Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

A big case would probably be "wedding chapels", which are pretty much "Churches" in name only.

See how ACA turned out in SCOTUS.
A Tax verdict

Yeah, on the one hand, it seems pretty open and shut. On the other hand; SCOTUS declared corporations were people, so we're evidently dealing with people who're somewhat detached from reality.

 SilverMK2 wrote:


So you are happy for places of worship to descriminate based on colour/race? How about shops and other services? Or is it only the religiously owned businesses which get to practice intolerance?

i am not saying that at all, and you can only strectch to the assumption because you desire to to fulfill an anti-religious hate fantasy.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

Being Jewish has historically been tied to being born of a Jewish mother. I would not suddenly become black just because I joined an African tribal religion; that does not however mean I could not call myself whatever the name of the religious group I joined. Similarly with being a practicing Jew and being of the Jewish race.

I mentioned orthodox Judaism. With some orthodox Jews, especially Hassids you need to have a Jewish geneology to be accepted at all, and marriage outside ther sect is not acceptable. This happens, its isnt 'discriminatiojn' and nobody complains. Also for reformed Judaism you don't even need a Jewish mother, you can convert.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

I will not comment particularly on orthodox Jews and Sikhism other than to say that Sikhism particularly is tied to significantly different cultural norms than those in Western society....

So what you are saying is that Sikhism is a valid example that you can have religions being culturally separated in terms of marriage, therefore you will ignore it.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

....To expect a radically different culture to conform to our own is pretty silly.

Actually we are talking about statute law, its not 'pretty silly' its pretty damn important to look at all the variables.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

However you aren't trying to make a rational comment just some anti-religion trolling.

What I am attempting to do is highlight just how absurd your viewpoint is. And I feel doing it quite sucecssfully.

Only in your own little head.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

So the answer to you is no, because the KKK mentality you are suggesting [ethnic discrimination in churches] is not supported by any denomination, and if any denomination did it wouldn't last long.

And yet it was highly prevelent within the lifetime of not a few parishioners currently attending churches all over the US, and indeed can still be found in plenty of places of worship even now...

Highly prevalent? That sort of discrimination was never highly prevalent in the UK or US in the post slavery era. And in fact in the slavery era church attendance was encouraged, not prohibited. Your pandering to your own petty hatreds, please stop.
If you bothered to look at the facts you will find that blacks in the UK and African Americans are very heavily represented in the churches. It so prevalent that the black congregation choir is one of Americas cultural memes, as is the black pastor. In the Uk at least if the ethnic discrimination you are dreaming about actually occurred half the churches would have to close, including the denominations which are strongly growing.

I cannot account for every single hick extremist church, but those churches aren't really churches, and allowing that Christianity is the largest religion on the planet and in the US/Uk both, it will only be a tiny unrepresentational minority, and one inevitable in any very large cultural grouping of people.

This cann be extended to other ethnicities and also to other faiths in most cases. Being black in a mosque is not a problem either.

 Orlanth wrote:

I mentioned orthodox Judaism. With some orthodox Jews, especially Hassids you need to have a Jewish geneology to be accepted at all, and marriage outside ther sect is not acceptable. This happens, its isnt 'discriminatiojn' and nobody complains. Also for reformed Judaism you don't even need a Jewish mother, you can convert.

I think it would be improbable that nobody would complain for such a practice. That nobody would be be quited about their disbelief because of the social consequences of being shut out. Of having to not marrying someone because of these ideas. They are highly discriminatory to me.

Imagine a child of such a family going to school, not being able to fall in love with whomever because of traditions denying it. This is the essence of segregation.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
a place that clearly preaches against them, and does not want them.

I think that is the problem right here - I am not sure why such a place should be able to exist. A person or group inciting hatred, regardless who against, should not be protected by the law because they claim that they are getting a big thumbs up from their deity of choice.

Relgious freedom remains in seperation to wisdom. Were I a pastor I would not officiate gay weddings, because the Bible tells me not to, hate doesn't come into it. Gays can get married elsewhere.
Also hate is not exclusive to any group.
Want to close down places of worship because they don't fit your world view, that's hate right there. Hate involves an action to be actionable, if a place of worship doesn't want to proliferate gay marriage so be it. It it riles up members to attack gays with sticks, then you have a case.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

The Church isn't a "business" in the same sense as a bakery, or a car dealership

Why noy? They provide a service, and nominally are able to provide that service to anyone.

