Will gay rights trample religious freedom?

[Hemidakota]

Will gay rights trample religious freedom? - Los Angeles Times

Snippet: In its controversial decision, the court insisted that these same-sex marriages would not "diminish any other person's constitutional rights" or "impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official or any other person." Religious liberty would be unaffected, the chief justice wrote, because no member of the clergy would be compelled to officiate at a same-sex ceremony and no church could be compelled to change its policies or practices.

[KTMxer_250f]

what a bunch of lying fools!!! It already has restricted religious beliefs in Massachusetts. Christian adoption agencies have been shutting down because they refuse to give children to gay couples, and the state says they have to or be shut down, and thats what happens. I also know that a lesbian couple is suing a church and a pastor for not letting them marry in his church. If churches refuse to let gays marry in their church, essentially they will be breaking the law, so they will lose their tax exempt status. Theres alot more to it than the gay agenda will lead you to believe

[hordak]

I don't think so. The women rights movement hasn't affected religious freedom.

The doctors Case confuses me and i think there is more to the story.

My wife worked for a Dr who was employed by the Federal government and refused to give out birth control because of his religious beliefs.He never had any problems,then again if people had a problem with it the could go to another Dr in the clinic to get a script.

[rastler000]

what a bunch of lying fools!!! It already has restricted religious beliefs in Massachusetts. Christian adoption agencies have been shutting down because they refuse to give children to gay couples, and the state says they have to or be shut down, and thats what happens. I also know that a lesbian couple is suing a church and a pastor for not letting them marry in his church. If churches refuse to let gays marry in their church, essentially they will be breaking the law, so they will lose their tax exempt status. Theres alot more to it than the gay agenda will lead you to believe

Do you have source material for all of this?

[Truegrits]

Religious liberty would be unaffected, the chief justice wrote, because no member of the clergy would be compelled to officiate at a same-sex ceremony and no church could be compelled to change its policies or practices.

Wouldn't any law suit brought against a church/pastor be thrown out?

[Truegrits]

,then again if people had a problem with it the could go to another Dr in the clinic to get a script.

Exactly...find a church/clergy...whatever, that WILL marry you. Why make what should be a happy time, contentious?

[Wingnut]

I don't think so. The women rights movement hasn't affected religious freedom.

The doctors Case confuses me and i think there is more to the story.

My wife worked for a Dr who was employed by the Federal government and refused to give out birth control because of his religious beliefs.He never had any problems,then again if people had a problem with it the could go to another Dr in the clinic to get a script.

I used to work for a doctor who refused to prescribe the "morning-after pill" (AKA 'Plan B') on ethical/moral grounds. We don't know if that pill aborts an already-fertilized egg, or if it suppresses fertilization, so he wasn't comfortable prescribing it. His patients called the other doctor in the practice if they needed it, and everyone was okay with that.

[AndrewCothran]

Will gay rights trample religious freedom? - Los Angeles Times

Snippet: In its controversial decision, the court insisted that these same-sex marriages would not "diminish any other person's constitutional rights" or "impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official or any other person." Religious liberty would be unaffected, the chief justice wrote, because no member of the clergy would be compelled to officiate at a same-sex ceremony and no church could be compelled to change its policies or practices.

Im not for redifining marriage in a legal sense but i do believe in granting visitation rights at hospitals ect ..there are certain rights that should be afforded to them.

[abqfriend]

Some religious agencies accept government funds like Medicaid and similar-if they do that-the are subject to government regulations-thus the problem.

A religious organization accepting government money or assistance in any form- may be challenged if they treat a same sex couple differently than a heterosexual couple.

-So beware of government entanglements-however small.

Churches that profess heterosexual marriages as part of their clear doctrine/teaching-do not have to marry same sex couples.

Where the distinction of such a doctrine/teaching not being firm--as in some churches-that church/congregation may be challenged.

