Support NeoGAF

[SkeptiMism]

Churches can start denying stuff like this when they start paying taxes. I dont want them essentially acting as a government subsidized affiliation without being held to public standards.

This. I have felt this way for awhile not directly involving this issue, but this is a good example. Seperation of church and state. They can do whatever they want but not with tax exempt or state aid.

Same as religous university's. They won't house couples fine, but they better be 100% privately funded, not just at school level, but students should not be able to use state aid to go there.

Yup. If the church wants to marry people, i.e. have a permission from the state to legally bind a couple, then they should not be able to discriminate but do as the state does.

If not, they can choose not to marry people and instead, have blessing ceremonies (after the state having married a couple for example).

Don't be ridiculous. It's not the government's job to force churches to perform services that are against their beliefs. Separation of church and state is important.

Not services, but a service to which the church gets its right from the state.

What? Religious marriage is a religious ceremony. You can't force religions to add ceremonies.

If a Muslim mosque doesn't pray Jewish prayers they have to?

Nah

A trickier one is whether they can discriminate membership. For private clubs I think it is fine. The tax emepmt status of churches makes it weirder.

That comparison doesn't work, because the church doesn't get its right to pray prayers from the state. It's not a legally binding thing to pray.

But yes, certainly even tricker one is whether they can discriminate membership, and the tax exempt status does make it pretty weird too.

 

[Bornstellar]

Yup. If the church wants to marry people, i.e. have a permission from the state to legally bind a couple, then they should not be able to discriminate but do as the state does.

If not, they can choose not to marry people and instead, have blessing ceremonies (after the state having married a couple for example).

Not services, but a service to which the church gets its right from the state.

That comparison doesn't work, because the church doesn't get its right to pray prayers from the state. It's not a legally binding thing to pray.

But yes, certainly even tricker one is whether they can discriminate membership, and the tax exempt status does make it pretty weird too.

The Church doesn't claim to get its right to perform religious ceremonies from the state either.

 

[Cartman86]

We really need to figure out this church tax exemption stuff. It makes all of this harder than it needs to be.

 

[SkeptiMism]

The Church doesn't claim to get its right to perform religious ceremonies from the state either.

I'm missing the point here. Please explain more. As it is, yes I agree with you in general (obviously). But the thing that they do get from the state, is the right to legally bind a couple, i.e. marry people.

 

[GameGuru59]

But the constitution was built in such a way that at religous organizations have that right.

However as I said I don't think they should get tax exemptions or especially aid.

There is precedent, look at catholic adoption agencies and how many folded because they would not adopt to gay couples, as religous institutions the court ruled they were within their rights and could not be forced due to religion. However they also could not get state or federal aid if they refused.

That's how it should go in my book.

Well, then you'd also have to consider how many babies weren't adopted due to that requirement. Was it worth enforcing it?

 

[riotous]

Yup. If the church wants to marry people, i.e. have a permission from the state to legally bind a couple, then they should not be able to discriminate but do as the state does.

If not, they can choose not to marry people and instead, have blessing ceremonies (after the state having married a couple for example).

Not services, but a service to which the church gets its right from the state.

The service is meaningless; the Priest/Pastor qualifies as a person who can sign your marriage license request.

Churches have been denying weddings for ages based on numerous grounds unchallenged.

My Catholic brother had trouble finding a Rabbi who would perform a wedding ceremony for his Jewish bride.. literally 1 Rabbi in the State of Washington who would do it.

Catholic Priests won't perform a wedding ceremony for a divorced person who hasn't gone through the Catholic annulment process.

There is no legal argument for forcing a church to do a religious ceremony for someone.. nor can you force someone to be an officiant just because they have the capacity to be one.

 

[Acorn]

I'm missing the point here. Please explain more. As it is, yes I agree with you in general (obviously). But the thing that they do get from the state, is the right to legally bind a couple, i.e. marry people.

No the state recognises the ceremony.

 

[Carnby]

I mean, your church doesn't want to perform same sex marriage, more power to you, no-one's ever suggested otherwise I don't think

Businesses? Fuck off though

Well said.

