[OT]
 

[OT]

[QUOTE=chappy;365441][URL]http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/01/26/oklahoma-republican-would-rather-ban-all-marriages-including-straight-ones-than-legalize-marriage-equality/[/URL][/QUOTE]It was not until I moved away from Oklahoma, after growing up there my first 28 years, that I gradually became aware that not every state's legislators were as wacky as Oklahoma's ... and Texas's.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;365504][OT]

It was not until I moved away from Oklahoma, after growing up there my first 28 years, that I gradually became aware that not every state's legislators were as wacky as [U]Oklahoma's ... and [/U][B][U]Texas's[/U][/B].[/QUOTE]

rAmen!

There is some interesting commentary about Mike Turner's bill to cease marriage altogether in this article. The writer draws parallels with other contexts in which homophobes make their arguments a self-fulfilling prophecy. The proposed removal of state-recognised marriage seems to be an attempt to fulfill the argument that same sex marriage will cause the downfall of marriage altogether.
[URL]http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/fairness-gay-couples-might-harm-your-marriage-it%E2%80%99s-your-own-fault280114[/URL]
[QUOTE]To all the anti-gays I have argued with over the years, here is my message: ‘Yes, I was wrong in all those arguments. I am not sorry for arguing for marriage equality. I was then, and still am, right about that. I am still right about its justice and that it holds the highest of ethics and moral principles to support it.
‘What I am sorry for is missing the obvious. To my credit, I honestly did not believe that you would take, or consider taking, actions that make your concerns a self-fulfilling prophecy. I thought better of you than you appear now to be.
‘Mr Turner is saying on your behalf: “If we can’t have it exclusively, then we will see to it that no one has it.” I did not see that coming.
[/QUOTE]

I still think homosexuality is a sin, but this video is pure awesomeness.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owtoKu3eJE8[/url]

Let's forget about gay marriage and call it same-sex marriage, how about that? I don't think the government has any business deciding sexual issues, but everybody loves tax write-offs. So take sex out of the politics with the same-sex marriage debate(you gotta get the gay rights people on board with this) and I'll happily write my Congressman and Senator and tell them voting Yes is fine with me.

Frankly I've ever thought the government should be involved in marriage, so I'm not opposed to this recent (and unusual) turn of events.

[QUOTE=jasong;365897]Let's forget about gay marriage and call it same-sex marriage, how about that? I don't think the government has any business deciding sexual issues, but everybody loves tax write-offs. So take sex out of the politics with the same-sex marriage debate(you gotta get the gay rights people on board with this) and I'll happily write my Congressman and Senator and tell them voting Yes is fine with me.[/QUOTE]
Well, yes.

If you've ever attended a wedding, Jason, you'll know that the sentiments expressed at these occasions by, on behalf of, and towards, the happy couple have nothing to do with their sex lives. If you know any married couples socially, you are aware that their circle of friends does not usually concern itself with what they do in their bedroom. (Tax write-offs are similarly no-one else's business, but now I'm quibbling.)

It seems that Trevor Moore has managed to achieve, with a song, what years of debate here in this thread spectacularly failed to do.

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;365906]Frankly I've ever thought the government should be involved in marriage, so I'm not opposed to this recent (and unusual) turn of events.[/QUOTE]
I guess you are referring to the movement in Oklahoma to stop state recognition of marriage altogether, right?

[url]http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/gay-norway-minister-take-husband-sochi040214[/url]

Another reason to avoid Kansas..
 

[url]http://www.kansascity.com/2014/02/11/4814758/full-house-vote-expected-on-bill.html[/url]

[QUOTE=chappy;366779][URL]http://www.kansascity.com/2014/02/11/4814758/full-house-vote-expected-on-bill.html[/URL][/QUOTE]

Yeah, I'm ashamed to live here. Fortunately it's not as bad in the few urban areas of the state. Alas...the south is much worse.

[QUOTE=gd_barnes;366834]Yeah, I'm ashamed to live here. Fortunately it's not as bad in the few urban areas of the state. Alas...the south is much worse.[/QUOTE]

A sincere question...

