| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/01/2012 08:40:32 PM · #376 |
Originally posted by klkitchens:
The main point is that a business should be able to refuse to photograph events that are contrary to their values and beliefs.
|
Not sure if this case has been brought up in this thread or not, but in response to your statement above... Where do you draw the line? At some point peoples 'values and beliefs' run contrary to the rights and freedoms of others.
Church Refuses to Marry Black Couple
I know this is a church, and not a photographer, but it is a case of the beliefs of one (in this case a group of people), vs. the rights of another.
Also, I wonder if Elane Photography would deny their services to heterosexual couples who lived together before they were married? How about to divorced couples marrying a second time? Would they deny it to couples that have had pre-marital relations? Children out of wedlock? People who took the Lords name in vain? Each of these scenarios are contrary to their values and beliefs, but they are only denying the homosexual couple. That reeks of discrimination to me. I've never seen any reference to a hierarchy of sin, where one sin is worse than others, so if they feel that homosexuality is a sin, why treat homosexuality any different than the other sins?
Message edited by author 2012-12-01 20:42:14. |
|
|
|
12/01/2012 11:40:21 PM · #377 |
Originally posted by VitaminB:
I've never seen any reference to a hierarchy of sin, where one sin is worse than others ... |
Oh there's a hierarchy all right -- look up the practice of granting "indulgences" ... |
|
|
|
12/02/2012 12:52:16 PM · #378 |
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Originally posted by klkitchens:
The main point is that a business should be able to refuse to photograph events that are contrary to their values and beliefs.
|
Not sure if this case has been brought up in this thread or not, but in response to your statement above... Where do you draw the line? At some point peoples 'values and beliefs' run contrary to the rights and freedoms of others.
|
The messiness of the situation is better illustrated when you replace "values and beliefs" in your sentence with "rights and freedoms". We must remember that having values and beliefs IS a "right and freedom" in this country. So, one right and freedom is running contrary to another right and freedom and that's why the courts are called in to help adjudicate. Neither side was claiming a false right was violated. Both sides had legitimate concerns. |
|
|
|
12/02/2012 01:05:35 PM · #379 |
| It's a strange issue because, in a purely objective sense, where there are hierarchies there WILL be discrimination, one way or the other. It's built into the system. So the issue is "What is an acceptable level of discrimination?" It's not about eliminating ALL discrimination, because that simply isn't possible. |
|
|
|
12/02/2012 01:32:08 PM · #380 |
That's a good point Robert. I think it can be illustrated on the marriage front as well. Often in these threads we see the parallel drawn between gay marriage and interracial marriage. I can understand the analogy people are trying to make, but the SCOTUS did not (or chose not to). In 1967 they, of course, ruled that a state could not prohibit interracial marriage. Five years later, in 1972 they chose not to hear a case on gay marriage which used the 1967 ruling as part of their argument. The SCOTUS ruled that there was "no substantial federal question" in the case and did not take it on.
Bans on interracial marriage and gay marriage are discriminatory (using that word in a neutral sense), but perhaps one level is allowed while another is not. (Then again something may have changed since 1972.) |
|
|
|
12/02/2012 06:38:39 PM · #381 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Bans on interracial marriage and gay marriage are discriminatory (using that word in a neutral sense), but perhaps one level is allowed while another is not. (Then again something may have changed since 1972.) |
In 1972 being gay was defined by the US medical community as being a mental illness, today it is considered a normal variation on the human condition. |
|
|
|
12/02/2012 07:28:01 PM · #382 |
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Also, I wonder if Elane Photography would deny their services to heterosexual couples who lived together before they were married? How about to divorced couples marrying a second time? Would they deny it to couples that have had pre-marital relations? Children out of wedlock? People who took the Lords name in vain? Each of these scenarios are contrary to their values and beliefs, but they are only denying the homosexual couple. That reeks of discrimination to me. I've never seen any reference to a hierarchy of sin, where one sin is worse than others, so if they feel that homosexuality is a sin, why treat homosexuality any different than the other sins? |
I think it's more correctly a question of "should they be allowed to" instead of "would they"... Many people don't decline to participate in something they consider sinful because they don't want to support some else sinning... It's because they believe that participation in such an event IS a sin... For them... Not for the couple, be they male / male, female / female, black / white, or have been cohabitating. They believe that it would be a sin FOR THEM.