 

[Rebel Leader]

No the state recognises the ceremony.

this is true

 

[CitizenVectron]

No the state recognises the ceremony.

Correct, but the state does not have to. The state chooses to recognize certain unions from certain religions, but not all (example: polygamous unions from extreme Mormon groups or cults). No one has the right to create or allow a legal marriage contract/union except the state due to the power we give it in the social contract.

 

[SkeptiMism]

No the state recognises the ceremony.

Alright, thanks for the correction. Still though, it doesn't change the argument much. If the state refused to recognize it, then the church could not legally marry people.

The service is meaningless; the Priest/Pastor qualifies as a person who can sign your marriage license request.

Churches have been denying weddings for ages based on numerous grounds unchallenged.

My Catholic brother had trouble finding a Rabbi who would perform a wedding ceremony for his Jewish bride.. literally 1 Rabbi in the State of Washington who would do it.

Catholic Priests won't perform a wedding ceremony for a divorced person who hasn't gone through the Catholic annulment process.

There is no legal argument for forcing a church to do a religious ceremony for someone.. nor can you force someone to be an officiant just because they have the capacity to be one.

Are those protected classes though? Like, a business can decline service if they wish, in principle for any reason, except if the reason happens to be of things like race or color.

The same should go to churches in my opinion.

 

[riotous]

Are those protected classes though?

Yes? You can't deny someone for being Catholic for instance at a business.

You can deny to perform a marriage ceremony for a Catholic.

 

[Acorn]

Correct, but the state does not have to. The state chooses to recognize certain unions from certain religions, but not all (example: polygamous unions from extreme Mormon groups or cults). No one has the right to create or allow a legal marriage contract/union except the state due to the power we give it in the social contract.

Yup.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Considering every religion actually as internal laws that are documented, that would be all they have to produce. Produce the law that says gay people should not be served and then you can claim religious exemption.

This is an incredibly naive assumption that doesn't reflect the kinds of things that have occurred when governments actually try to litigate or legislate issues related to religious beliefs.

 

[ElectricKaibutsu]

I mean, your church doesn't want to perform same sex marriage, more power to you, no-one's ever suggested otherwise I don't think

Businesses? Fuck off though

I completely agree.

 

[Acorn]

Alright, thanks for the correction. Still though, it doesn't change the argument much. If the state refused to recognize it, then the church could not legally marry people.

Are those protected classes though? Like, a business can decline service if they wish, in principle for any reason, except if the reason happens to be of things like race or color.

The same should go to churches in my opinion.

It does. It changes it from forcing a church to marry someone (divorced people as well as homosexual etc)to the state deciding to not recognise ceremonies performed there.


Do people really want someone that thinks you're terrible officiating a ceremony between you and your lover?

That isn't like forcing a bigoted mechanic to fix your exhaust, it's something you'll remember forever.

 

[VistraNorrez]

This is an incredibly naive assumption that doesn't reflect the kinds of things that have occurred when governments actually try to litigate or legislate issues related to religious beliefs.

Well then educate me. How do we allow people to have religious exemptions? My impression right now is we just take their word for it. I'd like to know how it actually works.

 

[gutter_trash]

Church laws should never supersede the laws of the nation.

if you want to live under Shariah Law, then move to Saudi Arabia

 

[Scrooged]

Alright, thanks for the correction. Still though, it doesn't change the argument much. If the state refused to recognize it, then the church could not legally marry people.

Are those protected classes though? Like, a business can decline service if they wish, in principle for any reason, except if the reason happens to be of things like race or color.

The same should go to churches in my opinion.

Legally, the only important aspect here is the person doing the wedding. This person doesn't have to be a priest or pastor. They just need the legal authority to do the marriage. The church itself is just a location...it doesn't have to be done at a church. And this is where the separation of church and state comes in. People are not allowed the freedom to get married at any church they wish. Churches are not state property and they are not businesses. They don't even pay taxes. So the government literally doesn't have the authority to force them to house any type of marriage. The first amendment is pretty clear on this.

