Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
[quote=Vizio;35110189]OK, I will cede this point. Although the Constitution does not guarantee it, the SCOTUS has seen fit to include it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Is this a case of him using a religious exemption? Can he simply refuse to marry whomever he wants?
This is where more details would help. If he is a minister, and is performing marriages as religious service, then he absolutely should be able to discriminate. I also think this is exactly why ministers should not be allowed to perform the legal "solemnization" of a marriage. If what a pastor did was a purely religious function, and what a civil representative or public servant did was entirely a legal/clerical matter we wouldn't have an issue at all. It is because we have unwisely intertwined the two that there is even a discussion about most of this.
Back to the point, I think it makes sense for him to be able to choose who he will marry, if he is doing so in a ministerial capacity. If he is doing so strictly in his capacity as a public servant, then no he should not be allowed to choose, any more that a notary public can choose who they wish to service. They have been granted a power of government and should be required to exercise that power in accordance with the 1st and 14th amendments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
So what? Is there a reason they just don't go to a different guy?
Becasue if he is acting in his capacity as a public servant, his actions and potentially the stave of VA are overstepping their bounds and violating the law. The entire point of the Bill of Rights is to prevent government behaving a certian way, and when it does overstep it is the right and duty of American citizens to step up and say, "This is wrong!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
That has not been established.
You are correct, this is my (admittedly non-expert) opinion on the law and the Constitution. This may be a bit fuzzy, unless there is already adequate precedent. The appropriate response to both correct the problem, and to clarify the law is for the couple to file suit. This is the only way to clarify the law, as precedent can only be set in a court case, a court may not consider hypotheticals. It needs an actual case.
This is why I think filing suit may be the right thing to do, simply to clarify the law and set precedent. Clearly there is no common understanding on exactly where the line is drawn on the extent of religious or 1st amendment protection for discriminatory practices. The only way to settle it is in court.
-NoCapo
So, just like the Christian baker that got harassed for having a moral conviction, the affected party just wants to be a bully and force their will on the guy?
No, they did not get 'harassed' for 'having a moral conviction'. They got sued for violating state law. That law mandated no discrimination based on sexual orientation in commercial activity, in the same way laws mandate no discrimination in commercial activity based on gender, race, or religion, and other categories.
Someone who can't handle dealing with blacks, or women, or Christians (to name just a few examples) should do business in a country other than the United States, where such discrimination is allowed (I recommend Saudi Arabia - you and the House of Saud agree on quite a bit when it comes to regressive social nonsense). For anti-gay bigots, it's even easier - there are plenty of states here in the U.S. where businesses are free to discriminate based on sexual orientation (at least, for the time being - but rest assured, you will be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century in the next few years).
Do you do anything but evade, feign obtuseness, and flail at strawmen?
Suppose you were a baker and an American Nazi wanted a cake with swastikas to celebrate the birthday of Adolph Hitler. Would you comply?
Suppose a KKK member wanted a cake with a burning cross and KKK on it. Would you comply?
If you offer cakes with burning crosses and KKK on them, then you have to offer those cakes to any comers.
If you do not offer cakes with burning crosses and KKK on them, then you do not have to sell them to anyone.
If you offer cakes with white fondant and sugar flowers, then you have to sell them to any comers. If you do not offer cakes with white fondant and sugar flowers, then you do not have to sell them to anyone.
No, they did not get 'harassed' for 'having a moral conviction'. They got sued for violating state law. That law mandated no discrimination based on sexual orientation in commercial activity, in the same way laws mandate no discrimination in commercial activity based on gender, race, or religion, and other categories.
They have a religious right to obey their conviction. There were plenty of other bakeries to handle their request, but they wanted to prove a point and harass that bakery. That's bigotry at its finest.
Quote:
Someone who can't handle dealing with blacks, or women, or Christians (to name just a few examples) should do business in a country other than the United States, where such discrimination is allowed (I recommend Saudi Arabia - you and the House of Saud agree on quite a bit when it comes to regressive social nonsense). For anti-gay bigots, it's even easier - there are plenty of states here in the U.S. where businesses are free to discriminate based on sexual orientation (at least, for the time being - but rest assured, you will be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century in the next few years).
Do you do anything but evade, feign obtuseness, and flail at strawmen?
No one is suggesting we discriminate against black people, women, or Christians. As for people whining about "discrimination" based on sexual choices? It's only a matter of time until polygamy, pedophilia, adultery, or even non-sexual things like kleptomania is brought into the discussion. What about the rights of the kleptomaniac? He "was born that way".
The Bible forbids it. It's my conviction. I would not do it...if they want to, there are plenty of other ways to get it done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruithne
Ok. Well I'm genuinely very confused with this so you might have to really help me out here. (You probably know by now that I'm not exactly very bible savvy.)
Who made this rule?
Was it Jesus himself that forbade his followers from marrying people who were not 'Christian' then?
Vizio I'm just wondering if you missed my question? I'd be grateful if you would be so good as to enlighten me on this.
Where in the bible does it forbid Christians to marry someone of another religion?
They have a religious right to obey their conviction. There were plenty of other bakeries to handle their request, but they wanted to prove a point and harass that bakery. That's bigotry at its finest.
No one is suggesting we discriminate against black people, women, or Christians. As for people whining about "discrimination" based on sexual choices? It's only a matter of time until polygamy, pedophilia, adultery, or even non-sexual things like kleptomania is brought into the discussion. What about the rights of the kleptomaniac? He "was born that way".
Discrimination is not a religious right. Religious people that think it is are shoving people away from religion faster than any logic or reason can IMO.
