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.
If you are unaware of how much gay tendencies were indoctrinated out of people in my young day you wouldn't place too much weight in those stats as suggesting (as it seems is your argument) that people are being indoctrinated into thinking they are gay.
Rabbis would be affiliated with a religion, right, not just some random person officiating weddings, right? So they obviously wouldn't be seen the same as a baker or government employee. No one that I have seen is asking for a church or pastor/rabbi to perform same sex marriages. This is clearly not the same as a baker refusing a gay couple.
But a baker who has gotten proper rabbinic certification (some of that certification is occasionally dependent on not being involved with events that are considered against religious norms) is also affiliated with religion. That's the thing -- it is very difficult to separate the person from the religious identity as expressed through work in Judaism. I'm a teacher. Let's say I teach in a religious school and am hired because of my religious identity. If I go and sing at an event which runs against religious norms, I can be fired because of my singing. So I refuse to work an event that I would otherwise work at because being at that event has been established by my employer to go against the essence of my religious identity.
People want to think that it is easy to draw the lines and say "I am operating as religious functionary, but you aren't" but in Judaism, those are much more intertwined and the consumers who choose these providers do so BECAUSE of that religious affiliation.
Yes the baker also receive death threats but it was he that took the entire issue publuc.
case closed
Quote:
And do you have evidence that LBGT people finance the Westboro Church or just another very religious poster who thinks the Ten Commandments apply only for others?
nobody is that stupid
Quote:
No idea about a Civil Union compromise. Is that like separate but equal rights for blacks? You do seem to have extreme dislike for LBGT. Are they also responsible for the spread of measles in New York?
how many people in NYC Since you are trying to attack me by guilt by association, how many people died from measles in the past 10 years?
The clear difference is in the actual ( as opposed to theoretical) participation in a religious ceremony. Providing a service for is not the same as officiating in. That is the disrtinction that makes the difference between exemption and social responsibility. One might add that if that rabbi is operating a public wedding chappel he would be expected to perform or stop operating the service.
But in Judaism, there is no clear difference and externally saying that there is doesn't change the nature of the religious law. In Judaism, there is actually no role for a rabbi in a wedding officially, but there is for people making food, singing and dancing.
it's a health hazard, that is a scientific fact, denying facts doesn't make them true.
Our school was next to a Jewish temple. During the 9/11 crisis, that temple was considered a possible target, and therefore a health hazard to the thousand kids we had in our school.
This one is pretty simple to answer. When states legalized same sex marriages before the Supreme Court ruling, every state law was very specific in making sure that any church could choose to refuse to host same sex weddings, and any religious official could refuse to perform such ceremonies. This made sure than a minister licensed to conduct weddings could refuse any that he felt were not good marriages, just like they do when they refuse to marry heterosexuals couples when they feel that the match may not be a good one.
So the rabbi role (not necessarily a rabbi, as Judaism doesn't really need rabbis) can discriminate, but someone else who performs a necessary and religiously mandated function at a wedding, like providing food, can't?
By the way, isn't this an official sanctioning of discrimination because of religion? A separate rule showing sensitivity to religious people and not forcing them to provide service that goes against their beliefs?
Same in Canada. Each denomination gets to decide. The United Church supports same sex marriages, the Catholic Church does not. I think the Anglican or maybe another of the smaller one, each congression decides on their own. Some Jewish congregations do and some don't.
It's worked for 14 years so far.
I don't remember one case of a bakery refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding but then Canadians as a rule have their religion more personal?
Albertan who handed out anti-gay pamphlets at Toronto Pride charged with promoting hate
No, my public morality expressed in its laws says stop bullies, and the law in many places does enshrine it, certainly in the places under discussion.
Learn, amoeba
you forced your "morality" on the public.
According to your logic if it is law it is moral.
so if we make a law all lgbt should be executed would you support it, no because you only believe in following the law when it meets your immoral sense of morality.
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.