That said, I am proud to live in Washington State where the voters agreed that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution applies to all. I am also very proud that the law specifically allows for people and organiztions not to be forced to participate in any event that would violate their 1st Amendment rights.
I wish that gay couples would understand that such lawsuits as this will set their cause back decades.
|
|
|
|
12/02/2012 09:55:58 PM · #383 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
(Then again something may have changed since 1972.) |
I will hazard a guess and opt for a definite MAYBE. :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
12/02/2012 09:58:09 PM · #384 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
I wish that gay couples would understand that such lawsuits as this will set their cause back decades. |
How so? I may not necessarily agree with the court's decision in this instance, but such a decision might make others think seriously about denying a service based solely on another person's sexual orientation.
Ray |
|
|
|
12/03/2012 02:01:04 PM · #385 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by myqyl:
I wish that gay couples would understand that such lawsuits as this will set their cause back decades. |
How so? I may not necessarily agree with the court's decision in this instance, but such a decision might make others think seriously about denying a service based solely on another person's sexual orientation.
Ray |
Perhaps so, but it will fuel the opposition to Gay Marraige Rights. Middle America is full of people that will (mostly I believe) say "Sure, they should be able to marry if they like, why not?" However the prospect that others may be forced to disavow their religion will make many of them think twice. Without the protections for Churches and Businesses in the Washington law I am not at all sure I would have voted for it. It would have been a MUCH harder decision. As it was it was a no brainer.
Yes, Gay couples have a 14th Amendment right to the same ability to enter into a contract as anyone else.
But equally Yes, People that feel it to be against their religion to participate in a ceremony (ANY ceremony) have a First Amendment right to refuse to participate.
I truly believe this will set back the Gay Rights movement. I can say for certain that I for one would no longer be a supporter.
|
|
|
|
12/03/2012 08:11:01 PM · #386 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
I truly believe this will set back the Gay Rights movement. I can say for certain that I for one would no longer be a supporter. |
So, if I understand you right, you only support them to a point, but now that some of them have stirred the pot up a little bit you remove your support?
Its like saying that you support them in their cause, but once they start fighting for their rights you've had enough of it, and your back to sitting on the sidelines. |
|
|
|
12/03/2012 09:16:59 PM · #387 |
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Originally posted by myqyl:
I truly believe this will set back the Gay Rights movement. I can say for certain that I for one would no longer be a supporter. |
So, if I understand you right, you only support them to a point, but now that some of them have stirred the pot up a little bit you remove your support?
Its like saying that you support them in their cause, but once they start fighting for their rights you've had enough of it, and your back to sitting on the sidelines. |
Actually, no. That's not what I said. What I said is that I will not support any movement that seeks to impose it's beliefs on others, and if the Gay Rights Movement starts to infinge on the rights of others I will withdraw my support.
Forcing others to disavow their religious beliefs is not "fighting for their rights". It is fighting to infringe on the rights of others, and it is simply wrong. No one has the right to force someone to go against their religious beliefs.
I am neither gay nor a right wing fundamentalist zealot, but I will actively defend the rights of both groups. As long as they don't infringe on the other group.
Message edited by author 2012-12-03 21:22:18.
|
|
|
|
12/03/2012 10:22:14 PM · #388 |
| Yikes. Someone suddenly starts talking in rant with a tone of reason. What the heck? |
|
|
|
12/03/2012 10:58:56 PM · #389 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Originally posted by myqyl:
I truly believe this will set back the Gay Rights movement. I can say for certain that I for one would no longer be a supporter. |
So, if I understand you right, you only support them to a point, but now that some of them have stirred the pot up a little bit you remove your support?
Its like saying that you support them in their cause, but once they start fighting for their rights you've had enough of it, and your back to sitting on the sidelines. |
Actually, no. That's not what I said. What I said is that I will not support any movement that seeks to impose it's beliefs on others, and if the Gay Rights Movement starts to infinge on the rights of others I will withdraw my support.
