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.
1. Did anyone in the post slavery era challenge the outlawing of slavery in court (not in casual argument) on the basis of religious expression? [followup -- if so, how did the courts rule and justify any impingement on religious freedom? This would establish a good precedent for walking that fine line in the current case]
2. Can the beliefs of one set of theists be used to justify the judging of the validity of another set of theists?
I also wonder if one might distinguish between the outlawing of an institution which is ruled illegal but which was allowed, yet not mandatory under religious law, from outlawing a behavior which is mandatory. During prohibition, there were religious exemptions because of the mandatory nature of wine drinking in religion (though that is distinguished as a "victimless" allowance, as opposed to discrimination which involves others).
I see no point in trying to re -evaluate current law on same sex marriage by what was done in the 1860's or to what extent religion was involved. Expressing humanist sentiments in religious terms ('these souls are God's children as much as we are' translates perfectly into 'these people are human beings, just like us'. Also the precedent is in place. Trying to find analogies to show it wrong is pointless. The only argument now is about drawing the line.
Prohibition would surely make exceptions about alcohol on medical grounds as much as religious. The difference there was that drinking was socially harmful rather than it was against religion. Another example might be Scientology being pressed to pay taxes. They fought the IRS to a standstill. And I have to say that they had the law on their side, too as they are regarded as a religion and so tax exempt.
Just a couple of thoughts, as I can't quite get what argument you are actually trying to make. as the issue seems cut and dried anyway:
The precedent is established
there is a line drawn where the rights of the SS couple are deemed to have intruded on the personal beliefs of the believer. This I call the 'Two dudes rule'. The iced cake does not violate the believer's rights in Legal precedent (no matter what they might think about it), but putting two men on top of the cake is an action that requires assent to same sex marriage that is rejected on religious grounds, which is their personal right to belief, no matter what the SS lobby may think about it. That's the Line (it seems to me) and is drawn and there is no conflict in Law or precedent
Quote:
Originally Posted by rosends
No, I am discussing an article which records that the US courts defended a business's right to discriminate against SS couples because the majority of the court saw a valid legal argument, and I'm pointing out how, if it is possible for both sides to have legally sanctioned arguments, then there is a conflict inherent in the US legal system.
No. There is a question in where the line should be drawn in a legal precedent that has been set. It does not imply that there is a problem with the precedent, never mind the legal system itself. I would need to know whether the wedding invitation printed the names of the couple rather than leaving it blank. This is what I call the 'Two dudes' rule. Just a cake even decorated for a SS wedding is Not infringing a person's beliefs - not directly enough to be discriminating, in fact against their beliefs. But if 'wedding of Samantha and Tabitha' was required to be printed, then i can see that this crosses the 'Two dudes' rule and the SC ruling makes sense to me. It also means that there is no 'conflict' in the precedent ruling.
This means of course that the hoped for rolling back of the precedent itself is not going to happen.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-24-2019 at 05:38 AM..
You guys are now going around in circles. Where a poster's true sentiments lie are often most apparent when we see how long they persist in going on and on about a particular topic.
No. There is a question in where the line should be drawn in a legal precedent that has been set. It does not imply that there is a problem with the precedent, never mind the legal system itself. I would need to know whether the wedding invitation printed the names of the couple rather than leaving it blank. This is what I call the 'Two dudes' rule. Just a cake even decorated for a SS wedding is Not infringing a person's beliefs - not directly enough to be discriminating, in fact against their beliefs. But if 'wedding of Samantha and Tabitha' was required to be printed, then i can see that this crosses the 'Two dudes' rule and the SC ruling makes sense to me. It also means that there is no 'conflict' in the precedent ruling.
This means of course that the hoped for rolling back of the precedent itself is not going to happen.
OK, so if I'm understanding your point, now we have not a problem with the law ("the protection of religious expression") but the litigation over the line which would be drawn between "protected expression" and "unprotected expression". My concern is that you have substituted your sensibility for a legal standard. You assert, "Just a cake even decorated for a SS wedding is Not infringing a person's beliefs - not directly enough to be discriminating, in fact against their beliefs." But that's your take. The courts would have to be the ones drawing the line. I haven't seen that line clearly expressed in legal decisions.
"does religious beliefs allow for discrimination or not. Apparently only atheists have to treat others fairly and nicely. Religious people can treat others like less than equal"
If your response to recognizing this problem isn't to try and change the nature of religious freedoms then that's my mistaken inference. I thought you were presenting a solution. My bad if you weren't. I thought it was an honest and interesting direction for the conversation.
Thank you -- I do think that that decision, extreme though it appears, might be one of the ways we have to consider to eliminate this discrimination under the law. It will cause other problems and we have to consider the cost/benefit of it.
There is nothing in the Jewish law about helping a gay person. When I see a guy with a flat tire, I don't have him fill out a form to vet him. The line between facilitating directly and indirectly is complex in Jewish law. Certainly, though, it isn't about intolerance on any level. A gay person visited my work place. I offered him a cup of coffee. If we held religious services, he would be part of them. The question is much more technical than you are presenting it.
Interesting...
So it depends on whether you KNOW a person is gay? I think we all would agree there are gay people who almost make it impossible not to recognize they are gay, so say the guy with the flat tire is "flaming" gay. Obviously. No need for a form. You just know the guy is gay. Now you have cause not to help him? Do you pass him by because you can tell the guy is obviously gay?
"Technical" for you perhaps. Nothing of the sort for me...
YES! The major failing is that law shifts with the times.
"Major failing?"
"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions, I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know, also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times."
"We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
This is getting scary...you and I agreeing on things!
As you know, I'm not one to determine the right or wrong of any opinion based on the number of people who may or may not agree. Some people in this forum love to form their gangs and then gang bang others, taking turns to demonstrate their solidarity by patting each other on the back while taking swipes at their victim. Not my sort of thing. I prefer sticking to the merits of the argument above all else, but it is a little "scary" when people typically on different sides of an argument seem able to see some of these sorts of civil rights basics in the same way. When it comes to fighting discrimination, bigotry and unnecessary ill-treatment of gay people, for example, the common inclination to that end is refreshing...
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.