They provide a service first to their deity, the to whoever will follow the deity.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

A car dealership cannot refuse to sell you a car because you are gay, or black, or support the Yankees.

But a church is not like a car dealership, a car dealership doesn't have a belief system, for an analogy its more like a political party.

The Labour party is not 'discriminating' if it doesn't choose David Cameron as its party leader. None would accept that as discrimination, but you are forcing something very similar on religions.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

A church that X years ago would not marry a white and a black person cannot today refuse to perform the same service, even if it was the same priest doing the officiating and they held the same viewpoint they did X years ago.

As pointed out mixed race couples wouldn't want to attend such a church.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

Churches perform a legal service when they marry two people; as a functionary of the state in this activity they should be bound by the same rules as any other person working on behalf of the state. Ie they should not be able to refuse their services because of their own personal beliefs.

That would be wrong. What is hilarious about the comment is that it is restricted to 'churches'.
Nobody even tries to think about imposing that level of 'equality' on a mosque or synagogue. In fact you could find several equal opportunity related reasons not to interfere.
Atheists are certainly enabled to hold personal beliefs, so can polirtcal organisations, different ethnicities and most religious groups seen as attached to those ethnicites. You can also have politicicise LCBT groups.
But not Christians, curious that.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

If however certain curches/priests want to hand back their state-granted powers to perform marriages and instead perform only non-legally valid "Religious Unions" instead, with a seperate legal marriage having to be conducted by a representative of the state,

So your solution is ban religious marriage.


Give in to your hatred

 SilverMK2 wrote:

then I think that would allow them to descriminate against people they don't want to serve as much as they want within the law. This of course may also impact upon their ability to remain tax free institutions, but I am sure that is a case for another topic.

Hold on, after your tirade against 'discrimination' you now say that 'discrimination' is legally acceptable so long as its taxed and has no ability to officiate civic ceremony.
Please make up your mind, at face value your comments make no sense.
Actually its fairly clear from an external point of view, reading between the lines you are perfectly happy so long as the 'church' is bashed.
On the tax issue some religious institutions can make money, but the vast majority do not because religion as a whole is not profit minded and often contrary to aquiring such. Yet the tax exempt status has to be blanket legislation in order to be fair.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Baxx wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

I mentioned orthodox Judaism. With some orthodox Jews, especially Hassids you need to have a Jewish geneology to be accepted at all, and marriage outside ther sect is not acceptable. This happens, its isnt 'discriminatiojn' and nobody complains. Also for reformed Judaism you don't even need a Jewish mother, you can convert.

I think it would be improbable that nobody would complain for such a practice. That nobody would be be quited about their disbelief because of the social consequences of being shut out. Of having to not marrying someone because of these ideas. They are highly discriminatory to me.

Imagine a child of such a family going to school, not being able to fall in love with whomever because of traditions denying it. This is the essence of segregation.

Understandable, but you can't/shouldn't legally fix everything. Hassidic Judaism has lasted a very long time without anyone needing to legislate against it.
I can imagine that a Hassid might fall in love with the wrong person and want to remain a Hassid and try to challenge the ruling, but Hassids survive on the principle that their standards are not for sale, but members can leave if they wish. Some do. Amish are very similar, and even have a time called raumspringer when a young Amish is to go out into the world and choose whether to stay there or return. Its a workable system.

By and large these religious sects need to be left alone to get on with it, they don't cause trouble in the larger community and legislation is not the answer.

We have seat belt legislation because of the large risk of car accidents, it car accidents were almost unheard of, but could occur seat belt legislation might not exist. Likewise there might be fringe cases, but fringe cases are not cause for globalised legislation, in fact the opposite is true, if a lawful minority would be penalised by legislation then that is normally grounds not to legislate.