Forcing others to disavow their religious beliefs is not "fighting for their rights". It is fighting to infringe on the rights of others, and it is simply wrong. No one has the right to force someone to go against their religious beliefs.
I am neither gay nor a right wing fundamentalist zealot, but I will actively defend the rights of both groups. As long as they don't infringe on the other group. |
You are of course aware of the involvement of the church in trying to deny the gay community the right to marry. I am intrigued as to what your views would be relative to this attempt on infringement on the rights of others.
Ray |
|
|
|
12/03/2012 10:59:41 PM · #390 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Yikes. Someone suddenly starts talking in rant with a tone of reason. What the heck? |
Oh sorry... Don't know what came over me...
You're all Hitler!!!
|
|
|
|
12/03/2012 11:08:11 PM · #391 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by myqyl:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Originally posted by myqyl:
I truly believe this will set back the Gay Rights movement. I can say for certain that I for one would no longer be a supporter. |
So, if I understand you right, you only support them to a point, but now that some of them have stirred the pot up a little bit you remove your support?
Its like saying that you support them in their cause, but once they start fighting for their rights you've had enough of it, and your back to sitting on the sidelines. |
Actually, no. That's not what I said. What I said is that I will not support any movement that seeks to impose it's beliefs on others, and if the Gay Rights Movement starts to infinge on the rights of others I will withdraw my support.
Forcing others to disavow their religious beliefs is not "fighting for their rights". It is fighting to infringe on the rights of others, and it is simply wrong. No one has the right to force someone to go against their religious beliefs.
I am neither gay nor a right wing fundamentalist zealot, but I will actively defend the rights of both groups. As long as they don't infringe on the other group. |
You are of course aware of the involvement of the church in trying to deny the gay community the right to marry. I am intrigued as to what your views would be relative to this attempt on infringement on the rights of others.
Ray |
My reaction was to defy my Church and vote (as well as vocally speak out on Catholic.com) in favor of Gay Marriage Rights. I have never supported the Church's efforts to deny the rights of others and have been VERY vocal on forums and at my Church. If you would like to see what I mean, I have the same username on catholic.com's forum and have come fairly close to being banned there. Just as I am vocal and honest in my opposition to any attempt by the Gay community to deny the Church's rights.
|
|
|
|
12/04/2012 06:04:21 AM · #392 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by myqyl:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Originally posted by myqyl:
I truly believe this will set back the Gay Rights movement. I can say for certain that I for one would no longer be a supporter. |
So, if I understand you right, you only support them to a point, but now that some of them have stirred the pot up a little bit you remove your support?
Its like saying that you support them in their cause, but once they start fighting for their rights you've had enough of it, and your back to sitting on the sidelines. |
Actually, no. That's not what I said. What I said is that I will not support any movement that seeks to impose it's beliefs on others, and if the Gay Rights Movement starts to infinge on the rights of others I will withdraw my support.
Forcing others to disavow their religious beliefs is not "fighting for their rights". It is fighting to infringe on the rights of others, and it is simply wrong. No one has the right to force someone to go against their religious beliefs.
I am neither gay nor a right wing fundamentalist zealot, but I will actively defend the rights of both groups. As long as they don't infringe on the other group. |
You are of course aware of the involvement of the church in trying to deny the gay community the right to marry. I am intrigued as to what your views would be relative to this attempt on infringement on the rights of others.
Ray |
My reaction was to defy my Church and vote (as well as vocally speak out on Catholic.com) in favor of Gay Marriage Rights. I have never supported the Church's efforts to deny the rights of others and have been VERY vocal on forums and at my Church. If you would like to see what I mean, I have the same username on catholic.com's forum and have come fairly close to being banned there. Just as I am vocal and honest in my opposition to any attempt by the Gay community to deny the Church's rights. |
I am certain that we could discuss this till both of our jaws fell off, but surely you cannot believe that your actions are reflective of the norm in the church, just like the court case referred to is reflective of the entire gay community.
When one considers that you were almost banned for expressing your views, I really have to wonder about the level of tolerance the members of your church have.
Ray
|
|
|
|
12/04/2012 08:54:31 AM · #393 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
I am certain that we could discuss this till both of our jaws fell off, but surely you cannot believe that your actions are reflective of the norm in the church, just like the court case referred to is reflective of the entire gay community.
