I hate it when it turns out I'm not a paraoid nutjob...

[Fragony]

They could just shrug it of and go to another bar because it's opvious they aren't wanted.

[HoreTore]

They could just shrug it of and go to another bar because it's opvious they aren't wanted.

That's a nice way to start a de-facto apartheid society.

[Fragony]

That's a nice way to start a de-facto apartheid society.

We would get along much better if we had one.

[HoreTore]

We would get along much better if we had one.

Yeah.... Last I heard, neither the african americans, south africans or rhodesians enjoyed it very much...

[Fragony]

Yeah.... Last I heard, neither the african americans, south africans or rhodesians enjoyed it very much...

Not apartheid in that way that's full out racism, just no forced integration. But don't want to derail even though the thought behind i applies here as well. Just back of when you are tresspassing.

[Husar]

Hmmm... Why shouldn't gay christians be allowed to influence their own faith?

Because their faith states that God doesn't accept gays and that God never instated a democracy that would allow his followers to change the rules. May sound like rubbish to you but that's because you do not believe it.

[Don Corleone]

Fair answer.

Now suppose the restaurant owner is not religious at all. He's an atheist. He refuses to serve blacks because he doesn't like them and maintains he has good reason not to like them.

Is he still within his rights?

No, of course not. And I know where this is going, that what is the objective standard by which a court of law could determine the intent, and therefore cuplability, of said discriminator.

I don't have an answer for that one, I'm afraid. But before you get too gleeful, I'd like you to answer my question about where does the line for enforcing policial correctness unto religions end. Let's suppose a Lutheran church has a great beer night. It's the talk of the town, and everyone likes to come to it. But at the beginning of the festivities, the minister leads a benediction and asks for God to embrace all his children, calling for the eventual conversion of non-Christians to Christianity.

Well, what if some Buddhists and atheists in the audience took offense. Would they have the right to sue to force the minister to stop the benediction at the beginning of the party?

[rotorgun]

Good Morning all! Finally got to work were I could take a few minutes to check on my Org. buddies before work starts. I just had to get back to this compelling thread.

To go along with Fragony in a sense, I agree that we (the heterosexuals) shouldn't be compelled to have to accept the unwanted company of them (the homosexuals/lesbians) if we don't desire it. I have a live and let live mentality to all this......just "don't fence me in" as the singing cowboy once sung. Not to sound too hypocritical though, I do have freinds that are admitted Gays. I guess I accept them as people, just don't approve of their lifestyle "choice", although that was an interesting study that Poor Bloody Infantry came up with. I am willing to accept that there might be something to the idea, but this one study by itself is not definative. I should like to see some genetic evidence as well. It would be interesting to see if there were DNA findings showing a tendency to be Gay.

Well, gotta get to work.....I'll check ya'll out later.

[Adrian II]

No, of course not.

Is the restaurant owner not within his rights in this particular case because he is not religious? In other words: are religious considerations inherently superior to non-religous considerations?

The restaurant owner could claim that consorting with blacks runs against his cultural identity. Is it the court's job to decide whether a man's idea of his cultural identity is legitimate, but not whether a man's religious feelings are legitimate?

But before you get too gleeful, I'd like you to answer my question about where does the line for enforcing policial correctness unto religions end.

I don't have a readymade answer to your question either. I'm racking my brain about it (always a sign of a good thread when people find it so compelling). I'm trying to find out, just like others.

But I do know that religion should not be privileged over other types of convictions in matters like these.

[HoreTore]

Because their faith states that God doesn't accept gays and that God never instated a democracy that would allow his followers to change the rules. May sound like rubbish to you but that's because you do not believe it.

I'm pretty sure that gay christians don't believe that their god says that. Kinda like Luther didn't believe god wanted a pope. Christianity is changing every day, unless you haven't noticed it. So why exactly shouldn't they be allowed to preach their beliefs and try to convince others that their interpretation is the right one, like every other christian does?