Seat-belt laws are actually not really relevant. Driving on public roads is not a right, it's a privileged, and if you want to have that privilege you must abide by the rules dictated to you. You can drive on your own property any way you want, but on public roads you have to follow the relevant laws. The rules are more concerned with public safety than individual freedom, ergo the rules dictate you must wear a seat belt because you'd be an idiot not to*.

Meanwhile, the freedom to practice religion is a right. Determining where your rights end and another person's begins is the tricky part.




*Reminds me of a news article I found a few years ago. A student activist who wrote for the university newspaper at Chico State was protesting seatbelt laws in his column. He felt he should have the freedom to chose to wear a seatbelt. Then, he got in a car accident while he was not wearing his seatbelt. He was ejected from his vehicle and died on impact.

 Yodhrin wrote:
Yeah, on the one hand, it seems pretty open and shut. On the other hand; SCOTUS declared corporations were people, so we're evidently dealing with people who're somewhat detached from reality.

Your courts have decided the same, the doctrine of corporate personhood has been global legal reality for a very long time. It's quite useful too, and not just for the corps.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Your courts have decided the same, the doctrine of corporate personhood has been global legal reality for a very long time. It's quite useful too, and not just for the corps.

Right, but most places distinguish between natural and legal persons when rights are concerned.

 dogma wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Your courts have decided the same, the doctrine of corporate personhood has been global legal reality for a very long time. It's quite useful too, and not just for the corps.

Right, but most places distinguish between natural and legal persons when rights are concerned.

This. Most countries have a concept of corporate personhood, but SCOTUS ruled that corporate personhood is equivalent to being an actual individual person. That's flying rodent gak crazy.

 Yodhrin wrote:
Yeah, on the one hand, it seems pretty open and shut. On the other hand; SCOTUS declared corporations were people, so we're evidently dealing with people who're somewhat detached from reality.

Read up more on why SCOTUS declared corporations "people". Because otherwise, among other things, you couldn't sue companies.

In any event, I'm changing my prediction a bit. It's either going to be unanimous favoring SSM, or they'll kick it to a "states right" with the caveat that states must recognize out of state marriages.

 whembly wrote:

Read up more on why SCOTUS declared corporations "people". Because otherwise, among other things, you couldn't sue companies.

You could still sue them. It is possible to sue unincorporated groups. What incorporation does is eliminate the ability to sue individuals directly for actions they have taken under the aegis of the corporation.

 whembly wrote:

In any event, I'm changing my prediction a bit. It's either going to be unanimous favoring SSM, or they'll kick it to a "states right" with the caveat that states must recognize out of state marriages.

I highly doubt it will be a unanimous decision regarding either question, but it would be pretty difficult to argue that specifically refusing to recognize same-sex marriages performed out of state does not violate the equal protection clause.

 whembly wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
Yeah, on the one hand, it seems pretty open and shut. On the other hand; SCOTUS declared corporations were people, so we're evidently dealing with people who're somewhat detached from reality.

Read up more on why SCOTUS declared corporations "people". Because otherwise, among other things, you couldn't sue companies.

In any event, I'm changing my prediction a bit. It's either going to be unanimous favoring SSM, or they'll kick it to a "states right" with the caveat that states must recognize out of state marriages.

Keep reading past that post. There is a distinction between "corporate personhood" and "corporations are people". Expanding the former to the latter is lunacy.

 Orlanth wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
a place that clearly preaches against them, and does not want them.

I think that is the problem right here - I am not sure why such a place should be able to exist. A person or group inciting hatred, regardless who against, should not be protected by the law because they claim that they are getting a big thumbs up from their deity of choice.

Relgious freedom remains in seperation to wisdom. Were I a pastor I would not officiate gay weddings, because the Bible tells me not to, hate doesn't come into it. Gays can get married elsewhere.
Also hate is not exclusive to any group.
Want to close down places of worship because they don't fit your world view, that's hate right there. Hate involves an action to be actionable, if a place of worship doesn't want to proliferate gay marriage so be it. It it riles up members to attack gays with sticks, then you have a case.

I can respect that viewpoint, religion is like a club, if you don't want to follow the club's rules, don't join the club.
When the club starts getting its rules involved in your life when you don't want them...then that's where the problems start, to me.

