Religous rights vs gay special rights > Logan Utah, Cache Valley, Bridgerland, Local Community Forums, News and Information > Bridgerland, Logan Utah, Cache Valley Utah

Unanswered Active Topics

Forums Search Members

Forums > Local Personal Posts > IN DEFENCE OF THE CONSTITUTION

Subject: Religous rights vs gay special rights

Prev Next

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Page 1 of 2

Author

Messages

mulhollandj
Posts:230

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

06/09/2006 8:15 PM
I was watching Utah Now tonight and they did a very poort and one sided debate on Gay Marriage. Go public telivision. While watching how poorly they addresed the issue I thought I would right some of my thoughts. Religious rights and gay special rights are quickly coming into conflict. Most people have been led to believe that gay marriage debate is "Marriage is vital and should be protected" vs "My gay marriage won't have an effect on your marriage". It is hard to prove that gender marriage is so much better than genderless marriage. Perhaps there is more to this arguement. Many have failed to see the effects of gay marriage where it is already practiced. A minister was recently charged with a hate crime for preaching that homosexuality was wrong in Europe. Knights of Columbus, a Catholic group, have been fined for not renting a marriage hall to a homosexual wedding. A Catholic adopotion agency has been forced to close in Mass. because it wouldn't adopt to gays. How long before organizations that oppose homosexuality lose their tax exempt status for being 'discriminatory'? What about a member of such organizations being denied from a government job for being a 'bigot'. Would you hire an open racist to be part of a police force? I would like to hear a response to these arguements. It isn't about marriage but is about religious rights. In the GDR, East Germany, you were allowed to be part of a church. It was just very strongly discouraged by the government.

mulhollandj
Posts:230

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

06/18/2006 8:40 AM
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/politics/bal-md.metro16jun16,0,5412195.story?coll=bal-home-headlines is a story about a man in Maryland who was fired for saying that gays were sexual deviants. So much for freedom of religion and free speech.

feffer_kins
Posts:18

Junior User
Online Status: User is Offline

Logan

06/19/2006 3:16 PM
if people can get fired for being gay, then why cant other people be fired for saying that being gay is wrong?

mulhollandj
Posts:230

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

06/19/2006 4:55 PM
I was unaware of government firing people for saying that being gay is OK or really even being gay. The military is the only exception I can think of and they currently have a Don't ask Don't tell policy. There are many problems with homosexuals in the military. Who do they shower with? This is a very dangerous trend which I have mentioned above. People will be not be hired for government jobs based on religous beliefs about homosexuality. So much for freedom of religion/speech.

nonleft
Posts:112

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

06/20/2006 10:45 AM
The whole thing with the military is the way to do it. It is the only way really. Think about it, (I'm going to try to keep the rules here) if you (a heterosexual male) were in the military and were allowed to shower with the woman or same situation the other way around, it would be very uncomfortable for both sides. Why, there is a possible natural attraction to the opposite sex! Now why would I want to shower with a homosexual male with possible attraction to the same sex? It's just is not good for moral! I think that we can treat homosexuals with respect which we should. That doesn't mean that we should let our guards down in doing so. I feel that what they do is un-natural and not right. I feel bad for them and hope they will be able to change some day. I feel that Gay marrage is bad for our Country and the institution of Marriage which is between a man and a woman.

HypnotEyes
Posts:3

New User
Online Status: User is Offline

06/29/2006 9:29 AM
Yikes, that's a scary thought to be in the military and have to worry about other soldiers checking you out while you shower. Definitely not good for morale.

Debator
Posts:47

Advanced User
Online Status: User is Offline

03/21/2007 11:11 AM
I was unaware of government firing people for saying that being gay is OK or really even being gay. While that may be true, private employers are only limited in their hiring and firing decisions by the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1991 which allow employers to fire workers (or not hire them) except for the following reasons: race and color, gender, national origin, religion, age, and disability. Private employers are still allowed to fire people on the basis of their sexual orientation (at least under federal statutes, some states have made sexual orientation a protected class). Additionally, churches have always been allowed to discriminate and still maintain their tax-exempt status (i.e. the LDS church until 1978 - the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964). While you provide several examples of church-related organizations suffering negative consequences from discrimination, none of your examples shows how a church loses its tax-exempt status. In every example you cite, the church is acting in a non-religious capacity. Unless the church can show that the activity at issue is essential to their religious function, then those activities are not outside the realm covered by Title VII. Not only could they not discriminate against homosexuals, but also against blacks, Latinos, seniors, etc. While all religions can discriminate on the basis of religion, when they are engaging in non-religious activities, they are still subject to the same laws that govern all businesses. (For more explanation, see Corporation of Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Amos, a Supreme Court case from 1987.) This system makes good sense to me, since we do not want a society where every business becomes a "religion" so that they can discriminate.

