothing at all to do with protecting our rights.

I am sure that the African American's of the 1960's would disagree with you.

The accounts they have of travelling from the North to the South in the 60's- and how they would map out routes to make sure that they didn't run out of gas far from a gas station which would serve blacks.

Mostly they gave up on finding public restrooms- since most restaurants and gas stations didn't have restrooms for 'coloreds'.

But I am sure there were literally millions of business owners in the South that objected to being required the 'social engineering' that required them to serve blacks as you are.

 

[Seawytch]

I thought we agreed that didn't matter.

In terms of the free excercise of religion, it definitely matters. So no, there would be no such agreement.

If a religious practice violates someone's other rights, it doesn't enjoy special protection right?

Because the denial of a wedding by a particular church creates no substantial burden on the exercise of the right to marry. They can get married somewhere else. While forcing a church to conduct a wedding against its tenets creates an enormous burden on the exercise of religion.

Baking doesn't have any particular religious protection. As baking isn't inherently religious. Religious ceremonies do, as religious ceremonies are.

If churches can practice discrimination against gays, can they also discriminate based on race, or any of the other protected classes?

Religions can largely practice discrimination against anyone, as discrimination is inherent to the free exercise of religion. Discrimination isn't inherent to baking.

Hmm... Are you sure about that? I'm gonna hafta go a googling, cause I bet churches can't discriminate based on race.

Frankly, I don't see how anyone can pretend there are any consistent principles at work in civil rights law. It's straight-up, authoritarian, social engineering, and has nothing at all to do with protecting our rights.

You would be wrong. Churches have NEVER nor will they ever be forced to perform a ceremony contrary to the tenants of their faith.

Kentucky church votes to ban interracial couples US news theguardian.com

Well, I'm finding some other interesting stuff too. In any case, why is it ok for churches to violate civil rights, but not other rights? The seems like a concession that civil rights aren't really 'rights' after all, but perks afforded to targeted minorities.

What other rights do you think churches are prevented from violating?

 

[Syriusly]

I thought we agreed that didn't matter.

In terms of the free excercise of religion, it definitely matters. So no, there would be no such agreement.

If a religious practice violates someone's other rights, it doesn't enjoy special protection right?

Because the denial of a wedding by a particular church creates no substantial burden on the exercise of the right to marry. They can get married somewhere else. While forcing a church to conduct a wedding against its tenets creates an enormous burden on the exercise of religion.

Baking doesn't have any particular religious protection. As baking isn't inherently religious. Religious ceremonies do, as religious ceremonies are.

If churches can practice discrimination against gays, can they also discriminate based on race, or any of the other protected classes?

Religions can largely practice discrimination against anyone, as discrimination is inherent to the free exercise of religion. Discrimination isn't inherent to baking.

Hmm... Are you sure about that? I'm gonna hafta go a googling, cause I bet churches can't discriminate based on race.

Frankly, I don't see how anyone can pretend there are any consistent principles at work in civil rights law. It's straight-up, authoritarian, social engineering, and has nothing at all to do with protecting our rights.

You would be wrong. Churches have NEVER nor will they ever be forced to perform a ceremony contrary to the tenants of their faith.

Kentucky church votes to ban interracial couples US news theguardian.com

Well, I'm finding some other interesting stuff too. In any case, why is it ok for churches to violate civil rights, but not other rights? The seems like a concession that civil rights aren't really 'rights' after all, but perks afforded to targeted minorities.

You asked that question in the beginning and it has been answered.

Answering that question again will serve no purpose.

 

[Skylar]

Hmm... Are you sure about that? I'm gonna hafta go a googling, cause I bet churches can't discriminate based on race.

Sure they can. Its perfectly legit for a religion to only marry white people. Or only marry blacks. Mormons banned black preists. Catholics still ban women priests. Most religiously run theology schools are a sausage fest. And its all completely legal.

Frankly, I don't see how anyone can pretend there are any consistent principles at work in civil rights law. It's straight-up, authoritarian, social engineering, and has nothing at all to do with protecting our rights.