Nothing like stepping in on a Fait Accompli before the final curtain to try and take some sort of legacy credits, amirite Judges?

people have a right in america to be free, to seek happiness...if your homosexual you should have the right to happiness..its mostly bible beaters that are stopping people of alternative lifestyles from getting what they are seeking..in my experience and what i've noticed of culture is that everybody is expected to be another sheep in the herd, and thats not right..long as somebody isen't hurting others in their pursuit of happiness it shoulden't matter at all what they do or want to do

 Easy E wrote:
Nothing like stepping in on a Fait Accompli before the final curtain to try and take some sort of legacy credits, amirite Judges?

Well said. I guess Roberts still gets to make a historic decision.

I'm sure glad we're talking about gay marriage again.

The amount of time that's focused on it must mean we're just on the cusp of Utopia and there aren't more pressing matters to deal with.

That or more than one matter can be addressed at a time.

Maybe if some dumb bigots would stop being dumb bigots the matter would be resolved...

 MrDwhitey wrote:
That or more than one matter can be addressed at a time.

Maybe if some dumb bigots would stop being dumb bigots the matter would be resolved...

How ironic.

What is exactly "dumb" about not agreeing with Homosexual marriage?

I think the fear from those "bigots" is that it would somehow pervert their faith, with it being mandatory that they be allowed to marry in a church.

I'm not religious and I don't particularly hold "gay marriage" as on my top priority lists but the term is free range as far as I'm concerned. Religions need not be co-opted by this however.

I have no idea why you'd still want to take part in religion if you were gay. It makes little sense to me.

 Medium of Death wrote:
I have no idea why you'd still want to take part in religion if you were gay. It makes little sense to me.

Some churches are very welcoming to the LGBTQ community.

 Hordini wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
I have no idea why you'd still want to take part in religion if you were gay. It makes little sense to me.

Some churches are very welcoming to the LGBTQ community.

They must be sinful, wicked, things.

It just feels very tacked on to me.

 Medium of Death wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
I have no idea why you'd still want to take part in religion if you were gay. It makes little sense to me.

Some churches are very welcoming to the LGBTQ community.

They must be sinful, wicked, things.

It just feels very tacked on to me.

I don't know why you'd say that. The ones I've heard of sound pretty nice, and if you actually listen to anything they have to say, it's not tacked on at all. On the contrary, they're actually practicing what they preach.

Maybe being too skeptical...

I know there's a lot of things that haven't been practiced in Christianity for a while but I thought Homosexuality has pretty much been a no go up until extremely recently.

It's still a no go for Catholics IIRC, but they "hate the sin, love the sinner". Can't remember where I heard that. There's a lot of other denominations that it' a no go for too.

I assume it's not the case in an LGBT (What's the Q for?) churches?

 Medium of Death wrote:

It's still a no go for Catholics IIRC, but they "hate the sin, love the sinner". Can't remember where I heard that.

Pope Francis is currently one who says similar things to that.

 Medium of Death wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
That or more than one matter can be addressed at a time.

Maybe if some dumb bigots would stop being dumb bigots the matter would be resolved...

How ironic.

What is exactly "dumb" about not agreeing with Homosexual marriage?

I think the fear from those "bigots" is that it would somehow pervert their faith, with it being mandatory that they be allowed to marry in a church.

I'm not religious and I don't particularly hold "gay marriage" as on my top priority lists but the term is free range as far as I'm concerned. Religions need not be co-opted by this however.

I have no idea why you'd still want to take part in religion if you were gay. It makes little sense to me.

I believe that this is what we call a red herring...or maybe the Chewbacca defence. Marriage, as far as the government is concerned, has nothing to do with religion. No one is seriously arguing that churches should be forced to marry same sex couples.

Thus the dumb bigots opposed to it with arguments that basically boil down to either 'gays are icky' and/or 'you must follow the rules of my religion'. Neither of which are really well thought out arguments.

 Medium of Death wrote:
Maybe being too skeptical...

I know there's a lot of things that haven't been practiced in Christianity for a while but I thought Homosexuality has pretty much been a no go up until extremely recently.

It's still a no go for Catholics IIRC, but they "hate the sin, love the sinner". Can't remember where I heard that. There's a lot of other denominations that it' a no go for too.