When one considers that you were almost banned for expressing your views, I really have to wonder about the level of tolerance the members of your church have.
Ray |
Hi Ray,
Actually my actions are far more common in the Church than the media would let on. There are a large number of Catholics (I believe a majority in the US) that adhere to the Catechism, which says of gays : "They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." (ccc 2358) It is not a coincident that President Obama won the majority of Catholic votes. Catholic.com isn't so much a Catholic forum as it is a Republican Catholic forum. I would be proud to be banned ;) but so far they have been too tolerant.
Of course I know that this court case is not representative of (or supported by) the entire gay community. I doubt there is anything that is representative of any community in entirety.
All I'm saying here, is that this court case will have a backlash. A severe one. Millions of voters who would normally stand on the side of reason will think twice before approving Equal Marraige Protection in their states. And nothing you or I say will change that.
If I were asked for advice (which understandably I'm not) I would say that the Gay Community should vocally condemn this court case and call it what it is, retaliatory over-reaching. "You oppressed me, now see how you like it!" All that will achieve will be the denial of Equal Marriage Protection in states that have yet to achieve it.
But your right, we likely could type till our fingers are numb... I don't think we are really far apart in our opinions and I certainly believe we are both reasonable enough to "agree to disagree" on this one.
God bless
Mike |
|
|
|
12/04/2012 12:10:41 PM · #394 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
My reaction was to defy my Church and vote (as well as vocally speak out on Catholic.com) in favor of Gay Marriage Rights. I have never supported the Church's efforts to deny the rights of others and have been VERY vocal on forums and at my Church. |
Part of the difference is that you're talking about individuals against an institution, and that institution is not known either for its tolerance or willingness to change and progress. When an institution speaks with its collective, it naturally carries more weight than an individual, especially when its members will back it, even at the expense of others' rights and customs. This creates an unfair advantage, and one that's not necessarily in the right.
|
|
|
|
12/04/2012 01:04:47 PM · #395 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by myqyl:
My reaction was to defy my Church and vote (as well as vocally speak out on Catholic.com) in favor of Gay Marriage Rights. I have never supported the Church's efforts to deny the rights of others and have been VERY vocal on forums and at my Church. |
Part of the difference is that you're talking about individuals against an institution, and that institution is not known either for its tolerance or willingness to change and progress. When an institution speaks with its collective, it naturally carries more weight than an individual, especially when its members will back it, even at the expense of others' rights and customs. This creates an unfair advantage, and one that's not necessarily in the right. |
I'm not sure I understand what you mean here (and I certainly disagree with your characterization of the Church). Are you saying that a Church does not have a right to preach what it believes to be right and wrong?
On a side note, I have to assume that you know very little about what the Catholic Church actually teaches. I am taught by the Church that I must be ready to die to defend gays from attack. Literally, not figuratively. I am told, in no uncertain terms that "They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided". (ccc 2358)
Perhaps our definitions of tolerance aren't in sync? Or perhaps you see the media image of Catholics and buy into it. Consider the media's depiction of virtually any group that you understand well and you'll likely see how inaccurate that can be.
|
|
|
|
12/04/2012 01:09:29 PM · #396 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by myqyl:
My reaction was to defy my Church and vote (as well as vocally speak out on Catholic.com) in favor of Gay Marriage Rights. I have never supported the Church's efforts to deny the rights of others and have been VERY vocal on forums and at my Church. |
Part of the difference is that you're talking about individuals against an institution, and that institution is not known either for its tolerance or willingness to change and progress. When an institution speaks with its collective, it naturally carries more weight than an individual, especially when its members will back it, even at the expense of others' rights and customs. This creates an unfair advantage, and one that's not necessarily in the right. |
I'm not sure I understand what you mean here (and I certainly disagree with your characterization of the Church). Are you saying that a Church does not have a right to preach what it believes to be right and wrong?