-Carol

what a bunch of lying fools!!! It already has restricted religious beliefs in Massachusetts. Christian adoption agencies have been shutting down because they refuse to give children to gay couples, and the state says they have to or be shut down, and thats what happens. I also know that a lesbian couple is suing a church and a pastor for not letting them marry in his church. If churches refuse to let gays marry in their church, essentially they will be breaking the law, so they will lose their tax exempt status. Theres alot more to it than the gay agenda will lead you to believe

[pam]

I find it extremely hard to believe that a church who refuses to marry a gay couple in their church would lose tax exempt status. Doesn't that then take away freedom of religion?

[Fiannan]

I find it extremely hard to believe that a church who refuses to marry a gay couple in their church would lose tax exempt status. Doesn't that then take away freedom of religion?

Didn't Bob Jones University lose tax exempt status for not allowing students to date interracially?

It was either Felix Frankfurter or Oliver Wendell Holmes who once commented that the constitution says what the supreme court says it says. Choose who appoints them to the courts carefully.

[Moksha]

I think gay rights are already trampling our right to tell them what to do.

What, you say that was not really a right to tell others what to do? Darn! Must we reserve imposing our religious beliefs to ourselves alone (outside of Utah and Idaho)?

[OtterPop]

I find it extremely hard to believe that a church who refuses to marry a gay couple in their church would lose tax exempt status. Doesn't that then take away freedom of religion?

Pam,

I do, too, and I doubt that this is really at stake.

I was married in an Episcopal church, and we had to meet certain requirements that are part of Episcopal canon law: we had to get premarital counseling, at least one of us had to have been baptized a Christian, and we had to use the ceremony from the Book of Common prayer.

(FYI -- there was no question or problem with my citing my baptism into the LDS church to meet that requirement.)

[Maya]

As I understand the LDS Church in Norway do not recieve any money from the sate because if they did, the state could tell us what we are supposed to do. They have tried to give us money but we have said no thank you!

In Scandinavia a LOT of people are leaving lutheran church, as they have to marry gays aso.

[Hemidakota]

Correct but BYU does. That is a problem.

[threepercent]

there is no such thing as "gay" rights. rights do not stem from sexual orientation.

As Elder Dallin H. Oaks has explained,

Tolerance obviously requires a non-contentious manner of relating toward one another’s differences. But tolerance does not require abandoning one’s standards or one’s opinions on political or public policy choices. Tolerance is a way of reacting to diversity, not a command to insulate it from examination. [15]

The Church does not condone abusive treatment of others and encourages its members to treat all people with respect. However, speaking out against practices with which the Church disagrees on moral grounds – including same-sex marriage – does not constitute abuse or the frequently misused term “hate speech.” We can express genuine love and friendship for the homosexual family member or friend without accepting the practice of homosexuality or any re-definition of marriage.

Legalizing same-sex marriage will affect a wide spectrum of government activities and policies. Once a state government declares that same-sex unions are a civil right, those governments almost certainly will enforce a wide variety of other policies intended to ensure that there is no discrimination against same-sex couples. This may well place “church and state on a collision course.” [16]

The prospect of same-sex marriage has already spawned legal collisions with the rights of free speech and of action based on religious beliefs. For example, advocates and government officials in certain states already are challenging the long-held right of religious adoption agencies to follow their religious beliefs and only place children in homes with both a mother and a father. As a result, Catholic Charities in Boston has stopped offering adoption services.

Other advocates of same-sex marriage are suggesting that tax exemptions and benefits be withdrawn from any religious organization that does not embrace same-sex unions. [17] Public accommodation laws are already being used as leverage in an attempt to force religious organizations to allow marriage celebrations or receptions in religious facilities that are otherwise open to the public. Accrediting organizations in some instances are asserting pressure on religious schools and universities to provide married housing for same-sex couples. Student religious organizations are being told by some universities that they may lose their campus recognition and benefits if they exclude same-sex couples from club membership. [18]

Many of these examples have already become the legal reality in several nations of the European Union, and the European Parliament has recommended that laws guaranteeing and protecting the rights of same-sex couples be made uniform across the EU. [19] Thus, if same-sex marriage becomes a recognized civil right, there will be substantial conflicts with religious freedom. And in some important areas, religious freedom may be diminished.