And that would be because you're ignoring the fact that religion is a constitutional right and powerfully protected. Refusing to marry someone who doesn't meet your tenets religious requirements is well within the free practice of religion. Forcing a church to marry folks that don't meet your religious requirements is an egregious violation of religious freedom.

Whereas a given church refusing to wed a given couple doesn't create a substantive burden on that couple's right to marry. As that right to marry is the right to have that marriage recognized by law. There is no right to be married in a particular church.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Frankly, I don't see how anyone can pretend there are any consistent principles at work in civil rights law. It's straight-up, authoritarian, social engineering, and has nothing at all to do with protecting our rights.

I am sure that the African American's of the 1960's would disagree with you.

The accounts they have of travelling from the North to the South in the 60's- and how they would map out routes to make sure that they didn't run out of gas far from a gas station which would serve blacks.

Mostly they gave up on finding public restrooms- since most restaurants and gas stations didn't have restrooms for 'coloreds'.

But I am sure there were literally millions of business owners in the South that objected to being required the 'social engineering' that required them to serve blacks as you are.

Be that as it may, you can't deny that the COTUS does not empower the federal government to make people be nice to each other.

You CAN argue that the government should do it whether they have the Constitutional right or not, but at least have the decency to admit that no it is not an enumerated power of the federal government.

And you can argue that they are state laws all you want, you know damn well there are state laws because the federal government insisted.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Hmm... Are you sure about that? I'm gonna hafta go a googling, cause I bet churches can't discriminate based on race.

Sure they can. Its perfectly legit for a religion to only marry white people. Or only marry blacks. Mormons banned black preists. Catholics still ban women priests. Most religiously run theology schools are a sausage fest. And its all completely legal.

Frankly, I don't see how anyone can pretend there are any consistent principles at work in civil rights law. It's straight-up, authoritarian, social engineering, and has nothing at all to do with protecting our rights.

And that would be because you're ignoring the fact that religion is a constitutional right and powerfully protected. Refusing to marry someone who doesn't meet your tenets religious requirements is well within the free practice of religion. Forcing a church to marry folks that don't meet your religious requirements is an egregious violation of religious freedom.

Whereas a given church refusing to wed a given couple doesn't create a substantive burden on that couple's right to marry. As that right to marry is the right to have that marriage recognized by law. There is no right to be married in a particular church.

That of courses extends to any business. There is no right to buy gas from a particular gas station, nor a meal from a particular restaurant, etc etc.

 

[dblack]

Re: churches and racial discrimination

Title VII allows a religious organization to discriminate on the basis of religion when it hires employees. For example, in a 1987 Supreme Court case dealing with Title VII, the Court ruled that a gym operated by the Mormon Church could require its janitor to be a Mormon in good standing. Title VII does not, however, permit religious organization to discriminate on the basis of an individual's race, sex, or national origin. By contrast, ENDA permits religious organizations to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

The Religious Exemption to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act

 

[Syriusly]

Frankly, I don't see how anyone can pretend there are any consistent principles at work in civil rights law. It's straight-up, authoritarian, social engineering, and has nothing at all to do with protecting our rights.

I am sure that the African American's of the 1960's would disagree with you.

The accounts they have of travelling from the North to the South in the 60's- and how they would map out routes to make sure that they didn't run out of gas far from a gas station which would serve blacks.

Mostly they gave up on finding public restrooms- since most restaurants and gas stations didn't have restrooms for 'coloreds'.

But I am sure there were literally millions of business owners in the South that objected to being required the 'social engineering' that required them to serve blacks as you are.

Be that as it may, you can't deny that the COTUS does not empower the federal government to make people be nice to each other.

You CAN argue that the government should do it whether they have the Constitutional right or not, but at least have the decency to admit that no it is not an enumerated power of the federal government.

And you can argue that they are state laws all you want, you know damn well there are state laws because the federal government insisted.

I don't recall anyone ever asking for business's to be nice to them. They were asking to be provided service- to be served gasoline like white customers were, to be sold food like white customers were, to be allowed to use restrooms like white customers were.

