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.
However, when someone brings a case they have been harmed. The "line" or basis on which to judge is forced upon our court system, and again they are the ones our system of government has appointed to decide for us. Simple as this. Right?
All I have pointed out is that when someone claimed harm, the court system decided that they were not harmed as much as the practitioner would be harmed (a different question of the process of law, balancing past harm with potential future harm) if forced to comply. Are you comfortable ceding power of decision to the courts when they make rulings which elevate religious practice over equal rights to the LGBTQ community?
I used the example of Mormons and polygamy earlier, and then I got to thinking about my "live and let live" principle and how there really is no issue if you don't impose your beliefs on others...
Polygamists did everything they could to AVOID bringing attention to their polygamist ways, but being polygamists doesn't impose on others, so why is the line drawn where it is in this case, against polygamists?
Another head-scratcher of sorts where the conflict of religious beliefs conflict with secular laws that don't recognize these religious beliefs or laws above the secular laws of the land.
Perhaps the moral of the story is to believe and do what you want and to keep it private so the matter doesn't become a public one, involving others. Ya think?
I don't know if I can be asked to be one person in private and another in public (or if that can be used to excuse behaviors). Just a thought.
Problem is when any religion uses a holy book for reference, a book we can all consider from the standpoint of what any religion considers divine guidance with respect to these matters, in black and white. Hard to ignore or excuse what these Holy books say and how most religious people act accordingly even though there are those in every religion who are not fundamental adherents. The exceptions don't make the rule. rosends tends to represent the rule rather than the exceptions, as I think most rabbis do.
Except I have tried very hard not to represent anything other than the facts of a cse that is unrelated to me. I have kept my own position out of it, mostly because it is irrelevant, and secondarily because I'm not sure what my position is. Other than being a guy.
Rosends, let me ask you.
Did you investigate the opinions of the judges as to "Custom Invitation" ruling went the way it did?
A brief look turned this up...
".....even though the justices limited their ruling to custom wedding invitations."
The arguments of the justices can usually be found as to the 'why' of this particular ruling and I would suspect the 'custom', (not generally and/or generically sold) has much to do with it
I did not look them up, no, and I saw all the provisos and limitations in the article. My point has not (at least I have tried not to make it) about providing a random service, but providing the specific service to the specific people in question. Whether the refusal to sell is to sell custom invitations or generic ones simply means that the court is willing to attempt to draw a line defending one action on the basis of religion and not another. This doesn't change the issue, that religion is protected in that case over the right not to be discriminated against. The court's reason (at least that of the majority) is still the same -- "...the guarantees of free speech and freedom of religion are not only for those who are deemed sufficiently enlightened, advanced, or progressive."
Except I have tried very hard not to represent anything other than the facts of a cse that is unrelated to me. I have kept my own position out of it, mostly because it is irrelevant, and secondarily because I'm not sure what my position is. Other than being a guy.
Except that you're apparently a rabbi speaking publicly.
Then just maybe , using one specific ruling, you're arguing your supposed points from a matter of ignorance ?
My point (and the article cites another case) is just that the court decided in this case the way it did for the reason that it stated it did. What other supposed point is there?
Now that I read the article again, it seems that what allowed the court to issue that ruling is that, on a state level, the gay community is not a protected class (yet?). But the SCOTUS decision is still extant.
Yes, about a court case that is interesting because it shows a conflict in US law. And?
Leaders are often seen as representatives of their religions or organizations. When I was a teacher and principal (before retirement), I had to restrict my public statements and behaviors because they reflected on my school system.
Leaders are often seen as representatives of their religions or organizations. When I was a teacher and principal (before retirement), I had to restrict my public statements and behaviors because they reflected on my school system.
Who said I'm a leader?
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.
