Which comes first: Freedom of Religion or Civil Rights?

Are you high? Of course it has. Many times.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The real problem here is the government's claim to allow or deny marriage to anyone. Marriage has always, well up till the last decade or so, been a religious union of a man and a woman. The state somehow acquired the right to license the bond in matrimony to anyone who passes the legal litmus test for a fee. This bond has in history been a religious contract and still is in its basic implementation. Priests and other religious leaders (as well as local civic appointees) have been allowed to perform the actual marriage bonding by law. The real problem started when government gave special property, tax and other rights to legal spouses.

Take away the state's right to grant licenses to marry licenses and special rights to spouses and tax benefits to couples and the problem just goes away. If gay people want to marry in a religious setting, I don't see a problem with them forming their own church or just finding a church that is amenable. The state should not be involved in the process in any way. There is a problem of inequality when the state grants special status to any class of people. It is obvious. If a particular religion has a ban on gay marriage then it should be allowed that they not be forced to do the joining.

Marriage should just be two (or more, or less) people saying they are in some sense bonded. It is really just a public statement of sexual status.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

umm try again, marriage is a LEGAL contract and is listed as such in the Australian Constitution where the powers to legislate marriage are given to the commonwealth and not the states.

Our constitution is 200 years old, so basically there WASN'T an Australia where marriage wasn't a legal contract. I doubt the US is any different

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That is my point, marriage should not be a legal contract. It should be a social contract. It is a power usurped. I am even going as far as to say it is a personal statement. In the US this is somewhat legally recognized by the possibility of common law marriage. Meaning that just a man and woman living together has a legal implication. But common law marriage is not historically recognized.

There is a paternal and maternal responsibility that should be legally specified, but that should not be a problem with most gay marriages. In those that adopt there are other legal bonds between parent and child that should take effect.

 

Actually there are a LOT of reasons for the gov to care about pair bonding which don't have anything to do with procreation. For example, the environment, with a couple living together they tend to use less power per person than they would alone (watching TV together, in same room so sharing light etc), less houses are needed, they tend to support each other emotionally (lowering mental illness rates), financially (lowering the need for social security), when they are ill less per person resources needed etc, because of this governments can give incentives to pair bond

Sorry if your just an anti gov type like Michael but government DOES have a role in pair bonding and legislation regulates ALL contracts so why would a marriage contract be any different.

You can chose not to get married, you can chose just to co habit, you can chose to do as my partner and I do and use defacto laws which are pretty much the same as marriage laws now but require more fidderling around by us (for example ensuring that we and not our parents are eachothers next of kin, and recipients if one of us dies) but that's our choice

 

I doubt that any of those reason were important in the past. Not here in the US at least. The only incentives to pair bonding in the US in the past have been to encourage families and procreation. To increase the population and sustain the economy. With current population trends, we should not really be encouraging couples to have children. Children are a large drain of social welfare costs. And with the US's immigration situation, maintaining population levels is not a problem. In fact the problem is growth. Gay marriage is not a problem in any of these regards.

Nope, I am not anti-government. As far as contracts go, here in the US, contracts are not generally awarded by the government. Entering into a contract does not require a license or fee. I can enter a contract with another person, either written of verbal, and not have to apply for permission. If marriage is a contract, then why is it different?

You can also choose to not marry someone of another race, or even of another religion or political preference. In the US there was a time where some states could refuse a marriage license based on the couple being interracial. You seem to be saying that does not matter. Legal is legal. If the law says you can't marry a person with a name that starts with 'S', then that is the law. Tough luck. I think such restrictions are bad. As far as incest goes, that already has social taboos. The government ban of marrying cousins or closer does not really keep the problematic offspring from coming about. Gay marriage does not seem to be an issue with incestuous offspring.

 

think i will let bells deal with the issues of incest (even when its non procreating)

as for your comment about "the law is the law" there is a difference between supporting government involvement and supporting the particular laws. For example I support the constitution but not the marriage ACT, why should the government be involved? well I have already pointed that out, also there is the fact that its the government who has to pay when marriages break up because they have to fund the family courts

The current Marriage Act is discriminatory and no I don't support it

 

He did say he endorsed without question the Old Testament. I mean, I don't know if he really said it, but that's what the Bible said he said.

 

I haven't read the whole thing, but it appears to allow states the right to recognize or not recognize gay marriages. I don't see a problem with that.

 

What a shock, you don't see a problem with discrimination.

Anyway, the states have always had the right to recognize or not recognize same-sex marriages. What DOMA does is federally define marriage as being between one man and one woman, and tells the states that they do not have to give marriage rights to any same-sex couple.

 

Yeah, the limits of expression of religion are boundless. When organizations such as Scientology become a recognized religion within United States, is it ever a wonder that some religious expression starts to conflict with other civil rights? Neither should take precedence in my opinion, but should be considered case-by-case. Of course if there is a law stating you must come to work, and then your religion demands you cannot go to work on this day of worship, then the religious expression should take precedence. But not all cases of expression can be clearly outlined, there's obvious ones like day of religious observance/worship, holidays, religious garments, etc. -- but baking a cake is not a fundamental right when it comes to religion.

I think the discussion has somewhat derailed from its focus -- we should not be talking about the rights of the lesbian couple & the legitimacy of marriage, but the rights of the baker. The rights of the lesbian couple, in my opinion, has nothing to do with the issue. It could have been a black couple, a hispanic couple, a muslim couple -- all of these are incidental traits, what is pertinent in this issue is whether or not the baker can withhold service to anyone based on any discriminating feature (a discriminating feature outlined by his respective religion). Christianity may have a problem with homosexuality, but it also has a problem with people of different faith and religion. This is very important, because if this case is ruled in favor of the baker, it will be a gateway case not only against lesbian couples, but all of the above. The Qu'ran specifically calls out Christians and Jews in its passages, from which you can argue muslim bakers might refrain service to them (refer to Sura 9:30, Quran).