 

[EloquentM]

I don't understand this from a Christian theological perspective. Similar things, to my mind:
The point of both would seem to be that the way people look at things doesn't matter to your personal standing with God. As that second passage continues, it does that say essentially that if another Christian perceives it as giving the OK to something sinful, you shouldn't encourage them to do that thing. However, that is only increasing the importance of your personal declaration in your relationship to others as opposed to the actions in themselves, and it also has nothing to do with the relational dynamics with unbelievers.

There are some later verses about honoring government roles, which are quite weighty if you consider they were practicing unjust/oppressive taxes and murdering Christians, but that is slightly less applicable. The point is, I have no idea where these people are getting, from a Christian theological perspective, that they should refuse to do innocuous things for sinners that the government says they should do, just because they disagree with the perception of them? If you don't think it's a legitimate marriage, just bake the damn cake and say out loud that you don't believe it is legitimate. Then the "sinner" got the message, and God saw you do it, right?

Especially considering the opening part of the second passage, it would seem it matters more if they perceive you as an unloving bigot asshole than whether or not they perceive you as a Christian approving of their sinful concepts of marriage. I mean, I don't ask for much. You can go ahead and sell your brain to your religion and follow it hardcore and miss out on much in life, but at least be consistent to the religion if you choose that option!

You assume most if not the craziest Christians actually read and completely understand the teachings in the bible.

 

[Wiktor]

It's ok to extempt churches and priests from those ceremonies, but business? That's beyond silly.

 

[Matty77]

Well, then you'd also have to consider how many babies weren't adopted due to that requirement. Was it worth enforcing it?

Yes it was, and those kids are still eligible for adoption and have organizations that take care of that, just not catholic charities.

Seperation of church and state should and is supposed to be a two way street.

I love how people on both sides of the debate try to act like it only applies one way.

 

[hunchback]

WHY DO PEOPLE STILL ARGUE WITH GAMEGURU.

Seriously.

100% Agree. Every thread GameGuru participates lately he has done the same behavior.

 

[Red Mage]

Churches can start denying stuff like this when they start paying taxes. I dont want them essentially acting as a government subsidized affiliation without being held to public standards.

They're not government subsidized in the U.S. They do not pay taxes because the founders saw the ability to tax as the ability to destroy.

BTW, if you tried to force churches to down this, they can and will stop doing marriage ceremonies altogether and start doing marriage blessings ceremonies instead. It's happened in the past when churches weren't allowed to perform marriages.

 

[malfcn]

I've always thought the tax situation with churches was dubious.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

Nope. Churches shouldn't get a pass either.

Yes they should.

You shouldn't force opinion on people, and forcing a church that opposes gay marriage is a direct violation of freedom of religion.

There are churches that do gay marriage, ways to get married outside of churches and other stuff, no need to cause a fucking political war by unconstitutionally forcing groups of people to do something that can easily be done by others.

 

[Tallshortman]

Tax exemption is not government subsidized or endorsed. Certain types of advocacy and political organizations are tax exempt and they're certainly not considered subsidized or government endorsed organizations.

 

[Dice]

You assume most if not the craziest Christians actually read and completely understand the teachings in the bible.

I would expect an organization completely dedicated to it like Focus on the Family to at least raise the concern with Christians when addressing the topic. They certainly seem biblically literate enough to know that not being an asshole is doctrinally more important than whether or not people think you're condoning something considered sinful when you explicitly state otherwise for yourself. Otherwise the moment people called Jesus a sinner for dining with sinners he'd be like "Oh shit, gotta keep my reputation clean!" and bounce.

 

[Korey]

Do ceremonies have anything to do with the actual legal marriage?

 

[GameGuru59]

Yes it was, and those kids are still eligible for adoption and have organizations that take care of that, just not catholic charities.

Seperation of church and state should and is supposed to be a two way street.

I love how people on both sides of the debate try to act like it only applies one way.

Yes, but do we know these orgs. were able to pick up the slack? Probably not in my opinion. There's a deficit of adoption in this country.