Do you, or anyone, have a theory as to why the more "urban" areas (or, dare we say "metropolitan", in the case of cities) seem to be correlate with greater tolerance?

Might it be because being exposed to more diversity (or, at least, educated about same) one might become more tolerant of "the other"?

Perhaps cities have fewer churches per square mile?

:rakes:

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;366863]Perhaps cities have fewer churches per square mile?[/QUOTE]

I get the joke (and thanks for that), but I would argue it will be a function of churches per human.

And Mosques. And Synagogues. And Buddhist temples.

And other places where people should feel (and hopefully usually are) safe, including just a nearby river, forest or park, or a library or a book store....

The last time I drove from Chicago to Texas, I took the more westerly route, which crosses Kansas and Oklahoma. I found the messages on the many church sign boards extremely depressing. Example: "Forget the Constitution. God's law rules."

I also found a line from Monty Python stuck in my head: "'elp, 'elp, Oim bein' oppressed!"

Of course, things were no better in much of Texas.

[QUOTE=chalsall;366856]A sincere question...

Do you, or anyone, have a theory as to why the more "urban" areas (or, dare we say "metropolitan", in the case of cities) seem to be correlate with greater tolerance?

Might it be because being exposed to more diversity (or, at least, educated about same) one might become more tolerant of "the other"?[/QUOTE]
It's a really interesting question, and here's my personal opinion:

Yes, I think it has to do with being exposed to more diversity, but I think it's a bit more subtle - and sadly less honorable - than you imply.

People are inherently very choosy about who they count as their friends. They will prefer to be friendly with people who are similar in nature and attitudes to themselves. BUT: in a rural setting, where there are few people around, there is a greater need to be friendly with everyone, because otherwise you will not have enough friends. Therefore there will be less tolerance of people who are "different" in a rural situation, because that disrupts the perceived necessity of the small community being close-knit.

In an urban situation, on the other hand, anyone who is "different" can be safely ignored in favour of others as regards one's social circle, because there are plenty of people to choose from. "Different" people are therefore less disruptive to one's social network because they can easily remain as complete strangers.

That's only my opinion and it's not backed up by any scientific evidence as far as I'm aware. What do others here think?

Just another thought along the same lines:

Perhaps sporting teams, certainly professional ones for whose players the sport is pretty much their life, can be regarded as models, microcosm models, of a rural community. The players are strongly bonded together. Anyone who is perceived as "different" in the team has a serious negative influence on the whole team, because each player is too valuable to the team to ignore. If the team consisted of hundreds or thousands of players, on the other hand, it would not matter.

What do we see with professional team sports such as soccer, NFL, basketball, etc? They are amongst the very last areas of society where the members feel able to come out as lesbian or gay. In some of these professional sports, soccer for example, virtually no-one does to this day.

The professional NFL player Michael Sam has recently come out as gay. It is so unusual that it is huge news. And perhaps this article by the author Michael Brown, whose views on the subject I wholeheartedly disagree with, does at least have the merit of pinpointing the hang-ups which members of a close-knit, highly interdependent, community such as a professional NFL team have when a member comes out as gay. Brown thinks that Michael Sam should have kept his sexual orientation under wraps for the sake of his team.

[URL]http://www.christianpost.com/news/5-questions-about-the-possibility-of-an-openly-gay-nfl-player-114375/[/URL]

[QUOTE]I don't doubt the players who say that their focus is on sports, not sex, and I don't doubt that many gay athletes have never given a hint of their sexuality to their heterosexual teammates.

But once they have made their announcement, how can everyone be expected to feel completely comfortable? And with the "bromance" type of close relationships that many players enjoy, would they be as physical and free with a homosexual teammate?
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=chappy;366779][url]http://www.kansascity.com/2014/02/11/4814758/full-house-vote-expected-on-bill.html[/url][/QUOTE]

This is just religious based bigotry and hatred at its worst. Typical
Republican thinking.

And they claim that their religious rights are denied [i]unless[/i] they
are allowed to discriminate against others.

Pure horseshit. The right to practice religion does not give one the
right to discriminate against others based upon those beliefs.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;366965]This is just religious based bigotry and hatred at its worst. Typical
Republican thinking.