mulhollandj
Posts:230

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

04/22/2007 8:34 PM
The point it that people no longer have the right to practice their religion. They are being forced to go against their religious beliefs or not be able to offer services. As an extension of the argument there recently passed a bill in England where it is illegal to say anything wrong about homosexuality in private schools. How long until that is considered hate speech in homes and churches? I have documentation of efforts to ban all judges who belong to a group opposing homosexuality to rule in any case involving homosexuality, but of course not the other way around. There was even an effort in Washington, I believe, to dissolve all marriages after the first several years if no kids were produced. It is increasingly unpopular to oppose homosexual marriage and it will only get worse.

Debator
Posts:47

Advanced User
Online Status: User is Offline

05/02/2007 5:36 PM
People's right to practice their religion are protected by the Constitution. In the same Amendment, our right to speak our minds is also protected. Therefore, absent an amendment to the Constitution, there is no way that any government, Federal or State could limit what we say in our churches and homes. While the government (either Federal or State) could theoretically make homosexuality a protected trait, few have chosen to do so. Furthermore, absent an amendment to the Constitution, the Federal government could not do anything to change the status of marriage within the several states.

Zasch
Posts:134

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

05/05/2007 1:35 PM
A minister was recently charged with a hate crime for preaching that homosexuality was wrong in Europe. I believe that charge was overturned. Knights of Columbus, a Catholic group, have been fined for not renting a marriage hall to a homosexual wedding. A Catholic adopotion agency has been forced to close in Mass. because it wouldn't adopt to gays. The jurisdictions that these two organisations operated in had laws on the books prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In these areas, it is not particularly different than laws prohibiting discrimination based on, say, race. How long before organizations that oppose homosexuality lose their tax exempt status for being 'discriminatory'? The risk of this appears to be very low: Sevearl US States have continued to vote down extending discrimination protection to include sexual orientation. President Bush recently vetoed a bill that would have expanded "hate crimes" to include sexual orientation . Are you disputing that they are being discriminatory, though? What about a member of such organizations being denied from a government job for being a 'bigot'. Again, this appears to be a somewhat baseless charge, especially given that so many governments in the United States have taken a decision to ban gay marriage (or, in the case of Utah, anything even resembling marriage). Would you hire an open racist to be part of a police force? No. I would like to hear a response to these arguements. You have not presented an argument yet. You have presented various facts. What would you like to do with those facts? What point are you trying to prove? It isn't about marriage but is about religious rights. The incidents to which you have referred to above have little to do with gay marriage itself, and more to do with the balance between state-sponsored nondiscrimination laws and religious freedom. I ought note that I cannot respond to the story you posted, as it has since been deleted (not surprising, given that it happend almost a year ago). There are many problems with homosexuals in the military. Who do they shower with? I believe you are attempting to press a "decrease in morale" point. Ignoring the obvious avenue of attacking that position (Racial integration), the experience of the national militaries of other nations does not seem to uphold any sort of collapse in morale after homosexuality is allowed. Indeed, it appears that the following nations place a ban on homosexuality within the military: Brazil, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, North Korea, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen, Russia (except for masculine-acting gays), and the United States. Other militaries, including those of the United Kingdom, Australia, and Poland (major allies), allow gays to serve openly. People will be not be hired for government jobs based on religous beliefs about homosexuality. I would like to see evidence for this contention. Now why would I want to shower with a homosexual male with possible attraction to the same sex? Because your commander tells you to, and because the defense of this country is far more important than you maybe feeling uncomfortable in some specific circumstance. The point it that people no longer have the right to practice their religion. I would ask that you kindly refrain from sensationalism. I see no wide-spread abridgement of worship in the United States. There was even an effort in Washington, I believe, to dissolve all marriages after the first several years if no kids were produced. Indeed. In rhetoric, this is considered a "reduction to absurdity": The Washington Surpeme Court essentially stated that marriage was about procreation, and since the state has an interest in regulating that, the state has an interest in banning gay marriage. If we accept that marriage is about procreation, then the logical step is to make procreation a responsibility of marriage. It is increasingly unpopular to oppose homosexual marriage and it will only get worse. Pardon me, but I think that this is a silly objection. Allow me to list states that explicitly prohibit same-sex marriage: Oregon, Idaho, MOtana, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, Alaska, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin. That is to say, over half of the states in our Union have done so explicitly. We ought note that most of these states have done so in the past 4 years. Thus, it does not appear that there is major popularity for gay marriage across the United States. But the more interesting debate is not whether it is accepted, but whether it ought be accepted. Whether homosexuals ought be protected from discrimination, etc. What are your opinions?