[Louis VI the Fat]

This is about using a building, for a wedding.
This is about performing in-vitro fertilization (when the doctor referred the lesbian couple to another doctor in HIS OWN PRACTICE!).
This is about photographers not wanting to photograph a homosexual union.
This is about barring the Boy Scouts for not allowing homosexual scoutmasters.
This is about forcing the termination of a marriage counselor that didn't want to counsel a gay couple.
This is about forcing religious schools to allow open homosexual relationships.
This is about forcing religious universities to provide married-couple housing for same-sex unions.
This is about a religious adoption service being forced to place children with homosexual couples or being barred from practice.

It's about a homosexual lobby out there forcing everyone to acknowledge and accept them through misuse of the courts.

And it's about forcing religions to adopt the creed of 'diversity'.

Excellent!

It's about time the priviliged position of religious institutions is brought to an end! They are not above the law.
Likewise, it is about time freedom of religion is scrapped from the lawbooks in the first place. There's freedom of gathering and expression. That suffices. All that freedom of religion does on top of that is to grant priviliged status to opinion based on superstition above opinion based on anything else.

Companies can not discriminate against blacks, religions can not discriminate against people in wheelchairs and sports teams can not discriminate against gays. Any allowable discrimination should be limited to essential qualities: sports teams can refuse the handicapped, companies can refuse unqualified workers, and churches can refuse those of different denomination.

Companies, bars, restaurants, schools are not at liberty to discriminate persons. I see no reason why religious institutions should be above the law in this respect. Not even, when they are entirely privately funded and receive no tax-exemption benefits whatsoever.
Freedom in our societies is defined as individual freedom. People must be accepted as individuals, not as members of a group.

[PBI]

I should like to see some genetic evidence as well. It would be interesting to see if there were DNA findings showing a tendency to be Gay.

IIRC there was actually a study a few months ago which claimed to show something to that effect. I believe they found a gene which corresponded to an increased chance of being gay among male carriers, but also increased the fertility of female carriers, which was suggested as the reason why a gene which would presumably discourage male members of the family from having children would not naturally disappear; the children they didn't have would be made up for by the extra children on the female side.

I don't expect you to simply take my word for it though, especially since my recollection of the exact findings is so poor. I'll try and find a link, if I can ever figure out how to get the damn search function on the BBC website to work properly. I suppose they are isolated studies so not the be-all and end-all, but still interesting and consistent with what a lot of gay people will tell you when you tell them their sexuality is a "choice", in my experience.

Edit: Here is a story from a few years ago about a supposed link, I think the study I'm thinking of is more recent though.

[Don Corleone]

First of all, many establishments can and do discriminate and refuse service to people. If you're not an Elk, you're not getting a beer at the Elks lodge, no matter how hard you try.

Secondly, I find it rather surprising to see Louis that you're so thoroughly 'modern', you've evolved to a position of compelling belief in others. I guess "live and let live" just doesn't cut it anymore, eh?

[rotorgun]

I don't expect you to simply take my word for it though, especially since my recollection of the exact findings is so poor. I'll try and find a link, if I can ever figure out how to get the damn search function on the BBC website to work properly. I suppose they are isolated studies so not the be-all and end-all, but still interesting and consistent with what a lot of gay people will tell you when you tell them their sexuality is a "choice", in my experience.

Edit: Here is a story from a few years ago about a supposed link, I think the study I'm thinking of is more recent though.

I appreciate your humble attitude, and I am of an equal feeling that there is something more to it than a concious choice by people to live a Gay life. I found your link to be fascinating, and was struck by the aptness of the last paragraph to our thread discussion:

"Regardless of whether sexual orientation is determined by nature or nurture or both, the most important thing is that lesbians and gay men are treated equally and are allowed to live their life without discrimination."

Despite my misgivings about homosexuality and Lesbianism, I cannot find it in my heart to hate them. It's just so difficult to accept for someone so schooled in the old ways.

[Adrian II]

Companies, bars, restaurants, schools are not at liberty to discriminate persons.

Why exactly? And why exactly do you support this state of affairs?

You say people should be accepted as individuals. At the same time you condone the fact that people, institutions and companies discriminate on the basis of certain characteristics.

You say that, for instance, a Christian church is rightfully allowed to refuse Muslims. Then why can't a Christian church be rightfully allowed to refuse gays?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

It's pretty smart of the christians to make a big fuss over "you can't make us accept gays" while ignoring the real question which is "why shouldn't christians accept gays?".