And they claim that their religious rights are denied [I]unless[/I] they
are allowed to discriminate against others.

Pure horseshit. The right to practice religion does not give one the
right to discriminate against others based upon those beliefs.[/QUOTE]

+1! :goodposting:

[QUOTE=kladner;366976]+1! :goodposting:[/QUOTE]

What puzzles me:

Where do they get all this hatred? Jesus preached love and tolerance.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;366993]What puzzles me:

Where do they get all this hatred? Jesus preached love and tolerance.[/QUOTE]

I'm good with blaming St Paul for laying the groundwork for the systems of controlling people through guilt and fear.

Throw in the Old Testament proscriptions, well spiced with Biblical Literalism, and filter it through a bunch of Talibangelists whose TV ratings and pools of [STRIKE]marks[/STRIKE] contributors depend on how much fire and brimstone they spew, and all sorts of creepy-crawlies may come out which are quite at odds with the [STRIKE]supposed[/STRIKE] reported words of Jesus. :no:

[QUOTE=kladner;367001]I'm good with blaming St Paul for laying the groundwork for the systems of controlling people through guilt and fear.

Throw in the Old Testament proscriptions, well spiced with Biblical Literalism, and filter it through a bunch of Talibangelists whose TV ratings and pools of [STRIKE]marks[/STRIKE] contributors depend on how much fire and brimstone they spew, and all sorts of creepy-crawlies may come out which are quite at odds with the [STRIKE]supposed[/STRIKE] reported words of Jesus. :no:[/QUOTE]

I have a different theory. These people are poorly educated. They
suffer from low self esteem and in order to feel good about themselves
they make themselves [b]feel superior[/b] by finding a minority group to
belittle, put down, and pretend that they are "inferior" and not fully
human.

That is probably a better statement of the real mechanisms at play. However, such people [I]are[/I] easy prey for bible thumpers.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;367004]These people are poorly educated. They
suffer from low self esteem and in order to feel good about themselves
they make themselves [B]feel superior[/B] by finding a minority group to
belittle, put down, and pretend that they are "inferior" and not fully
human.[/QUOTE]
:goodposting:

[QUOTE=kladner;367001]I'm good with blaming St Paul for laying the groundwork for the systems of controlling people through guilt and fear.

Throw in the Old Testament proscriptions, well spiced with Biblical Literalism, and filter it through a bunch of Talibangelists whose TV ratings and pools of [STRIKE]marks[/STRIKE] contributors depend on how much fire and brimstone they spew, and all sorts of creepy-crawlies may come out which are quite at odds with the [STRIKE]supposed[/STRIKE] reported words of Jesus. :no:[/QUOTE]

I think it's high time that those who wish to apply the old testament proscriptions selectively were made to apply all of them to themselves, and suffer the punishments as well.

[QUOTE=BudgieJane;367179]I think it's high time that those who wish to apply the old testament proscriptions selectively were made to apply all of them to themselves, and suffer the punishments as well.[/QUOTE]
Hear, hear.:smile:

Mike contributed a useful list of suggestions along those lines some time ago in this thread:
[URL]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=302610[/URL]

[QUOTE=gd_barnes;366834]Yeah, I'm ashamed to live here. Fortunately it's not as bad in the few urban areas of the state. Alas...the south is much worse.[/QUOTE]

[url]http://www.kansas.com/2014/02/16/3293904/kansas-senate-leaders-likely-to.html[/url]

Good news from your state! Even the ultra-religious conservatives are backing down (pushed in some measure by the business community)

[QUOTE=kladner;366874]"Forget the Constitution. God's law rules."[/QUOTE]
I'm in favor of forgetting the Constitution because of the mistaken notion that lawmakers actually give a damn what it says.

And, yes, I'm off-topic yet again. Sorry. :(

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;366965]This is just religious based bigotry and hatred at its worst. Typical
Republican thinking.[/quote]
lolwut? So religious people are mostly Republican, is that what you're saying? What about all the huge black churches? Are they filled with Republicans as well?