Polygamy is fine as long as it is consensual. I don't plan on marrying multiple people, so it doesn't really affect me. Pedophilia will NEVER be acceptable because children CANNOT CONSENT. I'd hope anyone with a brain could understand that. Adultery? Do you believe that people should be treated less under the law because they cheated?? And really, kleptomania?? Stealing is never a consensual agreement between two people.
Why do you insist on forcing your opinion of morality on everyone? I don't expect you to like "sexually immoral" people or think it's okay, but what I do expect is equal protection under the law, which is something you continue to deny.
You are a shining example of why young people are turning away from religion.
Vizio I'm just wondering if you missed my question? I'd be grateful if you would be so good as to enlighten me on this.
Where in the bible does it forbid Christians to marry someone of another religion?
Thanks.
Vizio may want to add to this or differ with me but to my knowledge there is no actual prohibition for a minister to conduct a wedding between a Christian and a non-Christian. What there IS, is a verse that says, "do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers" which is an instruction to Christians not to marry unbelievers. One might debate whether it's a command or a bit of advice but it's generally taken as a command. And by extension, then, a pastor conducting such a ceremony would be endorsing and aiding people in breaking this command.
It is understandable that the various denominations generally follow this interpretation because difference in belief doesn't bode well for long term marital harmony (although there are in fact couples for whom it presents no particular difficulty; it's just a question of what the two people have ego invested in and how they compartmentalize, how the extended family dynamic plays out, etc). Also, and probably more significantly in the long run, there is a belief that a non-Christian partner will tend to drag the believing partner down and dilute or destroy their faith. The parallel that would usually be drawn is how the Israelites succumbed to the temptation to "go whoring after other gods" due to their intermarriage and commerce with the cultures they conquered / absorbed / had borders with.
Naturally if you believe you have the correct dogma, anything that would contradict or argue against that dogma is a danger to be avoided.
All of this moves me to question, why would an unbelieving spouse tend to undermine the belief of their partner? Why wouldn't the faith of the believing partner undermine the unbelief of the other person? It's kind of telling that faith is so threatened by lack of faith, even amiable lack of faith. They are basically asserting that unbelief is more powerful than belief.
Vizio may want to add to this or differ with me but to my knowledge there is no actual prohibition for a minister to conduct a wedding between a Christian and a non-Christian. What there IS, is a verse that says, "do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers" which is an instruction to Christians not to marry unbelievers. One might debate whether it's a command or a bit of advice but it's generally taken as a command. And by extension, then, a pastor conducting such a ceremony would be endorsing and aiding people in breaking this command.
It is understandable that the various denominations generally follow this interpretation because difference in belief doesn't bode well for long term marital harmony (although there are in fact couples for whom it presents no particular difficulty; it's just a question of what the two people have ego invested in and how they compartmentalize, how the extended family dynamic plays out, etc). Also, and probably more significantly in the long run, there is a belief that a non-Christian partner will tend to drag the believing partner down and dilute or destroy their faith. The parallel that would usually be drawn is how the Israelites succumbed to the temptation to "go whoring after other gods" due to their intermarriage and commerce with the cultures they conquered / absorbed / had borders with.
Naturally if you believe you have the correct dogma, anything that would contradict or argue against that dogma is a danger to be avoided.
Thanks Mordant.
"do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers"
I genuinely hope there is more than this vague and wooly statement from the bible, to support 'forbidding' the marriage between a Christian and non-believer. To interpret 'yoked' as 'married' is pushing things a bit far.
Even so, I'd take 'unbeliever' as atheist. This says nothing about people who believe in god from other religions. Unless you are so fundamentalist, you don't recognise others interpretation of god as being the 'real' god.
I think I'd need to see a statement less open to interpretation that actually forbids a Christian marrying someone from another religion to understand Vizio's reasoning.
Quote:
All of this moves me to question, why would an unbelieving spouse tend to undermine the belief of their partner? Why wouldn't the faith of the believing partner undermine the unbelief of the other person? It's kind of telling that faith is so threatened by lack of faith, even amiable lack of faith. They are basically asserting that unbelief is more powerful than belief.
"do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers"
I genuinely hope there is more than this vague and wooly statement form this bible, to support 'forbidding' the marriage between a Christian and non-believer. To interpret 'yoked' as 'married' is pushing things a bit far.
Even so, I'd take 'unbeliever' as atheist. This says nothing about people who believe in god from other religions. Unless you are so fundamentalist, you don't recognise others interpretation of god as being the 'real' god.
I think I'd need to see a statement less open to interpretation that actually forbids a Christian marrying someone from another religion to understand Vizio's reasoning.
You have hit the nail on the head. I have some friends, She is Lutheran, raised Romanian Othodox, he is a mostly secular Catholic, and they would not see themselves as unequally yoked. They have very theologically liberal interpretations of the Bible and church tradition. If you survey liberal traditions, and people for whom their religion is a socio-cultural thing, I think you will find this attitude.
If on the other hand, you start at the Southern Baptist Convention, or the Assemblies of God, or a Pentacostal church and head toward the more fundementalist views, oyu will find this is a very common interpretation. Marriage is the most intimate, consuming form of "being yoked", so it it the one focused on. Some groups take it further, and feel that you should not enter in to joint business ventures or any other form of partnership with someone outside of your faith tradition, or at least a small circle around it. You see this attitude in other religions as well, Orthodox Judaism as the most obvious example here in the US.
It actually is funny to me that it is so odd to you, but I was raised with it. So even though I disagree with it, I understand the rationale.
-NoCapo
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
