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.
I agree that freedom is a two way street. I think anyone, not just this venue, that cries about "religious freedom" is ridiculous. I grew up in a conservative Christian church (Herbert Armstrong). They could justify pretty much anything by picking certain Bible verses. Lots of rules in that church. Not that much about loving your neighbor, unless they were a church member.
My daughter is an IVF baby. We tried for two years to get pregnant and when it didn't happen, went through 3 IUI sessions and when those didn't work, we did IVF (thank goodness for insurance and my employer in MA at the time, which is required to cover fertility treatments to sell a policy there; we were out of pocket for meds and doc visits co pays)
A family friend of ours attacked both my wife and I for "playing god". "If god wanted you to get pregnant, he would will it. Apparently he doesn't want you to get pregnant and using modern medicine to get around that is sin".
So, given the logic based smartass I am, I replied with the following.
"Thank you for your concern [family friend's name]. While I am saddened that you think we are living in sin, I certainly respect your right to that opinion. Tell me though, if we're living in sin by using modern medicine to reach our goal....are you also living in sin by taking Oral Birth Control? Seems that too would also be "playing god" wouldn't it"?
Needless to say that line of questioning was never given an actual response. Self reflection can be tough for some people.
Using their logic, how could they justify any medical treatment? If god wanted you to survive a heart attack, he wouldn't have given you one in the first place ... no bypass surgery for you.
Using their logic, how could they justify any medical treatment? If god wanted you to survive a heart attack, he wouldn't have given you one in the first place ... no bypass surgery for you.
I have had the same question.
OT: Another GVoR anecdote. During college I worked at an Italian Brick Oven Pizza Restaurant (anyone from basically Philly to Boston can probably guess which one). During the summers, there was a huge Jehovah's Witness conference in the town and many times groups from the conference would come into eat. Our manager (a jovial British gentleman) would talk to all customers. One day there was a party from the conference having a meal in the restaurant and our Manager sparked up a conversation with a guest (he and her talked every time they were in the restaurant).
Be that as it may, they are making small talk about how their year had gone at which point the lady tells my manager that she lost her son during the year in a car accident. My manager extended his deepest sympathies for her loss and quipped about car accidents in the US (vis a vis the UK). She replied, paraphrasing, "....that he survived the car accident but had lost a lot of blood and given their faith couldn't receive a blood transfusion that would have saved his life....so he died...."
To this day (I stopped working there in 2005 when I graduated) I can't say I fully understand the thought process....but I'm probably not supposed to.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,585 posts, read 81,225,683 times
Reputation: 57822
Quote:
Originally Posted by GVoR
As long as they don't discriminate along the lines of predefined protected classes, pretty much. Has been the case since 1964.
It is a protected class, in that employers cannot discriminate on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation due to the additions to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. But. . .that only applies to voter registration requirements, racial segregation in schools and public accommodations, and employment discrimination. There is nothing about discrimination in wedding venues. Therefore these people are within the law, the only negative for them is loss of business from gay weddings, and from sympathizers of gays.
It is a protected class, in that employers cannot discriminate on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation due to the additions to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. But. . .that only applies to voter registration requirements, racial segregation in schools and public accommodations, and employment discrimination. There is nothing about discrimination in wedding venues. Therefore these people are within the law, the only negative for them is loss of business from gay weddings, and from sympathizers of gays.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act also covers business interactions with customers.
Businesses can't refuse service to a customer based on a protected class designations (Sexual Preference and Identity is a protected class in some states, but not at the Federal level currently)
ETA - As noted, business interactions would fall under the Public Accommodations section.
Quote:
PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS * In a restaurant, a group of Asian Americans waits for over an hour to be served, while white and Latino customers receive prompt service.
* Haitian American visitors to a hotel are told they must pay in cash rather than by credit card, are charged higher rates than other customers, and are not provided with the same amenities, such as towels and soap.