[Goofball]

Why exactly? And why exactly do you support this state of affairs?

You say people should be accepted as individuals. At the same time you condone the fact that people, institutions and companies discriminate on the basis of certain characteristics.

You say that, for instance, a Christian church is rightfully allowed to refuse Muslims. Then why can't a Christian church be rightfully allowed to refuse gays?

Ah, but if you read more closely into Louis' post, he actually allows a loophole for Christian Churches to refuse gays:

...and churches can refuse those of different denomination.

If you are a practicing homosexual, and one of the tenets of a particular church is that homosexuality is an abomination, then you are obviously not an adherent of that particular church's beliefs, and by definition, are not of that denomination and can be barred from or not allowed to join that church.

Nothing wrong with that.

Again, I would ask that everobody go back and read the article upon which this thread was based, because people seem to have lost the original theme somewhat. This was not a case of a gay couple trying to force a Christian Church to marry them in a religious service. This was a case of a gay couple not being allowed to use a piece of property for a civil union ceremony, because the owners of that property were Christians and discriminated against them on that basis.

A very important distinction.

[Strike For The South]

Yeah, you're right. Keep your unfounded prejudices. Just goes to show the church's detrimental effects on society. Their dislike of certain groups (based on whatever BS logic from years gone by) gets passed on to the congregations and the middle-classes then have their enemy to hate and breed intolerance, regardless of how stupid the entire situation is - (you realise people don't choose to be gay, so how can you persecute them?)

Nice other thread by the way, your question seems to have been answered quite competently by other people with common sense so I don't feel the need to contribute.

I dont hate gays nor do I prescute them I really dont care. You think becuase there are black churches in America that means there is some underlying racial current which isnt at all true. Not to mention it has already been mentioned, this isnt about perscuting gays to begin with however since you live in England you know all about the American chruch and how we keep black people out of our chruches and burn gays in our spare time. I am truly sorry for insulting you I should've known better thant. You are the biggest problem you realize this? You immaditely see gays and a church and label the chruch as a backwards institution as all the people inside it. Instead of trying to find out what the real issue is you make a blank genrlazation. Whatever have fun with enlightned princples.

[woad&fangs]

This was not a case of a gay couple trying to force a Christian Church to marry them in a religious service. This was a case of a gay couple not being allowed to use a piece of property for a civil union ceremony, because the owners of that property were Christians and discriminated against them on that basis.

A very important distinction.

Upon rereading the article I feel it is important to point out that the property they wanted to use was a church and the owners were a religious organization.

I personally don't like the implications of a gay couple being able to demand the use of a church and threaten the church's owners with the loss of tax exemption if they don't get what they want.

If we still want to believe the fairy tale that the First Amendment still matters, this can not be allowed to happen.

[Lemur]

... the property they wanted to use was a church.

For sure? 'Cause it looks like a seaside shack. And there's no pew, no crucifix, no nothing. How do you conclude it's a church? From the article:

The pavilion in question is an open-air building with long benches looking out to the Atlantic Ocean. It is owned by the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association.

"A building very similar to this has been on this site since the late 1800s," says the Rev. Scott Hoffman, the group's administrator.

During the summers, Hoffman says, the pavilion is used for Bible studies, church services, gospel choir performances and, in the past at least, weddings. Heterosexual weddings.

Does not sound like a church to me. Doesn't look like one, either.

[woad&fangs]

During the summers, Hoffman says, the pavilion is used for Bible studies, church services, gospel choir performances and, in the past at least, weddings. Heterosexual weddings.

That sure sounds like a church to me. Also, I don't know why you are so concerned with how it looks.

[Xiahou]

Does not sound like a church to me. Doesn't look like one, either.

It's owned by the church, and they perform church services there. What more do you want? There's no cosmetic standard for churches that I'm aware of.

In other words: are religious considerations inherently superior to non-religous considerations?

I think so, yes. Our constitution makes special allowances for the free practice of religion. Regardless, I would support the right of a restaurant owner to make any stupid decision that they want. It's their property, it's their business, it's their labor.