With regard to the rest of your post, the state should act in the best interest of its constituents. Limiting discrimination is only one amongst many. The state also has in interest in seeing children adopted by loving parents, no matter how it arrives at that result. So I ask again, is this zero-tolerance for discrimination stance worth it when fewer children may be getting adopted. I say no, as the life of a child is more precious to me than hurting someone's feelings. And lets be clear, in almost all of these instances, people had other places from which they could adopt. So all we're talking about is hurt feelings.

This debate is reminiscent of liberal's disdain for GWB's "faith based initiatives" where progressives also cried about separating church and state. Forgetting that the partnership actually did help millions of Americans. Progressives (a group of which I am a part) should stand less often on principal and more often on practicality.

100% Agree. Every thread GameGuru participates lately he has done the same behavior.

And what "behavior" is that? Disagreeing with conventional wisdom? Awwww... I'm sorrry...

 

[obin_gam]

I just want to point out that there seems to be a discrimination defense force here on Gaf.

When you think you have seen everything...

 

[Rayis]

Can gay people also get the right to refuse service to religious people plz

 

[GameGuru59]

Can gay people also get the right to refuse service to religious people plz

Sure, that ought to be their right too.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

And what "behavior" is that. Disagreeing with conventional wisdom? Awwww... I'm sorrry...

Anyone can disagree with conventional wisdom.

But your proposed solutions to problems and line of thinking are generally... how do I put it, kinda off the fucking rocker?

At least it's entertaining to some! (And most likely infuriating to those trying to argue with you)

 

[KHarvey16]

I think it's useful to distinguish between refusing service to a person for who they are and refusing to perform a particular service with which they disagree.

I think there's a lot of nuance to the latter, and I also think the law by and large already protects that kind of situation. Which is what I find confusing about the push for these so-called religious liberty exemptions. Given what the law already allows businesses to do, the only reason I can see for additional legislature is to make it legal to refuse service to a person for who they are.

 

[GameGuru59]

Anyone can disagree with conventional wisdom.

But your proposed solutions to problems and line of thinking are generally... how do I put it, kinda off the fucking rocker?

They're unconventional? Yes. I imagine a fundamentally different society than exists today. I don't see what exists and work from there. I start from zero and try to work toward shaping what exists today into what I believe should be.

 

[demented waffle]

Can gay people also get the right to refuse service to religious people plz

Yep. Wouldn't make any sense letting them in if you're running an establishment that caters to the gay community. Would you want WBC in your business if you ran a gay bar?

Sadly, it sounds better in theory than practice. The southern states would be a complete disaster.

 

[Red Mage]

I just want to point out that there seems to be a discrimination defense force here on Gaf.

When you think you have seen everything...

Are you referring to those of us against forcing churches to hold gay weddings? That's not the situation at all. Go ahead and try to do that here; you'll end up destroying popular support for gay marriage as a result.

Otherwise, there's a defense force for incest on GAF, so why are you surprised?

 

[obin_gam]

Are you referring to those of us against forcing churches to hold gay weddings? That's not the situation at all. Go ahead and try to do that here; you'll end up destroying popular support for gay marriage as you result.
?

Partially yes. Churches arent a private organisation.

Otherwise, there's a defense force for incest on GAF, so why are you surprised?

I wish I was more surprised than I am... I sort of expected that going into this thread, but held on to a naïve hope that people would have learned to be nice and accepting towards ones fellow man in this day and age.

 

[To Far Away Times]

I mean, your church doesn't want to perform same sex marriage, more power to you, no-one's ever suggested otherwise I don't think

Businesses? Fuck off though

That's the way I see it. It's much more of a "burden" on the church than the participants.

But businesses should have no say otherwise we'd be re-enacting Jim Crow laws.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

Churches arent a private organisation.

By every definition that actually matters, yes they are private institutions.

 

[Matty77]

Yes, but do we know these orgs. were able to pick up the slack? Probably not in my opinion. There's a deficit of adoption in this country.

With regard to the rest of your post, the state should act in the best interest of its constituents. Limiting discrimination is only one amongst many. The state also has in interest in seeing children adopted by loving parents, no matter how it arrives at that result. So I ask again, is this zero-tolerance for discrimination stance worth it when fewer children may be getting adopted. I say no, as the life of a child is more precious to me than hurting someone's feelings. And lets be clear, in almost all of these instances, people had other places from which they could adopt. So all we're talking about is hurt feelings.