These examples may be violations of federal laws that prohibit discrimination because of national origin, race, color, or religion in places of public accommodation. Public accommodations include hotels, restaurants, and places of entertainment. If you believe you have been denied access to or equal enjoyment of a public accommodation where there is a pattern or practice of discrimination, contact the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section at (202) 514-4713. You may also write to:
Be that as it may, they are making small talk about how their year had gone at which point the lady tells my manager that she lost her son during the year in a car accident. My manager extended his deepest sympathies for her loss and quipped about car accidents in the US (vis a vis the UK). She replied, paraphrasing, "....that he survived the car accident but had lost a lot of blood and given their faith couldn't receive a blood transfusion that would have saved his life....so he died...."
To this day (I stopped working there in 2005 when I graduated) I can't say I fully understand the thought process....but I'm probably not supposed to.
When my niece was little she had a friend who was Christian Scientist - and my BIL had to have a sit down with the parents and make sure if anything happened to my niece in their care they'd get medical attention (the girls were attached at the hip). They said they would.
I grew up with a girl who was JW and she needed surgery for something, can't remember what, and she couldn't have it because of the risk of maybe needing a blood transfusion.
When my niece was little she had a friend who was Christian Scientist - and my BIL had to have a sit down with the parents and make sure if anything happened to my niece in their care they'd get medical attention (the girls were attached at the hip). They said they would.
I grew up with a girl who was JW and she needed surgery for something, can't remember what, and she couldn't have it because of the risk of maybe needing a blood transfusion.
I certainly can appreciate different strokes for different folks. But now, as a dad of two, there isn't any obstacle; be it physical, monetary or mythical that would stop me from doing whatever is necessary to ensure my kid's health and well being. Frankly I'd go to jail if it meant protecting my kids.
What about marriages which aren't conducted by the church; Catholic or otherwise?
I can certainly understand (even while I don't share their view) that Joe and and Jane Q Public may not support same sex marriage as it goes against their faith. Even though another couple getting married really has little to do with them; they certainly aren't entering into a gay marriage and aren't being asked to.
But there are many, many marriages which are not sacraments. I was married by a Justice of the Peace at the Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas after obtaining a marriage license at the Clark Co. Marriage License Bureau. While I was raised Catholic, I left the church when it came time to be Confirmed and my wife was raised a Wicken mother. We requested there be no mention of god, faith, religion, sacraments etc in our ceremony. Not because we are antagonistic towards faith, but because we weren't getting married in the context of our faith. Our ceremony was about us, joining together in a legal civil manner (and all the fun things that come with that, like tax returns, hospital visits etc) and to share that day with family and friends.
I have no issues with a Church declining to marry a gay couple. I have no issues with a small business, assuming it is legally set up a 501c3 non profit, from doing business in such an event. But beyond that, you lose me.
Marriage was a sacrament to you (?) and is to Catholics....but you're projecting if you apply that belief to everyone's situation. People can and are legally bound together in the eyes of the law and never did so within the confines of god. That may make their (my) marriage less real to you, but I assure you it isn't. The IRS disagrees with that position, as does the Social Security Administration, Private Insurance companies (and the employers who provide said benes) disagree with it.
In closing, here is the Rorschach test I apply to these situations when they come up. If the small business refuses to serve a gay couple based on religious beliefs, ok, then I must assume they also refuse to serve a straight couple whose marriage isn't the first for either, since a second marriage is a sin towards the first. Or that the couple in question didn't live together prior to getting married or that they didn't have sex before the ceremony (Corinthians has a bunch of verses on this).
If the small business isn't checking on those other situations (not first marriage, or if the couple is living in sin to name a couple) then their refusal to serve a gay couple really has very little to do with "not engaging with situations their faith tells them are sinful" and really is about something quite different. God doesn't allow men to pick and choose when it's ok to engage with a sinner and when its not...Ezekiel lays this out very clearly.
This is one of the most insightful and intelligent posts I've encountered in my 15+ years on City Data. Thank you for taking the time to lay things out in such brilliant detail.
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.