[quote]And they claim that their religious rights are denied [i]unless[/i] they
are allowed to discriminate against others.[/quote]
How do they discriminate against them? By avoiding them and condemning their behavior? That's not discrimination, that's the expected response when you disapprove of something.

[quote]Pure horseshit. The right to practice religion does not give one the
right to discriminate against others based upon those beliefs.[/QUOTE]
Again, how is there discrimination. If you're talking about taxes, how would you feel if I got a tax write-off for ogling high school girls? That would be pretty offensive wouldn't it? But your prejudice(even though I agree with it) is somehow more valid because it isn't associated with a person's religious beliefs?

You seem to think Christians get joy from stalking and harrassing homosexuals. I can assure you this isn't true. But if someone is openly homosexual in a town where a large portion of the population disapproves, they are obviously going to get a bad vibe from the town, and this is even without any laws being broken or harrassment occuring.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;366993]What puzzles me:

Where do they get all this hatred? Jesus preached love and tolerance.[/QUOTE]
He also preached morality. Obviously, a person's behavior is going to be different if they believe a loving supernatural figure is looking out for them 24/7.

[QUOTE=BudgieJane;367179]I think it's high time that those who wish to apply the old testament proscriptions selectively were made to apply all of them to themselves, and suffer the punishments as well.[/QUOTE]
The Old Testament laws are basically history to most Christians. We apply them selectively because the spiritual landscape has changed. It would be like if China took over the United States, their laws wouldn't 100% contradict US laws, there would inevitably be things that were coincidentally similar or that the Chinese wanted to keep.

You forcing us to follow ALL OT law would be like if I forced homosexuals to lick people's buttholes, both would be based on inaccurate stereotypes.

[QUOTE=jasong;367294]The Old Testament laws are basically history to most Christians. We apply them selectively because the spiritual landscape has changed.[...][/QUOTE]
Has the spiritual landscape changed, or is it in the process of change, on the issue of acceptance of same sex relationships?

[QUOTE=Brian-E;367295]Has the spiritual landscape changed, or is it in the process of change, on the issue of acceptance of same sex relationships?[/QUOTE]
I'll find the Bible verse and I ask you to read it in context. It sounds way, WAY more harsh when it's quoted out of context. Basically, homosexuality is a sin, and should be avoided, but it doesn't automatically condemn one to hell.

1st Corinthians 6:9, 1st Corintians 6:12 is interesting as well, I recommend, at the very least, reading verses 9-12 before forming an opinion about them.

You might hate me for saying this, but I think your homosexuality and my porn addiction are similar in terms of sinfullness. I'm not condemning homosexuals and I'm sorry if it comes across that way. I'm just saying I don't think it's a good path to follow in life.

If you do decide to try to change your behavior, I recommend becoming a Christian FIRST, otherwise your efforts are just farts in the wind.

Please, Jason, stop typing for a moment and read what I asked you. I'd really like to see your opinion on the simple question I asked.

[QUOTE=jasong;367294]The Old Testament laws are basically history to most Christians. We apply them selectively because the spiritual landscape has changed. [/QUOTE]

It seems that you apply the ones you like and don't apply the ones you don't like.

[QUOTE]
It would be like if China took over the United States, their laws wouldn't 100% contradict US laws, there would inevitably be things that were coincidentally similar or that the Chinese wanted to keep.[/QUOTE]

No it wouldn't. There are numerous examples of one country taking over another in history, and adherence to OT laws hasn't had a look in.

[QUOTE]You forcing us to follow ALL OT law would be like if I forced homosexuals to lick people's buttholes, both would be based on inaccurate stereotypes.[/QUOTE]

No it wouldn't.

[QUOTE=jasong;367297]

1st Corinthians 6:9, 1st Corintians 6:12 is interesting as well, I recommend, at the very least, reading verses 9-12 before forming an opinion about them.
[/QUOTE]

You are quoting Paul, then, not the source. Why should that hidebound opportunist be given any credence? He (allegedly) never even met Jesus. Whence comes his authority?

As far as that goes, Jesus does not have any writings attributed to him. In fact, we know that all the hearsay which makes up scripture has been sliced and diced repeatedly to conform to whatever currently popular doctrine demands.