On a side note, I have to assume that you know very little about what the Catholic Church actually teaches. I am taught by the Church that I must be ready to die to defend gays from attack. Literally, not figuratively. I am told, in no uncertain terms that "They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided". (ccc 2358)
Perhaps our definitions of tolerance aren't in sync? Or perhaps you see the media image of Catholics and buy into it. Consider the media's depiction of virtually any group that you understand well and you'll likely see how inaccurate that can be. |
Umm. It's really not just the media that tends to characterize the church as such. It's really more history that does that, and a slathering of personal experience. Perhaps your church is different. Perhaps it is not... Either way, the church, as an organization, is absolutely not known for their progressive attitudes. |
|
|
|
12/04/2012 01:21:25 PM · #397 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Umm. It's really not just the media that tends to characterize the church as such. It's really more history that does that, and a slathering of personal experience. Perhaps your church is different. Perhaps it is not... Either way, the church, as an organization, is absolutely not known for their progressive attitudes. |
Seriously in danger of derailing the thread to a wildly different track. If you'd like to discuss the teachings and history (the actual teaching and history) of the Church I'd be glad to... But this ain't the place for that. Photography didn't exist for the first 1800 years of the Church, so I'd guess another forum entirely would be best. Are you active on any Theology forums?
I will point out though that "Progressive" isn't really always "good".
This thread is about a court case and the end result of that case. I believe the result will be anything but "Progress".
|
|
|
|
12/04/2012 01:26:48 PM · #398 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
Originally posted by Cory:
Umm. It's really not just the media that tends to characterize the church as such. It's really more history that does that, and a slathering of personal experience. Perhaps your church is different. Perhaps it is not... Either way, the church, as an organization, is absolutely not known for their progressive attitudes. |
Seriously in danger of derailing the thread to a wildly different track. If you'd like to discuss the teachings and history (the actual teaching and history) of the Church I'd be glad to... But this ain't the place for that. Photography didn't exist for the first 1800 years of the Church, so I'd guess another forum entirely would be best. Are you active on any Theology forums?
I will point out though that "Progressive" isn't really always "good".
This thread is about a court case and the end result of that case. I believe the result will be anything but "Progress". |
Strange how widely perceptions can differ. You and I see the church very differently, and we see this topic differently.
You see something that relates to photography, I see something that is related to religious silliness.
Tell me, do you actually think this could have happened in the absence of religion? |
|
|
|
12/04/2012 01:30:32 PM · #399 |
You'll have to forgive them myqyl. The participants on these threads are very used to casting things in a black-and-white light. They don't quite know what to do with someone like you. Just admitting you are Christian makes you suspect in their eyes.
Your position is closer to my own (although it is different in some important regards). Over time I have evolved and now think that if society wants to vote on such things they can do it. If they want to vote for gay marriage then so be it. If they want to vote against, so be it as well. I, as a citizen, am a part of that process and a vote in favor or in dissent is open to me based on whatever I want to base it upon. The courts can be charged with deciding what public opinion is within the guidelines of our country and what is not.
I do think this specific case is one I am against. I only take solace in the words of the ruling, "Although the language of Article II, Section 11 is different from that of the First Amendment and may provide broader protection, determination of its scope remains for another day." That section states "Every man shall be free to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and no person shall ever be molested or denied any civil or political right or privilege on account of his religious opinion or mode of religious worship." |
|
|
|
12/04/2012 01:44:34 PM · #400 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Strange how widely perceptions can differ. You and I see the church very differently, and we see this topic differently.
|
I don't find that strange at all :-) You and I are two different people. I would consider it strange if we didn't have a different perspective...
Originally posted by Cory:
You see something that relates to photography, I see something that is related to religious silliness.
|
Actually I see a THREAD that relates to photography. Specifically the photography business. Perhaps you missed the Original Post?
Originally posted by Cory:
Tell me, do you actually think this could have happened in the absence of religion? |
Absolutely... Do you think all homophobes are religious? I mean really!?!
But let's be frank here... You're not asking me about the thread. You're baiting to see if you can get me argue with you so you can ridicule a religion you know little or nothing about. As I said, I'd be glad to chew on some yummie yummie Troll Bait... just not here... This is the wrong place for that bit of mud slinging...
Ask me why I have a Nikon instead of a "real" camera and I'll argue with you here...
|
|
