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

quote:

---

Should a bank or other private organization refuse service on the basic of religious viewpoints?

​

My own viewpoint - while I agree with the stance of the Co-Op, I am slightly worried that people's right to free speech should be the basic of discrimination.

---

My feeling is that if an organization is founded to promote a certain policy, or has adopted a certain policy, and advertises this, then that organization should be free to conduct its business and refuse to conduct its business with whomever it feels is appropriate to that mission. It appears on the surface that Co-op Bank has made a public and explicit commitment to support gay rights, and so I agree that, in this particular case, Co-op Bank is justified in labelling this one extremist group as contrary to its public mission and so is unwilling to do business with them. I agree that there are potential gray areas here, but this particular case does not fall into a gray area.My concern would be if a bank that did not have any particular, explicit mission beyond making a profit (except for some vague commitment to furthering the "public good") would refuse to do business with Christian Voice, especially if it were very difficult or impossible to find a bank that would do business with them.As a communist living in the US, I am very sensitive to discrimination based on one's beliefs. Even now, as an untenured instructor at a public institution in a very conservative state, I find myself reluctant to express my opinions when the conversation turns to a political or social subject. In that respect, I do have some sympathy for Christian Voice -- or I would if it came that they could not find a local bank at all with whom to do business.

And maybe a thread about why the state should even be in the business of sanctioning some marriages and not others.

You are correct that love was rarely a reason to enter into a marriage. One of the primary purposes of marriage was to cement alliances and bonds between different tribes and clans, or even between important individuals. If you look historically, the bride and groom usually had very little say in who they would marry, or at least their choices were very constrained.

Actually, I think it demonstrates how outmoded a concept marriage is. Perhaps it's time to just retire the concept completely.

Although, to be honest, the Swedish example is disturbing enough. I don't want to tell our Swedish comrades how to run their country, but unless Ake Green was explicitly advocating violence, I feel that it goes a little too far to bring charges against someone for expressing an opinion, however reprehensible that opinion is.

quote:

---

I am confining my remarks to ONE particular trend, a highly identifiable trend, of explicit ideology-driven Sexual Liberationism which has had a destructive effect on the status of marriage.

---

I guess I disagree with this, although my disagreement may be due to misunderstaning what you mean.There is no ideology driving this, except, perhaps, the "ideology" that all people have the right to live content, fullfilled lives and that it is up to the individual to determine how she should live her life to be content and fullfilled.--

quote:

---

...Sexual "Freedom" in a variety of expressions including militant feminism, gay rights, and abortion. Divorce statistics started growing. People started living together without marriage openly to an extent that had never previously existed. "Blended" families have become just about the norm by now. They were an oddity in the 50s. Promiscuity has escalated, and teenage promiscuity particularly.

---

I guess this is where we really disagree. I have no problems with any one of these things on this list.