If you are going to take the cafeteria approach to allegedly divinely inspired words, how do you manage to claim the right to pick and choose? How do you, personally, know the correct context for any of the stuff you read in many-times-copied-and-translated documents?

Finally, the words attributed to Jesus do not mention morality. They talk about love, consideration of others, and refraining from judging your fellow beings. "Let the one without sin cast the first stone." Please note that this is in a particular case involving morality as specified in the Old Testament.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;367295]Has the spiritual landscape changed, or is it in the process of change, on the issue of acceptance of same sex relationships?[/QUOTE]
The only time the spiritual landscape changed was when Jesus was resurrected, since then we had the Holy Spirit.

[QUOTE=kladner;367331]You are quoting Paul, then, not the source. Why should that hidebound opportunist be given any credence? He (allegedly) never even met Jesus. Whence comes his authority?[/quote]
I suppose we use him as an authority because we accept him as a wise man, if you want to reject his statements, that's your perogative.

[quote]As far as that goes, Jesus does not have any writings attributed to him. In fact, we know that all the hearsay which makes up scripture has been sliced and diced repeatedly to conform to whatever currently popular doctrine demands.[/quote]
Again, you can believe what you want, but Christians believe the Bible is the living word of God, relevant to all time periods. It is your right to reject this, but this is what we believe.

[quote]If you are going to take the cafeteria approach to allegedly divinely inspired words, how do you manage to claim the right to pick and choose? How do you, personally, know the correct context for any of the stuff you read in many-times-copied-and-translated documents?[/quote]
I most definitely do not take the cafeteria approach with the New Testament. Maybe you are not aware of this, but Christians consider Jesus to be the physical manifestation of God's law. Because of this, His guidance is in the moment and can be altered to fit any particular instance. This is not to say Christians are perfect, it's just saying we have direct access to God whenever we decide we need Him.

[quote]Finally, the words attributed to Jesus do not mention morality. They talk about love, consideration of others, and refraining from judging your fellow beings. "Let the one without sin cast the first stone." Please note that this is in a particular case involving morality as specified in the Old Testament.[/QUOTE]
Jesus ministry lasted three and a half years. Obviously, He needed to focus on the broad points during that time. But He continues to teach us through the Holy Spirit, so we have direct access to His wisdom when we're humble enough to acknowledge it.

If you want to learn about Jesus, you need to go to the source. Christians are corrupt just like everyone else, so condemning Jesus because of Christian behavior is unfair.

Christians are cruel, immoral creatures, but that's precisely why Christ did what He did. If there were even one perfect person other than Jesus, His sacrifice would have been unnecessary.

I like Tom Wright's viewpoint that the Bible is not a list of DOs and DON'Ts but a narrative: this is the story so far, now work out how you should take it further.

For anyone interested enough to read the entire lecture he gave in the US, the full text is available here:
[URL]http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm[/URL]

Thanks for replying to my question, Jason. I'm at a loss as to how to proceed with it in the light of your answer, and various people above are doing a much better job at tackling what you write than I can, so I'll bow out here.

Perhaps we also need more people here who identify as Christian and who have no problem with same gender relationships. Nick is one. Are there others here too?

On a lighter note, I love the reply from advice columnist "Dear Abby" to a couple who wrote in complaining about being ostracised by their new neighbourhood in Florida after they failed to accept a two same gender couples in the community. It's the first item in the link below:
[URL]http://www.uexpress.com/dearabby/2014/2/19[/URL]

[QUOTE]On a lighter note, I love the reply from advice columnist "Dear Abby"......[/QUOTE]

That's fantastic! I am amazed that Abby is still kicking around!

The current author of "Dear Abby" is actually the daughter of the original.

"[B]How Christianity gave us gay marriage[/B]
The American fight for equality began with distinctly Christian precepts"
[URL]http://theweek.com/article/index/256556/how-christianity-gave-us-gay-marriage[/URL]

[quote]. . .