This debate is reminiscent of liberal's disdain for GWB's "faith based initiatives" where progressives also cried about separating church and state. Forgetting that the partnership actually did help millions of Americans. Progressives (a group of which I am a part) should stand less often on principal and more often on practicality.

And what "behavior" is that? Disagreeing with conventional wisdom? Awwww... I'm sorrry...

Sorry, I don't believe religion and politics mix, and regardless of all the attempts to muddy the fact the constitution was written to build a country where government was secular with no religion in legislation, and people were free to assemble, worship, and believe what they wanted where they wanted( or not at all) with no government intervention.

Everytime those lines get crossed it never ends well. I defend freedom of religion all the time, even here on GAF, even when it's unpopular, but it goes both ways, churches and religous institutions can be bigoted just not on my dime.

Besides aside from paying out for handsy priests, last I checked they are loaded and could have kept those adoption agency's open without aid and denied gays. But they refused.

They wanted to be a private organization without government interference but have the government pay for it. That is exactly the situation seperation of church and state is meant to protect against.

If you cannot see that I don't know what to tell you.

 

[truly101]

I just want one of these civil officials and clerks to protest a marriage between two divorcees because of the bible and religious freedom. Then maybe they'd figure how stupid all of this grandstanding is, and the stupid precedents it would set.

EDIT: for clarity

 

[GameGuru59]

Partially yes. Churches arent a private organisation.

Wut? lol

I wish I was more surprised than I am... I sort of expected that going into this thread, but held on to a naïve hope that people would have learned to be nice and accepting towards ones fellow man in this day and age.

I wish people would have more concern for the government enforcing people being "nice and accepting" rather than allowing people to develop it on their own. But I don't expect that because too many people sort of blindly follow the idea that everything that happened in the 50's, 60's, and 70's was done exactly the right way and we should all follow behind it lockstep without deviation.

Sorry, I don't believe religion and politics mix, and regardless of all the attempts to muddy the fact the constitution was written to build a country where government was secular with no religion in legislation, and people were free to assemble, worship, and believe what they wanted where they wanted( or not at all) with no government intervention.

I would say religion is politics, but that's another discussion. And the government can remain secular whilst still providing benefits to religious orgs. Using the example of adoption, the government should fund all adoption organizations- whether Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Muslim, Jewish, secular or atheist. It would fund all of them, regardless of their reason for being. We disagree on whether the state should force these organizations to serve couples they don't want to serve. That has nothing to do with the separation of church and state, and everything to do with enforcing morality upon these organizations. We'll just have to agree to disagree I guess.

 

[Mercury Fred]

Privately owned but public accommodation. Can't discriminate. There's nothing to sympathize.

Came to post this.

Churches, sure, do whatever (it's not like a Catholic church was going to marry two Jewish people).

Businesses that refuse to comply with the law should be penalized.

 

[timetokill]

Nope. Churches shouldn't get a pass either.

Don't be ridiculous. You sound like the boogeyman that religious people are worried about after yesterday's ruling.

 

[Red Mage]

Partially yes. Churches arent a private organisation.


I wish I was more surprised than I am... I sort of expected that going into this thread, but held on to a naïve hope that people would have learned to be nice and accepting towards ones fellow man in this day and age.

Are you from Europe? Because in America, they are most definitely private organizations.

 

[The Technomancer]

Wut? lol


I wish people would have more concern for the government enforcing people being "nice and accepting" rather than allowing people to develop it on their own. But I don't expect that because too many people sort of blindly follow the idea that everything that happened in the 50's, 60's, and 70's was done exactly the right way and we should all follow behind it lockstep without deviation.

We gave "natural progress" about a century to have a chance after the abolition of slavery. Turns out pursuing legal changes instead caused radical reforms in a little over a decade. One is proven a bit more than another

 

[werks]

Exactly what is won by forcing churches to marry gay people against their wishes?

 

[obin_gam]

[last on page]