mulhollandj
Posts:230

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

05/05/2007 5:05 PM
Posted By Zasch on 05/05/2007 1:35 PM A minister was recently charged with a hate crime for preaching that homosexuality was wrong in Europe. I believe that charge was overturned. But why was he charged in the first place? If you read his response it appears he is saying he is sorry and won't do it again. Does this not intimidate the free practice of religion? Knights of Columbus, a Catholic group, have been fined for not renting a marriage hall to a homosexual wedding. A Catholic adopotion agency has been forced to close in Mass. because it wouldn't adopt to gays. The jurisdictions that these two organisations operated in had laws on the books prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In these areas, it is not particularly different than laws prohibiting discrimination based on, say, race. But is this not a hampering on relgious freedoms? To say they can not perform a service which is clearly part of their religion seems to me to be a law against the free practice of religion. How long before organizations that oppose homosexuality lose their tax exempt status for being 'discriminatory'? The risk of this appears to be very low: Sevearl US States have continued to vote down extending discrimination protection to include sexual orientation. President Bush recently vetoed a bill that would have expanded "hate crimes" to include sexual orientation. Are you disputing that they are being discriminatory, though? Without the Bush Veto it would have passed. What will happen when someone in favor of this bill is elected President? Or even worse, what happens when we give authority of this to a world body or regional government which overrides our Constitution? Discrimination is not necessarily a bad thing. Schools try to discriminate against sex offenders when hiring. Would you hire someone convicted of fraud at your bank? Is it discriminatory for the Boy Scouts to not hire a known practicing homosexual when it goes against their standards? They are private organizations and who they hire and don't hire is, for the most part, none of our business. What about a member of such organizations being denied from a government job for being a 'bigot'. Again, this appears to be a somewhat baseless charge, especially given that so many governments in the United States have taken a decision to ban gay marriage (or, in the case of Utah, anything even resembling marriage). But whats states say doesn't matter if the federal government usurps the power and overrules them or a world body is given that power. Have you noticed the growing concentration of power at the federal and world levels? Would you hire an open racist to be part of a police force? No. The point here is would you hire a member of a group who believes homosexuality is wrong? There have been proposals made to ban judges from associating with groups such as the Boy Scouts. I would like to hear a response to these arguements. You have not presented an argument yet. You have presented various facts. What would you like to do with those facts? What point are you trying to prove? Do you not see a pattern here? The right to exercise a religion is quickly becoming like that of the former GDR. It was strongly discouraged and you were rewarded for leaving. It isn't about marriage but is about religious rights. The incidents to which you have referred to above have little to do with gay marriage itself, and more to do with the balance between state-sponsored nondiscrimination laws and religious freedom. I ought note that I cannot respond to the story you posted, as it has since been deleted (not surprising, given that it happend almost a year ago). I am saying that religious rights will evaporate as homosexual marriage is more accepted. Would you like me to post what has happened on these issues in the past? I am somewhat out of the loop now as this isn't the issue I directly try to deal with but I have some great some from the 2004ish timeperiod. There are many problems with homosexuals in the military. Who do they shower with? I believe you are attempting to press a "decrease in morale" point. Ignoring the obvious avenue of attacking that position (Racial integration), the experience of the national militaries of other nations does not seem to uphold any sort of collapse in morale after homosexuality is allowed. Indeed, it appears that the following nations place a ban on homosexuality within the military: Brazil, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, North Korea, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen, Russia (except for masculine-acting gays), and the United States. Other militaries, including those of the United Kingdom, Australia, and Poland (major allies), allow gays to serve openly. People will be not be hired for government jobs based on religous beliefs about homosexuality. I would like to see evidence for this contention. Now why would I want to shower with a homosexual male with possible attraction to the same sex? Because your commander tells you to, and because the defense of this country is far more important than you maybe feeling uncomfortable in some specific circumstance. The point it that people no longer have the right to practice their religion. I would ask that you kindly refrain from sensationalism. I see no wide-spread abridgement of worship in the United States. Ah, but this is the slippery slope and even though history has shown that this is what happens you cannot guarantee it will. Although you cannot guarantee it will happen you can say that it will likely happen and guard against it. There was even an effort in Washington, I believe, to dissolve all marriages after the first several years if no kids were produced. Indeed. In rhetoric, this is considered a "reduction to absurdity": The Washington Surpeme Court essentially stated that marriage was about procreation, and since the state has an interest in regulating that, the state has an interest in banning gay marriage. If we accept that marriage is about procreation, then the logical step is to make procreation a responsibility of marriage. I agree that this is a silly issue and I personally see marriage about far more than procreation. It is increasingly unpopular to oppose homosexual marriage and it will only get worse. Pardon me, but I think that this is a silly objection. Allow me to list states that explicitly prohibit same-sex marriage: Oregon, Idaho, MOtana, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, Alaska, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin. That is to say, over half of the states in our Union have done so explicitly. We ought note that most of these states have done so in the past 4 years. But that becomes invalid if the federal government usurps this power or gives it to a world or regional body. Thus, it does not appear that there is major popularity for gay marriage across the United States. But the more interesting debate is not whether it is accepted, but whether it ought be accepted. Whether homosexuals ought be protected from discrimination, etc. What are your opinions? Look at aborition. When it was legalized by the Supreme Court it was abhored but not it is accepted. It has been taught in the public schools and shown to us by the media. People have accepted this evil. This too will happen with homosexuality. The public high school where I lived in CT would have a gay repression day and the students were peer pressured into participating by the faculty and other students. Should homosexuals be protected from discrimination? No, and neither should tall people, people who jaywalk, or adulters. Should we hate them? No, we should hate the sin and love the sinner. Well, that was a long response.