[Craterus]

I dont hate gays nor do I prescute them I really dont care. You think becuase there are black churches in America that means there is some underlying racial current which isnt at all true. Not to mention it has already been mentioned, this isnt about perscuting gays to begin with however since you live in England you know all about the American chruch and how we keep black people out of our chruches and burn gays in our spare time. I am truly sorry for insulting you I should've known better thant. You are the biggest problem you realize this? You immaditely see gays and a church and label the chruch as a backwards institution as all the people inside it. Instead of trying to find out what the real issue is you make a blank genrlazation. Whatever have fun with enlightned princples.

Made quite a few assumptions there yourself but this isn't going anywhere so have a nice day.

[Lemur]

It's owned by the church, and they perform church services there. What more do you want?

Actually, doing a little more reading, it seems the situation is rather more complicated than the NPR article let on. Apparently the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association owns the entire boardwalk in the town, as well as much of the town itself, as well as 1,000 feet of ocean (whatever that means). So the bulk of the town is owned by the church's holding company.

For the past two decades, everything that matters in Ocean Grove, specifically the beach, boardwalk and ocean front road, have been declared tax exempt. This was done because the Methodist leaders in Ocean Grove went to the State Department of Environmental Protection and asked the government to step in to get them off the tax rolls. That saves about $500,000 a year that otherwise Ocean Grove residents would have to pony up.

Further, according to U.S. Representative Frank Pallone (D-Monmouth), whose constituents include those in Ocean Grove, the Camp Meeting Association has been lobbying him for years--quite successfully I might add--for federal and state funds (when he was a state senator) that have gone directly into the community. When the Great Auditorium in Ocean Grove needed a new roof, Pallone helped get the Camp Meeting Association $250,000 from the state. Later, those same Methodist leaders would go to Pallone and ask for federal dollars to fix the Ocean Grove boardwalk, which was damaged in a 1992 storm.

So let me get this straight. The Methodist leaders in Ocean Grove say they are a private religious entity that has every right to prohibit civil unions from taking place in the community's pavilion, but at the same time they want to make sure they get as much PUBLIC money as possible to keep taxes down and keep the community resources intact--using tax dollars from citizens outside of Ocean Grove. Talk about wanting it both ways. The Camp Meeting Association doesn't have a leg to stand on in their suit against the state saying that their first amendment rights are being violated because civil unions go against the United Methodist Church's Book of Discipline.

So you've got a holding company which owns the entire sea coast of the town, takes all the state and federal dollars it can lay its greasy mitts on, declares the coast to be "public" when it suits them for grants and tax breaks, but declares it to be private and religious when a couple of Jewish lesbians want to have a marriage ceremony.

No, I think there's a lot more to this case than I'm In UR Churches Gayzoring Teh Lawsuits.

-edit-

A little more detail:

The beach and Boardwalk Pavilion are open to the public and the Camp Meeting Association has accepted public funds for their maintenance and repairs. They also cite the Association's application to the State of New Jersey for monies under the state's "Green Acres Program", which encourages the use of private property for public recreation and provides a $500,000 annual property tax exemption. In their application for these funds, the Camp Meeting Association reportedly stated that the disputed areas were open to the public. U.S. Representative Frank Pallone, Jr. (Democrat), in whose Congressional district Ocean Grove is located, stated "they've taken state, federal and local funds by representing that they are open to the public."

And just to be clear: Nobody said that the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association had to allow the lesbians to marry anywhere. All the courts said was that land declared "public" for reasons of tax avoidance and grant-getting are subject to open access. If the church suddenly remembers that it wants to treat that self-declared "public" area as a private religious area, they're going to lose their public tax break.

[Goofball]

Ouch! teh pWned!

Good digging Lemur.

I have so far been trying to be gentle with the particular religious organization in question here, because it did appear at first that they were being asked to compromise quite a bit.

But Lemur's research shows that I was wrong in that assumption, so the gloves are off. These particular Bible thumping bigots now no longer have a leg to stand on. They want their taxpayer pork, and to eat it too, preferably without any fags around to bother them while they get fat on public $$.

Absolutely disgusting.

[Louis VI the Fat]

You say that, for instance, a Christian church is rightfully allowed to refuse Muslims. Then why can't a Christian church be rightfully allowed to refuse gays?