Those rights are part of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

 

[dblack]

Re: churches and racial discrimination

Title VII allows a religious organization to discriminate on the basis of religion when it hires employees. For example, in a 1987 Supreme Court case dealing with Title VII, the Court ruled that a gym operated by the Mormon Church could require its janitor to be a Mormon in good standing. Title VII does not, however, permit religious organization to discriminate on the basis of an individual's race, sex, or national origin. By contrast, ENDA permits religious organizations to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

The Religious Exemption to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act

What an ad-hoc mess. What about all the minorities that don't get their free pass?

 

[Syriusly]

Hmm... Are you sure about that? I'm gonna hafta go a googling, cause I bet churches can't discriminate based on race.

Sure they can. Its perfectly legit for a religion to only marry white people. Or only marry blacks. Mormons banned black preists. Catholics still ban women priests. Most religiously run theology schools are a sausage fest. And its all completely legal.

Frankly, I don't see how anyone can pretend there are any consistent principles at work in civil rights law. It's straight-up, authoritarian, social engineering, and has nothing at all to do with protecting our rights.

And that would be because you're ignoring the fact that religion is a constitutional right and powerfully protected. Refusing to marry someone who doesn't meet your tenets religious requirements is well within the free practice of religion. Forcing a church to marry folks that don't meet your religious requirements is an egregious violation of religious freedom.

Whereas a given church refusing to wed a given couple doesn't create a substantive burden on that couple's right to marry. As that right to marry is the right to have that marriage recognized by law. There is no right to be married in a particular church.

That of courses extends to any business. There is no right to buy gas from a particular gas station, nor a meal from a particular restaurant, etc etc.

1964 Civil Rights Act says otherwise.

 

[dblack]

What other rights do you think churches are prevented from violating?

Well, we already talked about right to life. And all the other rights people have. As well the civil rights laws regarding employment.

Title VII allows a religious organization to discriminate on the basis of religion when it hires employees. For example, in a 1987 Supreme Court case dealing with Title VII, the Court ruled that a gym operated by the Mormon Church could require its janitor to be a Mormon in good standing. Title VII does not, however, permit religious organization to discriminate on the basis of an individual's race, sex, or national origin. By contrast, ENDA permits religious organizations to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

The Religious Exemption to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Hmm... Are you sure about that? I'm gonna hafta go a googling, cause I bet churches can't discriminate based on race.

Sure they can. Its perfectly legit for a religion to only marry white people. Or only marry blacks. Mormons banned black preists. Catholics still ban women priests. Most religiously run theology schools are a sausage fest. And its all completely legal.

Frankly, I don't see how anyone can pretend there are any consistent principles at work in civil rights law. It's straight-up, authoritarian, social engineering, and has nothing at all to do with protecting our rights.

And that would be because you're ignoring the fact that religion is a constitutional right and powerfully protected. Refusing to marry someone who doesn't meet your tenets religious requirements is well within the free practice of religion. Forcing a church to marry folks that don't meet your religious requirements is an egregious violation of religious freedom.

Whereas a given church refusing to wed a given couple doesn't create a substantive burden on that couple's right to marry. As that right to marry is the right to have that marriage recognized by law. There is no right to be married in a particular church.

That of courses extends to any business. There is no right to buy gas from a particular gas station, nor a meal from a particular restaurant, etc etc.

1964 Civil Rights Act says otherwise.

Yes, you mean the unconstitutional law that violates the 14th Amendment by giving some groups unequal protections that aren't available to other groups, just depends if that group has enough public support to pressure law makers into adding them to the cause?

I can hang a sign right outside my restaurant that says "we do NOT serve fat people here"

Perfectly legal.

I can not hang a sign up that says "we do NOT serve black people here"

Therefor, logically blacks are favored by the law, while fatties are not. Meaning the law is picking and choosing favorites.

 

[Skylar]

Be that as it may, you can't deny that the COTUS does not empower the federal government to make people be nice to each other.