The Divine Institution of Marriage - LDS Newsroom

[pam]

Didn't Bob Jones University lose tax exempt status for not allowing students to date interracially?

It was either Felix Frankfurter or Oliver Wendell Holmes who once commented that the constitution says what the supreme court says it says. Choose who appoints them to the courts carefully.

I'm not familiar with Bob Jones University...but couldn't that be a difference there? Between University and Church? My other question would be...was that rule given because it was part of religion or racism?

Edited October 9, 2008 by pam

[abqfriend]

Here is the court case document:

Oyez: Bob Jones University v. U. S., 461 U.S. 574 (1983), U.S. Supreme Court Case Summary & Oral Argument

It said in part:

"These institutions did not meet the requirement by providing "beneficial and stabilizing influences in community life" to be supported by taxpayers with a special tax status. The schools could not meet this requirement due to their discriminatory policies. The Court declared that racial discrimination in education violated a "fundamental national public policy." The government may justify a limitation on religious liberties by showing it is necessary to accomplish an "overriding governmental interest." Prohibiting racial discrimination was such a governmental interest. Hence, the Court found that "not all burdens on religion are unconstitutional."

-Carol

I'm not familiar with Bob Jones University...but couldn't that be a difference there? Between University and Church? My other question would be...was that rule given because it was part of religion or racism?

[pam]

So based on racial discrimination and not about their theological beliefs. Okay I guess it was somewhat about their beliefs as I read a few more articles about it. Though I personally have never really seen where Bible is for caucasians only.

Edited October 9, 2008 by pam

[abqfriend]

Their theological beliefs were reflected in their practices. If they wished a tax exempt status-they had to play by the rules and limitations such tax exempt status provides.

Here is their home page link:

Bob Jones University ~ BJU

So based on racial discrimination and not about their theological beliefs.

[rameumptom]

Scholar Harold Bloom noted that the reason God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah wasn't because they practiced homosexuality, but because they chose to impose their sin upon others.

In a slippery slope, the slide begins gradual and gains speed, unless stopped by something along the way. This is the concern with gay rights laws being passed. Right now, they claim they will not force themselves on others. But today's laws are forcing businesses to accomodate lifestyles. Landlords can be sued for denying gay couples from renting or buying from them.

Boy Scouts of America was attacked by several cities and states for their stance against atheism and homosexuality. In some places, they no longer have the favored status to be supported by local schools or government agencies, as they once were.

Some laws require companies and not-for-profit charities to follow certain laws if they wish to continue receiving government subsidies. Private colleges have long been "forced" to follow Title IX, for instance, or lose financial benefits and loans.

It is only a small step toward fascism and governmental force to implement acceptance by other non-profit organizations.

At which time, I believe our nation will be perfectly ripe for destruction. Otherwise, God's going to have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah for being too impatient with them.....

[Hemidakota]

No offense to Harold, but that was not the case why GOD destroyed those cities. The answer lies with Abraham conversation with the Savior prior to the event.

[rameumptom]

God explained to Abraham that he was going to destroy it, because there were fewer than a handful of righteous people.

But the event that caused the destruction was when the two angels came to visit Lot. The people of the city sought to "know" them, meaning they wished to have communal orgies with the two, whether they were inclined to or not. Refusing them almost caused a riot, until the people were temporarily blinded.

So, IMO, Bloom was right. God anticipated it, but allowed staying his hand if there were more than just a few good people left. When the entire city joined together in trying to destroy the messengers, God took Lot out of the town, leaving only the wicked to be destroyed.

[Hemidakota]

We can disagree or agree. If there is not enough righteous people in the land or the earth, there will be eventually removed. The Savior will not allow the Earth to fail as the previous.

Added: since we do not have the full accounting on what may had transpired previous to the Lord's messagers, they refused to repent. A good case in point is both the cities called Salem and Zion [no name is given for this city prior of renaming], both of which were wicked in the beginning but through a few righteous souls and aid of a prophet, repented and saved themselves.

Edited October 10, 2008 by Hemidakota