... Just flip through the opening pages of everyone's favorite work of secular prophesy — Alexis de Tocqueville's [I][URL="http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-America-Alexis-Tocqueville/dp/0226805360"]Democracy in America[/URL][/I][/quote][URL]http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-America-Alexis-Tocqueville/dp/0226805360[/URL][quote](1835–1840) — and you'll find a provocative alternative interpretation of Christianity's indispensable role in the creation of the revolutionary ideal of human equality. The stunningly rapid rise of support for gay marriage over the past two decades is just the latest in a very long line of victories for that consummately Christian ideal — and it's unlikely to be the last.

Tocqueville begins the introduction to his two-volume study of American democracy by noting that "a great democratic revolution is taking place among us." The 700-page book is his attempt to make sense of this revolution, which was transforming life across the European continent during his lifetime, but which was already far more advanced in the United States by the time of his famous visit in 1831.

For Tocqueville, the march of equality was upending age-old institutions and moral habits "in all the Christian world." It was a "providential fact," by which he meant that there was nothing anybody could do to stop it.

The ultimate source of the democratic revolution — the motor behind its inexorable unfolding — is the figure of Jesus Christ, who taught the equal dignity of all persons, and declared in the Sermon on the Mount that the last shall be first and the first shall be last, and that the meek shall inherit the earth.

These are among the most subversive teachings ever uttered — and according to Tocqueville, Western civilization has been working out their logic for the better part of two millennia, as political communities have applied Christ's egalitarian teachings in stricter and stricter terms.

First, the rigidly hierarchical order of the Roman Empire assimilated and transformed Christ's message, creating a series of stratified Christian aristocracies that ruled Europe for centuries. But by the 11th century, the clergy, which "opened its ranks to all, to the poor and to the rich, to the commoner and to the lord," had gained political power. In this way, the principle of equality began to "penetrate through the church to the heart of government."

Over the next 700 years, as Tocqueville tells it, "a double revolution" transpired: "The noble has fallen on the social ladder, and the commoner has risen; the one descends, the other climbs. Each half century brings them nearer, and soon they are going to touch."

They already did touch in the United States, the world's first nation settled by egalitarian Christians (the Puritans) and explicitly dedicated in its founding documents to the principle of universal human equality. Where France required a violent revolution to overturn recalcitrant elements within its social order and advance the cause of equality, the United States merely needed to declare and secure its independence from a foreign power, before allowing the egalitarianism already implicit in its habits and institutions to flower and flourish.

Tocqueville was fascinated by the question of what democracy in America would look like, because he thought it was inevitable that the rest of Western civilization would soon follow it in building societies dedicated to equality. But he was also filled with "a sort of religious terror...by the sight of this irresistible revolution that for so many centuries has marched over all obstacles, and that one sees still advancing today amid the ruins it has made."

Roughly 80 years before the fictional lords and ladies of [I]Downton Abbey[/I] begin to realize it, Tocqueville understood that the world of aristocratic privileges was slipping away and would soon be reduced to ruins. That is what inspired his religious terror.

The same terror grips opponents of gay marriage today, as the Christian principle of equality overturns and transforms the Christian tradition's historic understanding of what a marital partnership is and can be. In this sense, at least, opposition to gay marriage [URL="http://theweek.com/article/index/256382/is-opposing-gay-marriage-the-same-as-being-a-racist"]parallels[/URL][/quote][URL]http://theweek.com/article/index/256382/is-opposing-gay-marriage-the-same-as-being-a-racist[/URL][quote]an earlier generation's opposition to interracial marriage. In both cases, the opponents of change are attempting to stand against the march of equality. In both cases, the opponents will fail.

By all means, let's [URL="http://theweek.com/article/index/240775/how-growing-support-for-gay-rights-restricts-religious-freedom"]ensure[/URL][/quote][URL]http://theweek.com/article/index/240775/how-growing-support-for-gay-rights-restricts-religious-freedom[/URL][quote]that the [URL="http://theweek.com/article/index/256382/is-opposing-gay-marriage-the-same-as-being-a-racist"]religious rights[/URL][/quote][URL]http://theweek.com/article/index/256382/is-opposing-gay-marriage-the-same-as-being-a-racist[/URL][quote]of these opponents are protected. But let's also hope that they will eventually follow Tocqueville's example in recognizing that a major reason why equality always wins is that the new order is always more just than what preceded it. This is why Tocqueville counseled resignation and acceptance rather than a reactionary response — because, he concluded, trying to "stop democracy...[is] to struggle against God himself."