That's where we're getting into some muddier waters, constitutionally speaking. The Bill of Rights has from the beginning protected citizens from violatoin of their rights by the federal government. With the 14th amendment, citizens are protected from the violation of their rights by the State government. These are constitutionally rock solid principles.

The federal government preventing citizens from violating citizens civil rights? Per the conception of rights as understood by the founders, this would have been impossible. As rights were expressed as a prohibition against government interference with the actions of the individual. And have nothing to do with citizen v. citizen interactions.

The way the federal government extended its authority over citizen v citizen interactions was some pretty shady shit: the interstate commerce clause. Arguing in effect, that the federal government's authority to regulate interstate commerce gave it full jurisdictional authority over intrastate commerce. Which boggles the mind on a linguistic and constitutional level.

In my opinion, the Constitution doesn't authorize any such jurisdiction. And has no authority over intrastate commerce. And consequently, no authority over citizen v. citizen interactions unless those interactions are explicitly involved in interstate commerce.\

The States can do as they wish.

 

[Skylar]

itle VII allows a religious organization to discriminate on the basis of religion when it hires employees. For example, in a 1987 Supreme Court case dealing with Title VII, the Court ruled that a gym operated by the Mormon Church could require its janitor to be a Mormon in good standing. Title VII does not, however, permit religious organization to discriminate on the basis of an individual's race, sex, or national origin. By contrast, ENDA permits religious organizations to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

A church isn't employing the couple it marries. Rendering your entire argument regarding employment practices irrelevant.

A church can discriminate against anyone it wishes to in the performance of its religious rites. Churches can choose to only marry white people. Or only marry black people. Or only recognize men as priests. Or exclude black people from its priesthood.

And does.

 

[Skylar]

You seem to be missing the point. Deliberately, I suppose.

Or your point doesn't work, as a church doesn't employ a couple by marrying them. Making your citation of employment law both bizarre and irrelevant. And churches retain the authority to discriminate against anyone they wish in the performance of their religious rites. Something you said they couldn't do. And churches doing it demonstrate they can.

Anyway, as long as the state tells us how to live, I guess that's the main thing, eh?

If you want a marriage that has nothing to do with the State, enjoy. If you want a marriage that has the protection and recognition of the State, that's available too. Sounds like a win-win to me.

 

[dblack]

Hmm... Are you sure about that? I'm gonna hafta go a googling, cause I bet churches can't discriminate based on race.

Sure they can. Its perfectly legit for a religion to only marry white people. Or only marry blacks. Mormons banned black preists. Catholics still ban women priests. Most religiously run theology schools are a sausage fest. And its all completely legal.

Frankly, I don't see how anyone can pretend there are any consistent principles at work in civil rights law. It's straight-up, authoritarian, social engineering, and has nothing at all to do with protecting our rights.

And that would be because you're ignoring the fact that religion is a constitutional right and powerfully protected. Refusing to marry someone who doesn't meet your tenets religious requirements is well within the free practice of religion. Forcing a church to marry folks that don't meet your religious requirements is an egregious violation of religious freedom.

Whereas a given church refusing to wed a given couple doesn't create a substantive burden on that couple's right to marry. As that right to marry is the right to have that marriage recognized by law. There is no right to be married in a particular church.

That of courses extends to any business. There is no right to buy gas from a particular gas station, nor a meal from a particular restaurant, etc etc.

1964 Civil Rights Act says otherwise.

Yes, you mean the unconstitutional law that violates the 14th Amendment by giving some groups unequal protections that aren't available to other groups, just depends if that group has enough public support to pressure law makers into adding them to the cause?

I can hang a sign right outside my restaurant that says "we do NOT serve fat people here"

Perfectly legal.

I can not hang a sign up that says "we do NOT serve black people here"

Therefor, logically blacks are favored by the law, while fatties are not. Meaning the law is picking and choosing favorites.

Yeah... that's what I don't get.

You seem to be missing the point. Deliberately, I suppose.

Or your point doesn't work, as a church doesn't employ a couple by marrying them. Making your citation of employment law both bizarre and irrelevant. And churches retain the authority to discriminate against anyone they wish in the performance of their religious rights. Something you said they couldn't do. And churches doing it demonstrate they can.

