Christian Group has bank account removed due to "unacceptable views"

Really?Let's look at the definition of "just" and "unjust" - as a legal term:FROM: Dictionary.com: JUST(click)
AND FROM: Dictionary.com: UNJUST(click)
(bold added at the end for emphasis).This means it is impossible for a right to be unjust. And thus when I wrote what you were replying to: Your position is clearly a contradiction: you cannot allow an action as a right AND claim that it is unjust.Now, lets review these two different cases further, which only seem to be similar on the surface:(1) a bank refuses to accept an account with a group because of their extreme homophobia: because the group is publicly and blatantly biased, not the bank.(2) a pharmacist refuses to honor a prescription written by a doctor because of {HIS\HER} bias and {HIS\HER} assumption of the use of the medicine. The pharmacist is biased not the patient.One of the basic principles of the issue of rights is where people have the right to do {whatever} so long as it causes no harm to others.In case (1), the extremist homophobic group is not harmed by not having a bank account beyond anything more than the inconvenience of (a) using cash or (b) getting an account with someone else (easy to do on the internet). Certainly there is no pain inflicted, and whatever temporary inconvenience is inflicted on the group is much less than the discomfort if not pain they inflict on others with their messages of hate.In case (2) there are a number of medical conditions where the use of contraceptives are prescribed to ease pain, cramps, excessive bleeding and the like, and there are also women who medically are at extreme risk of death if they get pregnant. In these cases refusal to provide the prescription causes direct, unavoidable and imminent harm.AND FURTHER, Because of the confidentiality between the patient and the doctor the pharmacist has no legal, moral or ethical basis for assuming any (let me repeat: ANY) reason for the prescription OTHER than the health and happiness of the patient.Case (1) is no different than refusing to do business with Neo-Nazi groups or the KKK.Case (2) is no different than refusing to serve African Americans at a soda counter in 1960. (Frankly, the talk of this kind of bigoted discrimination being incorporated into new laws shows how little we have truly progressed since those days.) Well, speak for yourself.Personally I think you want to claim a right to discriminate willfully against the rights of people to be who they want to be,and then to holler "UNJUST" in some kind of false righteous indignation when someone calls your position biased and ignorant.And saying that pharmacists have a right to discriminate while calling the action by the bank "unjust" is doing just that.You have no more right to be homophobic than you do to be racist -- it is only another form of being sexist.Hate is not an American value.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

how long have you lived here?

---

אָרַח

ahahahahahaaActually,That's from a bumper sticker ....

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Whose concept and ideas of marriage will be changed?What is "traditional" marriage?If you want to get really technical, marriage USED to be an institution where a woman was considered property of the husband. Marriage USED to be dictated by state and political reasons rather than love and affection.The "ideas and concepts of marriage" have ALREADY CHANGED.What it really comes down to, though, is that the STATE, being representative of every citizen, MUST be secular and neutral. There are NO logical reasons to abolish gay marriage from a secular standpoint. As far as the state is concerned, marriage is a simple contract granting exclusive rights (medical decisions in case of incapacitation, inheritance, joint property ownership, etc.). On that basis, there is absolutely zero difference between a heterosexual or homosexual marriage.The Church can recognize or NOT recognize marriage however it chooses - religious marriage being wholly different by necessity from state marriage. The Roman Catholic Church has a long history of deciding which marriages it recognizes and which it does not. This can apply to homosexual marriage as well - if your faith believes it to be evil, then your faith does not have to recognize its legitimacy.You do NOT, however, have any right whatsoever to legislate your beliefs. You opposition is based on religious concerns, and you are by all means entitled to them. But your religious concerns are IRRELEVANT to people who do not share your beliefs. You have no more right to disallow gay marriage than a homosexual majority would have the right to abolish heterosexual marriage.Arguments against gay marriage are all religious in nature, thinly veiled by unfounded assertions that gay marriage will somehow lessen heterosexual marriage. The only "evidence" supplied is either "The Bible says it's wrong!" or, as you yourself said, "it violates the principle of marriage, and we may not see its effects right away, but if we allow this it will be bad! You'll see!" You, of course, have no evidence to back up this claim.As far as your suggestion that marriage is: Ha! What about infertile couples? If marriage is all about reproduction, and gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because they are incapable of reproducing, does that mean infertile marriage should be abolished as well? What about people who marry for reasons wholly different from having children? If I and my girlfriend don't want to have children, should we not be allowed to be married despite our feelings for each other? Your argument is ludicrous.It’s no different from anti-mixed-race marriage discrimination. It has all of the same arguments — the Bible says it’s wrong, the kids will be stigmatized, it’s not traditional marriage. And it’s just as bigoted. You are entitled to your bigoted opinions, Faith. But you and those like you have no right to force your bigoted beliefs on anyone else.Marriage, at it's true core, is all about two people who love each other and want to be committed to each other on a higher level than an unmarried relationship. As far as the state is concerned, that should be the only criteria. The Church can choose not to recognize whatever marriages it wishes, on its own, and wholly separate from the concerns of the state.

On a related topic, a Christian adoption agency appears to be refusing service to Catholics on the basis that their religion conflicts with its Statement of Faith. http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/07/15/adoption.church.ap/index.htmlThe Statement of Faith can be found here.I’m a bit curious to see how those who have participated in the thread feel about this. I would prefer a little more information about BCS’s stated reasoning for excluding Catholics before drawing any conclusions, but as I see it, until then the key difference between this and the bank issue is who is being refused service. The bank is refusing service to a group based on that group’s stated views but BCS is refusing service to individuals based, apparently, on the stated views of a group they belong to. This doesn't make much sense to me; you’d be hard-pressed to find a single congregation in which all members have the same views, let alone an entire sect of Christianity, and in my experience people often settle for whatever sect has the closest views to their own and is easily accessible.

I don't think we have enough information to make a clear statement on this. From what's available I'd say the Agency simply screwed up and I expect there will be a review and change of policy.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion