Faith Groups Losing Gay Rights Fights »
Posted By TimALoftis 6 months, 4 weeks ago in Religion
Faith organizations and individuals who view homosexuality as sinful and refuse to provide services to gay people are losing a growing number of legal battles that they say are costing them their religious freedom.
The lawsuits have resulted from states and communities that have banned discrimination based on sexual orientation. Those laws have created a clash between the right to be free from discrimination and the right to freedom of religion, religious groups said, with faith losing.
Read Full Story at msnbc.msn.com »
1034 Views Share Story 85 Comments Report
Submitted By:
TimALoftis
A Proud And Dedicated Member Of The Propeller Community. If You Like Social News, Join Us For A Mature And Intelligent Discussion On The Latest ...
Who Also Submitted:
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 85 (view all)
-
88%
pokydoke6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Religious groups need to get over their irrational fear of gays and lesbians. The religious leaders of these groups cherry pick from the Bible what they want to disseminate to their "faithful" in order to garner support and offerings. You don't hear them clamoring to stone unruly sons or banish women who are menstruating.
Reply -
29%
Endoscopy6 months, 4 weeks ago
-
100%
Will13136 months, 4 weeks ago
-
100%
pokydoke6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is not an issue for the voter. You can not allow one group of citizens to determine the rights of another group of citizens. All citizens of this country should be afforded the same rights. Your definition of marriage is one that is formatted on religious grounds. The Governments of this Country, both State and federal must not promote religion. To deny Gays the right to marriage is to deny them rights because of religious reasons.
Reply -
100%
Tangent0016 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The vote of the people has always been for traditional marriage only."
Reply
Time was, the vote of the people was that traditional marriage was between two people of the same race. Time was, the vote of the people was for slavery. Time was, women couldn't even vote! Explain to me the difference. -
-
100%
Dionys6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The vote of the people has always been for traditional marriage only. Judges and legislatures can decide or vote the other way but then most of the time the peoples voice has been heard. Like California."
Reply
Just like the vote of the people in the south was to constantly deny blacks of the vast majority of their rights as Americans and human beings. -
100%
memestryker6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Endo, this country operates as a republic--not by mob rule. The attempt to override rule of law with an unfettered popularity vote (pure democracy) does a disservice to our founders, who knew that this is the weakness of democracy.
Reply
Mob rule is a 2- (or more) way street. Whoever can seize the majority can control every minute detail as long as the majority holds. Rule of law minimizes pendulum swings and has held this country together for quite a while now. I'll stick with it, myself.
-
-
-
10%
Locky126 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The truth of the matter is that homosexuality is a weakness that's fostered by a failed education in human love.
Reply
Recognizing a relationship just because two roommates of the same sex like to butt-slam each other once in a while doesn't do society any good.
It's just hedonism. It does not create life nor have the solemn responsibility of bearing and raising children.
We live in a schizophrenic society right now.
We have an idealogue in the White House who wants to rip apart what made this country great. But since he's a black liberal, he can do no wrong.
I'm not worried about the little battles that are fought back and forth over time. Over the long haul, the truth always comes out. Homosexuality is not the standard and will not be recognized as such when all is said and done-- no matter what a court or a legislator has to say about it.-
100%
Tangent0016 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The truth of the matter is that homosexuality is a weakness that's fostered by a failed education in human love."
Reply
Fortunately, you are not the arbiter of truth.
"Recognizing a relationship just because two roommates of the same sex like to butt-slam each other once in a while doesn't do society any good."
Perhaps, but it doesn't do any harm either.
You seem to be more hung up on the sexual acts, which only takes up a slight percentage of the time married people spend together, than on ever admitting that a same-sex couple can have as deep an emotional connection/commitment as a straight one (heII, even the Bible admits that!). -
100%
lvrofwolves6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why are some people afraid of everyone sharing equal rights? if you aren't afraid of it, why in the world could you possibly be against it? You don't ever have to personally condone it, but you don't have a right to deny others equality.
Reply
Regardless if you are homosexual or not, regardless if your personal feelings about it are different, regardless if you understand it or not, isn't it wrong to deny a group equal rights? shouldn't everyone be concerned about that? to make sure everyone's rights are protected. I'd think every American should be making sure of equal rights, even if they aren't homosexual, you're an American human being, right? -
88%
wtagg6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Interesting to see that you are in favor of the government determining what should and shouldn't be done by the electorate.
Reply
Oh wait, that is a liberal point of view.
All the private moral groups have the right to voice their opinion about what they believe is right. The government should not be in the business of the private concerns of the electorate. Just as the government should not force a private religious organization to marry two individuals, the church should not prevent the government from marrying two individuals.
The law should be equal for all. You are advocating inequality. Ironically, it may not be long before you become a minority in this country. I would think you would not want that type of government in place when the change comes. That is if you are even thinking that far ahead. -
50%
memestryker6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Locky, sex is not black and white. It occurs on a number of physical and psychological continuums. Yes, there is "normal," which is a statistic.
Reply
And there is a human tendency to ostracize those who don't conform. It probably had strong survival value at some point in our evolution, so we reified it in our cultural doctrine.
It's dangerous to use ancient folklore to determine what to think and how to treat people. We have knowledge that allows us to transcend folklore. Religion can be a positive thing, but not when people use it to deny others their full humanity.
-
-
100%
amazed6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think that gay people should have the same right as everyone else. I don't care one way or the other whether gays marry or have civil unions or "live in sin". The only marriage I can reasonably worry about and do anything about it my own.
Reply
BUT...
Just as my freedom of speech ends just shy of your nose, my civil rights cannot and should not supersede yours-- or vice versa.
So, if the gov't (state, local, court, whatever)says that gays have a civil right to be married, then any CIVIL employee that has the capacity to marry any couples MUST marry gay couples. If the J.P. or the mayor or whatever other gov't employee who can marry people has a religious objection to gay marriage, then that person needs to find another line of work.
BUT...churches are, by their nature religious and, as such, are guaranteed freedom from government interference in their beliefs "Congress shall make no law establishing a religion NOR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXPRESSION THEREOF". The first amendment is the basis for their tax exemption on their property that is used for religious purposes. To require that religions participate in a practice that they have determined to be against their religious precepts eliminates their "free expression thereof". To threaten religions that don't toe the current government line of "acceptability" with the loss of their free expression thereof.
When it comes to private businesses, the situation is dicier and, I think, dependent on the nature of the business.
In most businesses, there is no reasonable basis for denying someone your product or service based upon their race, religion, sex or sexual orientation. For example, I own a body shop; how could it possibly or reasonably be a violation of my religious beliefs to fix anyone's car? or sell them a shirt? or serve them a meal? There is absolutely no explicit or implicit endorsement of their lifestyle in these cases.
However, to require that a provider of a service that necessarily requires implicit or explicit endorsement of their lifestyle -- artificial insemination, marriage ceremonies, and like that -- it is a different story. And there are likely, enough other providers that they can make alternate arrangements.-
100%
Tangent0016 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"For example, I own a body shop; how could it possibly or reasonably be a violation of my religious beliefs to fix anyone's car?"
Reply
There's a gray area here. What about the photographer who refused to photograph a lesbian union ceremony? How is photographing something 'endorsing' it? What if the car was to carry the couple on their honeymoon? Couldn't the mechanic say by fixing the car, he/she would be 'endorsing' the honeymoon?
Regarding churches: I don't think it is appropriate for the government to compel a church clergyman to perform a marriage ceremony, however I think it IS appropriate for the government to compel a church to allow the use of the facility if a pastor can be found who is willing to perform the ceremony, particularly if there are few churches in the area.
-
-
100%
Tangent0016 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Interesting tidbits:
Reply
"In 1948, about 90% of American Adults opposed interracial marriage when the Supreme Court of California legalized it, and California became the first state that allowed loving, committed interracial couples to marry.
In 1967, about 72% were opposed to interracial marriage. This was the year when the U.S. Supreme Court was legalized interracial marriage everywhere in the U.S.
In 1991, those adults opposed to interracial marriage became a minority for the first time.
The change averaged slightly less than 1 percentage point per year."
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marp.htm-
Neutral
memestryker6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes, rule of law should trump ideology that does not uphold the ideology of the Constitution itself. This is one reason I've opposed Bush's attempts to push us closer to a theocracy and Obama's push to abridge our second amendment rights--and both of their support of infringements of our right to privacy.
Reply
It's tough enough since any individual is an ideologue of one, and agreement to live by rule of law is a choice and a commitment.
-
-
Global_WarmerComment removed: Abusive6 Replies
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.