Anyway, as long as the state tells us how to live, I guess that's the main thing, eh?

If you want a marriage that has nothing to do with the State, enjoy. If you want a marriage that has the protection and recognition of the State, that's available too. Sounds like a win-win to me.

It's sounds like an arbitrary jumble of special privilege to me. If public accommodations laws were truly about protecting our equal rights, they'd apply to everyone, not just those with a slot on the 'protected classes' leaderboard. But they're not about protecting our rights, they're about targeting unpopular biases.

 

[Skylar]

It's sounds like an arbitrary jumble of special privilege to me.

And again, that's because you don't recognize that religion is a constitutional right and is powerfully protected. Factor that into your equation, and it becomes much less 'jumbled'.

If public accommodations laws were truly about protecting our equal rights, they'd apply to everyone, not just those with a slot on the 'protected classes' leaderboard. But they're not about protecting our rights, they're about targeting unpopular biases.

The legislature doesn't have the authority to legislatively mandate the performance of religious rites in express contradiction of religious tenets. How then could it create a law that applied to them?

 

[Syriusly]

Re: churches and racial discrimination

Title VII allows a religious organization to discriminate on the basis of religion when it hires employees. For example, in a 1987 Supreme Court case dealing with Title VII, the Court ruled that a gym operated by the Mormon Church could require its janitor to be a Mormon in good standing. Title VII does not, however, permit religious organization to discriminate on the basis of an individual's race, sex, or national origin. By contrast, ENDA permits religious organizations to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

The Religious Exemption to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act

What an ad-hoc mess. What about all the minorities that don't get their free pass?

In general

Hmm... Are you sure about that? I'm gonna hafta go a googling, cause I bet churches can't discriminate based on race.

Sure they can. Its perfectly legit for a religion to only marry white people. Or only marry blacks. Mormons banned black preists. Catholics still ban women priests. Most religiously run theology schools are a sausage fest. And its all completely legal.

Frankly, I don't see how anyone can pretend there are any consistent principles at work in civil rights law. It's straight-up, authoritarian, social engineering, and has nothing at all to do with protecting our rights.

And that would be because you're ignoring the fact that religion is a constitutional right and powerfully protected. Refusing to marry someone who doesn't meet your tenets religious requirements is well within the free practice of religion. Forcing a church to marry folks that don't meet your religious requirements is an egregious violation of religious freedom.

Whereas a given church refusing to wed a given couple doesn't create a substantive burden on that couple's right to marry. As that right to marry is the right to have that marriage recognized by law. There is no right to be married in a particular church.

That of courses extends to any business. There is no right to buy gas from a particular gas station, nor a meal from a particular restaurant, etc etc.

1964 Civil Rights Act says otherwise.

Yes, you mean the unconstitutional law that violates the 14th Amendment by giving some groups unequal protections that aren't available to other groups.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

1971: In Griggs v. Duke Power Co., the Supreme Court ruled that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits not only intentional job discrimination, but also employer practices that have a discriminatory effect on minorities and women. The Court held that tests and other employment practices that disproportionately screened out African American applicants for jobs at the Duke Power Company were prohibited when the tests were not shown to be job-related.

Note- the Supreme Court did not rule that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional.

You are of course welcome to your interpretation- there are indeed Supreme Court decisions I don't agree with- but I don't pretend that just because I disagree that the Supreme Court decisions are only opinions that matter when it comes to deciding what is Constitutional.

 

[Syriusly]

Hmm... Are you sure about that? I'm gonna hafta go a googling, cause I bet churches can't discriminate based on race.

Sure they can. Its perfectly legit for a religion to only marry white people. Or only marry blacks. Mormons banned black preists. Catholics still ban women priests. Most religiously run theology schools are a sausage fest. And its all completely legal.

Frankly, I don't see how anyone can pretend there are any consistent principles at work in civil rights law. It's straight-up, authoritarian, social engineering, and has nothing at all to do with protecting our rights.