Zasch
Posts:134

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

05/05/2007 7:51 PM
But why was he charged in the first place? Because someone saw fit to accuse him of a crime. Does this not intimidate the free practice of religion? Sure, and people ought not be prosecuted for their speech. But is this not a hampering on relgious freedoms? To say they can not perform a service which is clearly part of their religion seems to me to be a law against the free practice of religion. The freedom to practice one's religion is not unlimited: If my religion says that I shouldn't have to pay taxes, that does not mean that legally I am suddenly exempt from paying taxes. In these areas, it has been decided that these nondiscrimination laws do not unnecessarily nor significantly impact one's ability to practice one's private religion. If these organisations wish to operate in a certain area, they should be aware of the local laws and conform to them. What will happen when someone in favor of this bill is elected President? Then, provided that the parties that support such a bill continue to hold power, the bill will be decided upon, passed, and signed by the President. That is how things function in our democracy. Discrimination is not necessarily a bad thing. Not necessarily, but in this case, I happen to agree with the nondiscrimination laws: There is no rational basis for discrimination against homosexuals in the workplace (whereas there is such a basis for discriminating against sex offenders (with regard to schools) or those convicted of fraud (with regard to banks)). They are private organizations and who they hire and don't hire is, for the most part, none of our business. I agree. However, the United States government then also ought to stop giving them preferential treatment, and should stop forcing states and cities to do the same even in violation of local law. But whats states say doesn't matter if the federal government usurps the power and overrules them or a world body is given that power. The chance of the US giving up control of its legislative process to a world body is highly unlikely. As well, given the strength of the Republicans and conservative Democrats, it seems highly unlikely that the constitution will be modified to force gay marriage on the states. Remember: The States themselves would have to ratify any amendment to the constitution. Have you noticed the growing concentration of power at the federal and world levels? Yes. The point here is would you hire a member of a group who believes homosexuality is wrong? Not as a teacher or police officer. As an accountant or electrician...sure, as long as their personal views did not interfere with their job. There have been proposals made to ban judges from associating with groups such as the Boy Scouts. I am not aware of such proposals. Do you not see a pattern here? The right to exercise a religion is quickly becoming like that of the former GDR. As a person deeply interested in the history of the communist states, I think I'm fairly safe in saying that the practice of religion in the US and the practice of religion in the GDR are so extremely different as to be incomparable. Atheists continue to be the least trusted minority in America, major issues seem to have religion injected into them on a regular basis...the formerly dominant party in the United States depends upon the most religious of Americans for its support. I don't see religion particularly being stamped out in the way it was in the former GDR either legally or culturally. I am saying that religious rights will evaporate as homosexual marriage is more accepted In liberal areas, it seems likely that nondiscrimination laws will expand to include homosexuals. That is likely the extent of it. What do you imagine happening? Would you like me to post what has happened on these issues in the past? Sure. People will be not be hired for government jobs based on religous beliefs about homosexuality. Again, I've not particularly seen evidence for this. Most Americans remain rather conservative on homosexuality, and I don't see this particularly changing any time soon. The point it that people no longer have the right to practice their religion. Freedom of religion does not extend to the state passing laws to make sure you don't see people