I assume it's not the case in an LGBT (What's the Q for?) churches?

IIRC, it's queer. Which I think means some where in the middle?

Gay and Queer aren't the same any more? Duly noted.

 skyth wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
That or more than one matter can be addressed at a time.

Maybe if some dumb bigots would stop being dumb bigots the matter would be resolved...

How ironic.

What is exactly "dumb" about not agreeing with Homosexual marriage?

I think the fear from those "bigots" is that it would somehow pervert their faith, with it being mandatory that they be allowed to marry in a church.

I'm not religious and I don't particularly hold "gay marriage" as on my top priority lists but the term is free range as far as I'm concerned. Religions need not be co-opted by this however.

I have no idea why you'd still want to take part in religion if you were gay. It makes little sense to me.

I believe that this is what we call a red herring...or maybe the Chewbacca defence. Marriage, as far as the government is concerned, has nothing to do with religion. No one is seriously arguing that churches should be forced to marry same sex couples.

Thus the dumb bigots opposed to it with arguments that basically boil down to either 'gays are icky' and/or 'you must follow the rules of my religion'. Neither of which are really well thought out arguments.

People seem to shout down the argument that it's not right to accept Gay Marriage but never really say why it isn't right to do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#Etymology The word "marriage" derives from Middle English mariage, which first appears in 1250–1300 CE. This in turn is derived from Old French marier (to marry) and ultimately Latin marītāre meaning to provide with a husband or wife and marītāri meaning to get married. The adjective marīt-us -a, -um meaning matrimonial or nuptial could also be used in the masculine form as a noun for "husband" and in the feminine form for "wife."[5] The related word "matrimony" derives from the Old French word matremoine which appears around 1300 CE and ultimately derives from Latin mātrimōnium which combines the two concepts mater meaning "mother" and the suffix -monium signifying "action, state, or condition." "[6]

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=marry c.1300, "to give (offspring) in marriage," from Old French marier "to get married; to marry off, give in marriage; to bring together in marriage," from Latin maritare "to wed, marry, give in marriage" (source of Italian maritare, Spanish and Portuguese maridar), from maritus (n.) "married man, husband," of uncertain origin, originally a past participle, perhaps ultimately from "provided with a *mari," a young woman, from PIE root *mari- "young wife, young woman," akin to *meryo- "young man" (source of Sanskrit marya- "young man, suitor").

Meaning "to get married, join (with someone) in matrimony" is early 14c. in English, as is that of "to take in marriage." Said from 1520s of the priest, etc., who performs the rite. Figurative use from early 15c. Related: Married; marrying. Phrase the marrying kind, describing one inclined toward marriage and almost always used with a negative, is attested by 1824, probably short for marrying kind of men, which is from a popular 1756 essay by Chesterfield.

In some Indo-European languages there were distinct "marry" verbs for men and women, though some of these have become generalized. Compare Latin ducere uxorem (of men), literally "to lead a wife;" nubere (of women), perhaps originally "to veil" [Buck]. Also compare Old Norse kvangask (of men) from kvan "wife" (see quean), so, "take a wife;" giptask (of women), from gipta, a specialized use of "to give" (see gift (n.)), so, "to be given."

Seems marriage is pretty well defined to me. To suddenly change it, relatively overnight, should be expected to get some kind opposition.

Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:


I assume it's not the case in an LGBT (What's the Q for?) churches?

IIRC, it's queer. Which I think means some where in the middle?

Medium of Death wrote:Gay and Queer aren't the same any more? Duly noted.

No, the Q stands for "Questioning," not Queer. Gay and Queer are still the same.

 Hordini wrote:

Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:


I assume it's not the case in an LGBT (What's the Q for?) churches?

IIRC, it's queer. Which I think means some where in the middle?

Medium of Death wrote:Gay and Queer aren't the same any more? Duly noted.

No, the Q stands for "Questioning," not Queer. Gay and Queer are still the same.

My understanding is that queer boils down to "something non-binary gender attracted to something" with the main point being that gay and lesbian fit into this best "boy/girl" box and that if you don't then you are excluded in the LGBT acronym, and "queer" became a term for "other".

Or something like that...