|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
There are numerous points I could raise here, but there is one that even you cannot dispute. The U.S. Constitution is not binding on the U.K.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I guess I wasn't paying attention to the context, I thought he was talking about the US law.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
So the UK court wouldn't do us any good, and despite the temporary reprieve for Philips I really don't think the US courts are going to do any better in the end.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
The courts won’t make religious belief carte blanche to ignore the law. And I hope that will continue to be the case in both countries.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: Christians know it means God ordained marriage between a man and a woman and anything else is against His ordinance. *Some* Christians *believe* that. However, that's not rhe words in your book. Other Christians believe differently.
Whatever you think, this is what these business owners are acting on. I know what they're acting on - a set of 2,000 year old folk stories.
I guess you can refuse to accept it and punish them for it, but it's still what they are going to act on whatever you say or do about it. That's their choice.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1025 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined:
|
There are numerous points I could raise here, but there is one that even you cannot dispute. The U.S. Constitution is not binding on the U.K. UK law enshrines freedom of belief as well of course, although the ECHR notes that
quote: Limits to freedoms are perfectly sensible, since we're all agreed that you can't use religious belief as a legal justification for human sacrifice or something. But I always think the exceptions permitted in the convention are worded far too broadly. The above clause (and there are similar for most rights) seems to me to give an intelligent judge a Get Out of Jail Free card on which he can justify almost any violation of freedoms he feels like. This is why some countries in Europe have been able to ban the wearing of burkas in public, for example. This is interesting because the European Court of Human Rights rejected the French state's argument that a ban was necessary for security reasons, but accepted this, to me, bizarre argument:
quote: Forgive the digression.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yeah, well if SOME Christians understand gay marriage to be a violation of those scripture references, who happen to be in fact the ones who refuse to serve a gay wedding, most others not having a problem with it, since they aren't really Christians in my opinion, but anyway, those who do refuse on the basis of our biblical religion, are the ones targeted by the law. And I see that you really have no respect whatever for freedom of religion, so we can just throw that biblical ordinance out the window, right?
There's only one issue here although it keeps getting twisted out of recognition: either the scripture we regard as God's ordinance of marriage is respected by the secular law as it always used to be, or it isn't and we are headed full bore back to paganism. All the rest of this nonsensical discussion is irrelevant and should have been over long long ago.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: Yeah, well if SOME Christians understand gay marriage to be a violation of those scripture references, who happen to be in fact the ones who refuse to serve a gay wedding, most others not having a problem with it, since they aren't really Christians in my opinion, SOME, is in fact, the vast majotity. You cooks are a diminishing minority.
but anyway, those who do refuse on the basis of our biblical religion, are the ones targeted by the law. Nobody, but nobody gives a flying fuck about you and yours. Really. Nobody is targeting anybody. All that's happening is that society is creating laws that give everyone an equal chance.
And I see that you really have no respect whatever for freedom of religion, so we can just throw that biblical ordinance out the window, right? Well you're half right. I have zero respect for your beliefs. In fact, I have negative respect for them. But I respect your right to have them.
There's only one issue here although it keeps getting twisted out of recognition: either the scripture we regard as God's ordinance of marriage is respected by the secular law as it always used to be, or it isn't and we are headed full bore back to paganism. Well that's obviously garbage. There didn't 'used to be' secular law; that's a very modern thing, but more importantly, the alternative to your primitive beliefs is not paganism. All the rest of this nonsensical discussion is irrelevant and should have been over long long ago.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
From The New York Times:
Supreme Court Won’t Rule on Clash Between Another Bakery and a Gay Couple For the second time, the Supreme Court refuse to rule on an appeal by bakers of wedding cakes against their states' anti-discrimination laws. As we recall, reading above in this thread, in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that a baker's religious rights were violated because members of the adjudicating body acted like assholes. But they never ruled on the direct question on where bakers can be compelled to provide service to gay couples' weddings. Since then, appeals courts have continue to uphold states' anti-discrimination laws. In this second case, a baker in Oregon similarly was fined for violating the state's anti-discrimination laws. The Supreme Court has refuse to hear the case, so the lower courts' judgement against the baker will stand. In this case, the Court was being asked to overturn Employment Division v. Smith, where
in a majority opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court ruled that neutral laws of general applicability could not be challenged on the ground that they violated the First Amendment’s protection of the free exercise of religion. It says something about the qualities of our current president that the best argument anyone has made in his defense is that he didn’t know what he was talking about. -- Paul Krugman
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
For the second time, the Supreme Court refuse to rule on an appeal by bakers of wedding cakes against their states' anti-discrimination laws. As we recall, reading above in this thread, in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that a baker's religious rights were violated because members of the adjudicating body acted like assholes. But they never ruled on the direct question on where bakers can be compelled to provide service to gay couples' weddings. Since then, appeals courts have continue to uphold states' anti-discrimination laws. In this second case, a baker in Oregon similarly was fined for violating the state's anti-discrimination laws. The Supreme Court has refuse to hear the case, so the lower courts' judgement against the baker will stand. Its a tough case, as they pointed out in their ruling that they “must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market” and was reiterated in Obergfell v Hodges that their decision “inevitably requires this court to decide whether that newly recognized marriage right can be wielded not only as a shield in defense of same-sex unions but also ” as in this case ” a sword to attack others for adhering to traditional religious beliefs about marriage.” I think the Court recognizes that no matter which way they decide that somebody is going to feel alienated or infringed upon. Of course, if I was gay and wanted to be married I certainly wouldn't want to give my money to a shop that doesn't recognize me or my marriage as valid. On the other hand, money is still green... what do I care if the cake says Adam and Steve versus Adam and Eve as long as they are paying customers? Three times the same shop has gone to court... seems obvious that groups are more than happy to use them as a guinea pig if it advances an agenda while other groups are more than happy to offer free legal services if it advances their agenda. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given."Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
So you're saying that a christian does not have to become gay to make a gay wedding cake?
So much for an artist becoming their work but ok if the courts so choose.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
I don’t think it is that tough.
First, there is precedent, as cited above.
in a majority opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court ruled that neutral laws of general applicability could not be challenged on the ground that they violated the First Amendment’s protection of the free exercise of religion.
Second, the First Amendment was never intended to make religious belief a carte blanche. It recognises that government does have a right to restrict actions:
...The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg
Thomas Jefferson Notes on the State of Virginia Third, allowing religious belief to overrule anti-discrimination laws would gut them. There are still segregationists who hold that segregation of the races is a Christian doctrine. I doubt that anyone on the Court wants to overturn precedent and open a massive can of worms. And overturning the lower court’s decision would do that. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Conservatives were all against hearing it because they didn’t want to be placeD in the position of affirming that decision.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
... whether that newly recognized marriage right can be wielded not only as a shield in defense of same-sex unions but also ” as in this case ” a sword to attack others for adhering to traditional religious beliefs about marriage.” That certainly says it. It's probably going to get worse though. Simply expressing the opinion that gay marriage is a violation of God's law could become subject to punitive action. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
There's no need to punish you for that. We just need to point out that you apply "God's laws" hypocrytically and unequally. Simply expressing the opinion that gay marriage is a violation of God's law could become subject to punitive action.All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Oh we'll be punished for it. I wonder if they'd put someone my age in a cell for that crime.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024