you don't like. Ah, but this is the slippery slope and even though history has shown that this is what happens you cannot guarantee it will. Although you cannot guarantee it will happen you can say that it will likely happen and guard against it. What history has shown is that, in the United States, people often latch on to a minority group and demonise them...Gradually portions of society then begin to accept them, the courts begin to extend protection to them, and the next generation finds the previous generation's discrimination to be silly and unwarranted. We've seen it happen with the catholics, the Irish, the eastern Europeans, the Asians, the African Americans...and typically the "freedom of religion" argument was invoked in order to support continued discrimination against these groups. Hence, when it comes up again (this time, with the gays) it is not particularly surprising to see the evolution of the debate. In your own private life, you continue to have great freedom to practice your religion. What you seem to complain about is that your religion's discriminatory dictates are no longer being enforced by the state. I don't particularly mind this, since I don't think the dictates of any religion should be state-sponsored. Look at aborition. When it was legalized by the Supreme Court it was abhored but not it is accepted. It has been taught in the public schools and shown to us by the media. All societies change in their world perspective and outlook. This change does tend toward liberalism, and there are various reasons for that. This too will happen with homosexuality. With abortion, one can make a consistent argument against it (if one defines a being of 100% moral worth as being a member of homo sapiens, then one would extend protections to that being from conception or whenever). However, I have encountered no such argument for homosexuality. So please, establish that homosexuality is evil. The public high school where I lived in CT would have a gay repression day and the students were peer pressured into participating by the faculty and other students. Gay repression day? That sounds violent. Should homosexuals be protected from discrimination? No, and neither should tall people, people who jaywalk, or adulters. The United States has already tried not having discrimination laws. Without them, society tended to reinforce itself to discriminate more and more against the targetted group. Laws start to pass that target, directly or indirectly, the group in question in an attempt to continue to marginalise it from social and political life. Even ignoring the morality of such a situation, this creates an unstable and dangerous social structure that is not beneficial to this nation. Indeed, it is situations like this for which the phrase "tyranny of the majority" was coined: Diversity must be celebrated and minorities protected because, if not, the society itself begins to decay back toward more authoritarian modes of thinking and, depending on the size of the minority in question, the nation is weakened in other ways.

mulhollandj
Posts:230

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

05/05/2007 9:33 PM
We are making some rather long response. I will try to respond to a couple points and not quote you on everything so I can get to bed. "That is how things function in our democracy." - We are a republic where we have inalienable rights which cannot be stripped by a majority. An amendment is need to change that. You say that discrimination here isn't a bad thing. What about a church, should they be forced to hire somebody which clearly and openly contradicts their standards? The exemption for religion in this bill was rejected. Did you notice that you prove my point? You said that you would not hire a person due to his religion. If a person is LDS and believes that homosexuality is wrong then you wouldn't hire him as a police officer or a teacher. This is my point. I see the first amendment as preventing government from discouraging religion but here you say that if a person wants to be a police officer or teacher he cannot be affiliated with a religion which preaches against homosexuality. I don't need to prove that homosexuality is wrong at this point. It is my religious belief. I will do some more research and present some of the articles.