And that would be because you're ignoring the fact that religion is a constitutional right and powerfully protected. Refusing to marry someone who doesn't meet your tenets religious requirements is well within the free practice of religion. Forcing a church to marry folks that don't meet your religious requirements is an egregious violation of religious freedom.

Whereas a given church refusing to wed a given couple doesn't create a substantive burden on that couple's right to marry. As that right to marry is the right to have that marriage recognized by law. There is no right to be married in a particular church.

That of courses extends to any business. There is no right to buy gas from a particular gas station, nor a meal from a particular restaurant, etc etc.

1964 Civil Rights Act says otherwise.

Yes, you mean the unconstitutional law that violates the 14th Amendment by giving some groups unequal protections that aren't available to other groups, just depends if that group has enough public support to pressure law makers into adding them to the cause?

I can hang a sign right outside my restaurant that says "we do NOT serve fat people here"

Perfectly legal.

I can not hang a sign up that says "we do NOT serve black people here"

Therefor, logically blacks are favored by the law, while fatties are not. Meaning the law is picking and choosing favorites.

No- really this is not brain science.

TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

Not one word about 'blacks'- or 'whites'- only
Race
Color
Religion
National Origin

If you can show me how blacks are favored over whites in the act, well please do.

Now- if you want to discriminate against fat people- unless state or local laws prohibit it- you can discriminate to your hearts content.

 

[Syriusly]

Hmm... Are you sure about that? I'm gonna hafta go a googling, cause I bet churches can't discriminate based on race.

Sure they can. Its perfectly legit for a religion to only marry white people. Or only marry blacks. Mormons banned black preists. Catholics still ban women priests. Most religiously run theology schools are a sausage fest. And its all completely legal.

Frankly, I don't see how anyone can pretend there are any consistent principles at work in civil rights law. It's straight-up, authoritarian, social engineering, and has nothing at all to do with protecting our rights.

And that would be because you're ignoring the fact that religion is a constitutional right and powerfully protected. Refusing to marry someone who doesn't meet your tenets religious requirements is well within the free practice of religion. Forcing a church to marry folks that don't meet your religious requirements is an egregious violation of religious freedom.

Whereas a given church refusing to wed a given couple doesn't create a substantive burden on that couple's right to marry. As that right to marry is the right to have that marriage recognized by law. There is no right to be married in a particular church.

That of courses extends to any business. There is no right to buy gas from a particular gas station, nor a meal from a particular restaurant, etc etc.

1964 Civil Rights Act says otherwise.

Yes, you mean the unconstitutional law that violates the 14th Amendment by giving some groups unequal protections that aren't available to other groups, just depends if that group has enough public support to pressure law makers into adding them to the cause?

I can hang a sign right outside my restaurant that says "we do NOT serve fat people here"

Perfectly legal.

I can not hang a sign up that says "we do NOT serve black people here"

Therefor, logically blacks are favored by the law, while fatties are not. Meaning the law is picking and choosing favorites.

Yeah... that's what I don't get.

You seem to be missing the point. Deliberately, I suppose.

Or your point doesn't work, as a church doesn't employ a couple by marrying them. Making your citation of employment law both bizarre and irrelevant. And churches retain the authority to discriminate against anyone they wish in the performance of their religious rights. Something you said they couldn't do. And churches doing it demonstrate they can.

Anyway, as long as the state tells us how to live, I guess that's the main thing, eh?

If you want a marriage that has nothing to do with the State, enjoy. If you want a marriage that has the protection and recognition of the State, that's available too. Sounds like a win-win to me.

It's sounds like an arbitrary jumble of special privilege to me. If public accommodations laws were truly about protecting our equal rights, they'd apply to everyone, not just those with a slot on the 'protected classes' leaderboard. But they're not about protecting our rights, they're about targeting unpopular biases.

Actually they target minorities that have suffered historic discrimination.

We have a long and 'glorious' history in the United States of discriminating against people based upon color(Black/Brown/Yellow), race(Chinese/Negro/Indian), religion(Jew/Mormon/Catholic), national origin(Irish/Italian/African).