As for my own stance on the situation, the individuals has rights as a Christian, but obligations as a baker. These two must be isolated from one another. Yes, he has the right to observe his own religion. But as a baker, he cannot withhold service without legitimate reason. Homosexuality, although problematic with christianity, is not a legitimate reason. As I mentioned in a previous post, Christianity labels homosexuality is a sin, as is murder, theft, lying, adultery, non-observance to the Sabbath, non-observance that there is only the christian God. As long as the bible does not explicitly say "Thou shalt not bake for homosexuals", this case is overreaching (in the sense that if homosexuality is enough grounds to withhold service, so is all the other sins, including no service to other religions; "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me"). In the realm of religion, you can withhold service to whoever you'd like (withholding lesbian marriage in your church). But in the realm of bakery, you cannot

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

This is exactly why none of the arguments in favor of the bakery stand up. If one wants to say that the bakery has the right to uphold their religious convictions regardless of the law, then everything is permissible. If you want to draw a line somewhere, as Bowser so clumsily did, then you're contradicting the original premise, since you agree that there is a limit to how much your religious convictions should let you get away with.

 

Participate, contribute; call it whatever you like. The analogy to blood diamonds is especially apt considering your argument. Blood diamonds are not physically different to any other diamonds, just as you argue a cake cannot be inherently gay. This does not remove the perception of evil from the contribution.

While ethics may not generally be considered a strong suit of business, it is extreme to assume none can be assumed if engaged in commerce.

Poor analogy, as they were not denied service in general. They were specifically denied a gay wedding cake. I am sure the business owner would have been happy to serve them anything else unrelated to gay marriage. Like I said, they were only denied what was not on the menu.

By that reasoning you could justify buying blood diamonds and funding violence. 'There is nothing inherently different about a "blood" diamond.'

You misunderstand. Compelling evidence that homosexuality is natural, i.e. to justify your "ignorant" comment.

 

It's not the blood diamonds analogy that I have a problem with, it's the contention that by purchasing them I am "participating" in the misdeeds done to acquire them. But as I said, it's a fair enough point, and I won't argue against it.

That's another straw man. No one ever said one cannot maintain their ethics when engaged in commerce. All anyone has said is that there are conditions. As a bakery owner in Oregon, one has the obligation to provide the same service to all patrons without reference to what the law considers immutable or incidental qualities, such as religion, skin color, or sexual orientation, and refusing someone a cake for a gay wedding amounts to refusing them service based on their sexual orientation. There is still plenty of ethical wiggle room without participating in that kind of discrimination.

Just as the black citizen was not denied access to bathrooms in general, simply the bathrooms for whites only. Just as the black citizen wasn't denied transportation service, they simply had to move to the back if a white passenger boarded and needed a seat. The analogy works just fine.

Your menu argument has no merit, as I've already explained to you three times. Gay wedding cakes are not inherently different than straight wedding cakes, so they can't qualify as different menu items. They could have refused them a pink wedding cake, or a cake with a particular kind of frosting or ingredient, but a gay wedding cake is no different than a straight wedding cake. The only difference lies in the sexual orientation of the customer, so refusal of the item amounts to discrimination based on sexual orientation, and is illegal per Oregon state law.

Nonsense. I'm explaining to you why the "menu item" argument is fallacious, not trying to convince you why gay marriage is a good thing. Just as the contents of the cake don't make it "gay" or "straight," the constitution of the diamond doesn't make it conflict or non-conflict. In both cases, the circumstances define the item, not the item itself. And, according to Oregon state law, the bakery can't refuse service based on the customer's sexual orientation.

Oh, okay. I see where I made the mistake.

 

Of course there are limits, such as murder. Here we are talking about the refusal of service based on religious belief. If all bakeries were owned and operated by Christians, there might be an argument that others had no other options. As it stands, another bakery stepped up and offered to make the cake.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

 

I'm weighing the importance of a cake in contrast to an individuals conscience and spiritual beliefs. The cake doesn't seem as important.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

But the basis for your argument is that people should be free to exercise their religion, period. Here you admit there are limits, but this contradicts the previous statement. You need to make a case for why it should be acceptable to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

It doesn't matter that they had other options. The law does not require there to be no other options.

Again, the way you're reading this is that it should allow people to exercise their religious beliefs regardless of what that means to other people. You need to understand that there are practical limits to religious expression, and one of them, at least in Oregon, is the ability to refuse service based on a customer's sexual orientation. Are you capable of understanding this concept, or should I just give up now?

 

To you, maybe. To that couple, the cake is hugely important. Unless you don't think a wedding is important to people?

 

I look at it as a degree of harm, because I don't see any harm in this situation. Obviously, there are other options available. If they were the only bakery in town...maybe.

And I disagree with a law that subverts individual choice, more so when it involves conscience and freedom of action. You keep falling back on Oregon's anti-discrimination law as if it were some kind of gospel. In this situation, I support the business owner and their choice to deny service.

Yes, there are practical limits, but I don't regard this as a reasonable limit. I understand the law, and I hope it is challenged in this situation.

 

And they had their cake; whereas, somebody else will be penalize for having personal beliefs. I don't see the couple suffering because they get to practice what they believe and are committed to. Seems to be a double standard.