Debator
Posts:47

Advanced User
Online Status: User is Offline

05/05/2007 10:18 PM
This has been a good debate. Well done, everyone! I must take issue with both mulhollandj's doomsday view and Zasch's polar opposite view. I do not believe that the freedom of religion is eroding in this country, or in others for that matter. BSA v. Dale holds that a private organization can discriminate against whomever they want based on that organizations beliefs (so also does Corporation of the Presiding Bishop v. Amos). If a church wanted to exclude all Utahns from their ranks, they could. The problem with the Knights of Columbus renting out a hall is that they are not engaging in a private function - they are opening their services to the public. When a church engages in actions that are like those of non-church (i.e. non-tax exempt) organizations, they are subject to the same rules. An owner of a private hall could not discriminate against homosexuals any more than he could against Blacks or LDS folks (with certain limits - homosexuality is not a protected class everywhere). Since the Knights of Columbus have opened their hall to the public, they are obligated to comply with public laws (this is the holding of the Employment Division v. Smith case). If the Knights of Columbus are unhappy with this, they can go to the state legislature and get an exception carved out for them (which has happened in many states). There is nothing wrong with this from a legal standpoint. I think where there is confusion between your two points is that you are each talking about a different religious right. On the one hand, the First Amendment forbids Congress from establishing a religion. This means that Congress cannot treat one religion different from another, nor can it preference religion over non-religion or vice-versa. An example of this is if Congress said that the LDS church could discriminate but that the Catholic church could not. Such a law would be unconstitutional. On the other hand, the First Amendment also forbids Congress from abriding the free exercise of religion. An example of this is telling all churches that they cannot discriminate. (The Amos case also stands for this proposition.) Balancing these two positions is not always easy, but in either case, the freedom of religion is still just as vibrant as it has ever been. In fact, in light of Zasch's statements above about that freedom at the time of the Founding, it seems that it is more vibrant than ever. It is important to remember that no international organization can usurp the Constitution. In Missouri v. Holland, the Supreme Court said that treaties are on the same level as federal statutes - below the Constitution. MJ's fears of an international body usurping the Constitution are unfounded. Finally, since this is a discussion of public laws, religious beliefs must still be defended as good public policy. I may vote for a law because I feel that my religion dictates it, but that is not a valid defense of the law in a court, state or federal. Nor is it likely to convince people who disagree with me. There must be some other reason, even if it is just the values underlying the religion to justify the law. (It's worth noting that values are a valid defense in courts as courts will often defer to a legislature's decision that certain values are more important than others.)

Zasch
Posts:134

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

05/06/2007 7:29 AM
An amendment is indeed needed to change rights. However, these rights are not without bounds: Free speech, for instance, does not include yelling fire in a crowded theatre or telling a crowd to go kill someone. Why not, though? A literal interpretation of the Constitution clearly says: Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech. All of these freedoms have certain limitations that have been put in place to protect the welfare of society. As I kind of said before, one cannot go murder somebody and then say "Well, my religion said I had to, and the Constitution says that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion...." I do not believe that some Church ought to be forced to hire someone against their standards, and disagree with the exemption for religion not being included. No, he can be affiliated with a religion all he likes. There are many Mormons who believe that homosexuality ought to be tolerated. Rather, in these specific jobs (teacher, police officer), being vocally anti-homosexual compromises their ability to do the job in two ways: 1) It likely compromises their ability to objectively carry out their job. If a police officer or judge comes across say, a murder, involving a homosexual...They may be less likely to punish that as they would if the murder were against a straight. Since such differentiation has no objective basis, it is an indication that they let their bias interfere. For instance, many judges allow the use of the "gay panic" defence in murder cases involving gay victims: Essentially the defence is that temporary insanity was induced because of a psychological disease called "homosexual panic", where they go insane because they see a homosexual. Often this defence is used to reduce their punishments. 2) Even if they are capable of being objective, it undermines confidence in the organisation they are a part of. A student at a school may feel threatened by having a teacher who speaks out against homosexuality, even if the teacher is capable of being objective, because the student can never be sure. With the police, it gets even worse: The gay citizen may not even think they are protected by the law because of it. It is the same reason why I wouldn't, for instance, hire an open racist to either of these positions. It is not that I'm saying "Oh, you think homosexuality is wrong, so you are a bad person and I won't hire you....". Rather, it is that I think it would negatively impact my organisation (be that a school or a police station), and so I will give large preference to other candidates for the position. Now, for instance, I would hire an anti-gay person into the job of, say, an accountant or a factory worker: In this case, they don't particularly project authority that would make 2) a concern, and 1) becomes a concern only in that they perform their job where and when I tell them to, regardless of if the client is homosexual or not. It may be your religious belief, but when we talk about how you ought to act, how it is moral for you to act, you need to demonstrate that homosexuality is wrong in order to justify your actions.

mulhollandj
Posts:230

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

05/06/2007 9:05 AM
So why not the other way around? If a police officer promotes homosexuality then will he be impartial to a case involving it? Also, you are confusing homosexuality with homosexuals. One can think homosexuality is wrong without hating homosexuals. If you notice when General Pace said he thought homosexuality was wrong it quickly became a thing with him against homosexuals. The media twisted his words. I agree that there are limits and I would put those limits at the point when they interfere with the rights of others. We do not have a right to a job though, despite what FDR said. My right to religion and free speech stop when they interfere with the life, liberty, and property of others. Yelling fire in a crowded theater interferes with the life of others.

mulhollandj
Posts:230

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

05/06/2007 9:06 AM
Also, do you think a bad supreme court decision, as we have seen in Mass. could overrule the states on gay marriage?