My answer is along Goofball's explanation. It has to do with essential quality. A Catholic priest can refuse to marry Jews, atheists or Protestants. But he can not refuse wheelchair-bound, black, terminally ill or gay Catholics. Likewise, a modelling company can not refuse a black applicant for their accounting department, but they can do so for their model department if they are looking for extras for a remake of Braveheart.

I find it rather surprising to see Louis that you're so thoroughly 'modern', you've evolved to a position of compelling belief in others. I guess "live and let live" just doesn't cut it anymore, eh?

Not today it doesn't cut it. Today is for hangovers and resentment and bitter strife with the entire world.

(some soccer tournament)

Neither in America nor in Europe is it allowed to put up a windowsign in a privately owned bar that says 'No Italians served'. If you do not disagree with this being illegal, what then, gives religious institutions more rights than privately owned firms? We're a free society and not a theocracy, aren't we?

Now there are times indeed when I dream of a city full of 'No Italians served' signs. Times when I agree with Xiahou: "I would support the right of a restaurant owner to make any stupid decision that they want. It's their property, it's their business, it's their labor". But a pluralistic society can't function like this.

Let's say that it is somebody's - let's call him Ynogarf - firm belief and deep inner conviction that he should not have to share a workplace with Arabs. Is he allowed to not hire Arabs? I mean...surely employing somebody and being stuck with him for forty hours a week is a deeper infringment of Ynogarf's personal life than spending twenty minutes marrying two people whom you'll never see again? Not to mention, that it is (hypothetically) Ynogarf's own private firm. What of his freedoms?
Now say that Ynogarf finds some ancient dusty texts that say something to the effect of 'And on the twentieth day the burning bush had sayeth "the dade and the palm doth not share the same oasis". And then whispers this line over and over again while burning incense during full moon. Does this mean that now, all of a sudden, he'll be allowed to discriminate against Arabs at his workplace whereas above he was not, what with his freedom of religion and all that?

Our constitution makes special allowances for the free practice of religion.

So it does indeed. This freedom of religion did not establish freedom of religion at all. The 'freedom' of it is deceitful language, for what it establishes is un-freedom. It creates a hierarchy in freedoms of thought and gathering, thereby undermining them. It says that some thoughts are better than others, and proceeds to grant them priviliges. Christianity is to the American constitution what aristocracy was in Europe - something which enjoys an inherently priviliged status.

[woad&fangs]

Ouch! teh pWned!

Good digging Lemur.

I have so far been trying to be gentle with the particular religious organization in question here, because it did appear at first that they were being asked to compromise quite a bit.

But Lemur's research shows that I was wrong in that assumption, so the gloves are off. These particular Bible thumping bigots now no longer have a leg to stand on. They want their taxpayer pork, and to eat it too, preferably without any fags around to bother them while they get fat on public $$.

Absolutely disgusting.

QFT

Good digging Lemur.

[Adrian II]

The Methodist leaders in Ocean Grove say they are a private religious entity that has every right to prohibit civil unions from taking place in the community's pavilion, but at the same time they want to make sure they get as much PUBLIC money as possible to keep taxes down and keep the community resources intact--using tax dollars from citizens outside of Ocean Grove.

Axe the Methodists, I say. Bunch of hipporcrytes.

Good work there, Lemur, my fellow hack. After digging a bit into the Massachusetts charity case (see above) I came up with a similar surprise. That charity operates on a government license and is shocked and surprised when it has to abide by government rules. Bunch of hyppacrites.

Next!

[Xiahou]

Private organizations getting public money is nothing new- it happens all the time. However, if they actually argued that the property, including the pavilion, was a public place they really set themselves up for this to happen in their greed for government largess.

[Ronin]

Private organizations getting public money is nothing new- it happens all the time. However, if they actually argued that the property, including the pavilion, was a public place they really set themselves up for this to happen in their greed for government largess.

it is not a public place per se but it is surely publicly funded...if it is publicly funded it can´t turn away members of the society that funds it....seems logical.

Religious organizations should receive no public funding anyway....then they can act like a private club and reject people as they see fit.