Zasch
Posts:134

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

05/06/2007 10:19 AM
A person with a highly tolerant view of homosexuals is not likely to engage in discriminatory practices, especially since the emotional weightload of tolerance is far less than intolerance (it is easier to think of someone as just a human than it is to think of them as an abomination). 2) is absolutely not an issue, as the officer in question would promote a feeling of equal protection under the law. 1) can be a minor concern, in that the police officer may investigate the case involving a murdered homosexual with more vigor, but this does not present appreciable harms - justice is clearly hurt if he chooses not to investigate, whereas justice is not hurt if he chooses to pour even more energy into investigating. It is theoretically possible to hold that only homosexuality, not homosexuals, are wrong. However, humans tend to associate traits they associate with humans with humans (that is to say: If people say "homosexuality is wrong", and then they describe someone with the property of "homosexuality", they are necessarily describing a part of that person as wrong). Few humans are able to completely divorce the properties of various people from the "essence" or humanity of that person. And regardless, for the homosexual, it doesn't particularly matter if the judge is letting murderers go free because he thinks homosexuals are wrong, or if it is because he thinks homosexuality is wrong. The end effect is typically the exact same. Indeed, many people attempt to differentiate "hatred for homosexuality" from "hatred for homosexuals" precisely because it provides them with (in their mind) the logical backing to then discriminate against homosexuals: In their mind, they aren't doing anything wrong when they support discriminatory practices because they say to themselves they aren't discriminating against the person, merely against the trait. It is possible to hate the trait of being black without hating black people. But when I frame it in this way, we all can quickly see why this argument tends to be without merit. If your rights stop when they interfere with the life, liberty, or property of others...is it not the case that you are attempting to use your religion in order to interfere with the liberty of others? By supporting discriminatory practices against homosexuals, you are infringing upon their own liberty to live their lives as they see fit (so long as that life does not interfere with the rights of others). So what we see is that homosexuals are doing nothing to you (they are not infringing upon your life, liberty, or property), but you still support discriminating against them (or against "homosexuality" - a pointless distinction). If the Supreme Court were to adopt the view that the Due Proces or Equal Protection clauses of the constitution did not allow for discrimination against homosexuals, then it is possible. The present composition of the Supreme Court makes this highly unlikely.

Fiery Darts
Posts:135

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

05/06/2007 1:18 PM
Posted By mulhollandj on 05/06/2007 9:06 AM Also, do you think a bad supreme court decision, as we have seen in Mass. could overrule the states on gay marriage? The Supreme Court decision that legalized gay marriage in Massachusettes was a decision by the state supreme court (The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusettes). It is a perfect example of one state defining how it will go about its appointed duty of licensing marriages. The US Supreme Court was not involved in any way. There is some concern about this overriding the decisions of other states on gay marriage, but that is in fact a well-established principle of "Full Faith and Credit" which is part of the original text of the Constitution (Article IV, Section 1). If you are concerned with the Commonwealth of Massachusettes overriding Utah's right to define marriage, then are you suggesting that the Federal government should step in and unilaterally define what is a marraige?

mulhollandj
Posts:230

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

05/06/2007 5:29 PM
I apologize for being very vague with what I was saying and I see how you misunderstood. I know that it was a state court that allowed gay marriage in Mass. I was speaking of general bad decisions by the US Supreme Court. I could see the US Supreme Court overriding the states here through the use of international law. Zasch, I have proved my point that people of religion will be discriminated against. Maybe in the future we will fight over if that is a good thing or a bad thing. I just want people to realize the consequences of the acceptance of homosexuality into our laws and society.

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Page 1 of 2

Forums > Local Personal Posts > IN DEFENCE OF THE CONSTITUTION > Religous rights vs gay special rights

ActiveForums 3.7