None of this means anything as crude as "Christ wants gay marriage." But it does mean that we live in a culture in which reformers who successfully claim the mantle of equality inevitably triumph — because those who oppose equality find it impossible to gain public traction for their own side of the argument.

Equality always wins. And equality became the lodestar of Western culture thanks to Christianity.[/quote]

Thankyou for the above article cheesehead. It's a very interesting take on what is going on, and I particularly hope that jasong finds the time to read it and comment.

My reaction, though I am aware of heavy prejudice and bias in myself which makes is hard for me to accept ideas which deviate from my own preconceptions, is to reject the article's suggestion that Christianity is (still) the [I]motor behind[/I] social reform and the move towards equality. However I can and do accept that (1) mainstream religion [I]was[/I] this motor until quite recently in history, and Alexis de Tocqueville (of whom I had never previously heard!) probably had it spot on at the time he was writing, and (2) that nowadays attitudes within a mainstream religion change as a result of some members of that religion being involved in the (secular) move towards equality, and the participation of those religious members is obviously a necessary condition for the whole religion to make that move.

Homophobic People Die Earlier
 

[URL]http://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/Homophobic-People-Die-Earlier-5252503.php[/URL]

[QUOTE]People who espouse anti-gay views die younger than those who don't, found a sure-to-be-controversial study in the February issue of the [URL="http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301678"]American Journal of Public Health[/URL].[/QUOTE]One aspect that I cannot resist commenting on arises from the following:
[QUOTE]The researchers wanted to make sure they were really seeing a link between earlier death and anti-gay prejudice — not something else that might be associated with being anti-gay — so they controlled for variables that could have confounded the results, including age, income, education, marital status, gender, religiosity, and even racial prejudice.[/QUOTE]One variable which could not possibly be taken into account, of course, is repressed homosexuality. I think it's quite feasible that same sex attraction which you don't, for whatever reason, reveal to anyone else (and possibly not even acknowledge to yourself) would be correlated with both homophobia and earlier death.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;367392]

Perhaps we also need more people here who identify as Christian and who have no problem with same gender relationships. Nick is one. Are there others here too?

[/QUOTE]

Over here! Mired in Arizona, where our legislature is marching steadfastly into the past (as one headline put it).

[URL="http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2014/0221/Arizona-religious-freedom-bill-Attack-on-gays-or-shield-for-some-Christians"]http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2014/0221/Arizona-religious-freedom-bill-Attack-on-gays-or-shield-for-some-Christians[/URL]

In effect, the state has passed a law that allows businesses to refuse to do business with gays on religious grounds without fear of litigation. I believe the vote was straight down party lines- Republicans for the law, Democrats against. It awaits the governor's signature...

Norm

[QUOTE=Brian-E;367423]My reaction, though I am aware of heavy prejudice and bias in myself which makes is hard for me to accept ideas which deviate from my own preconceptions, is to reject the article's suggestion that Christianity is (still) the [I]motor behind[/I] social reform and the move towards equality.[/QUOTE]Perhaps a better interpretation of the article is that the ideal of human equality, espoused by Jesus, is the principle behind social reform and moves toward legal equality, as well as being a major principle of Christianity.

One could also look at the idea that when Jesus declared that his new principles superceded some of the Old Testament, among what was superceded were the Old Testament prescriptions of punishment for homosexuality and other sins. (casting stones, etc.)

[OT]
 

[OT]
[QUOTE=Brian-E;367423]Alexis de Tocqueville (of whom I had never previously heard!) probably had it spot on at the time he was writing[/QUOTE]He was an early sociologist and political scientist. After experiencing failed attempts at democratic government in France, he wanted to study American government and society first-hand. He visited the U.S. for nine months in 1831, taking extensive notes, then wrote [I]De la démocratie en Amérique[/I].

[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tocqueville[/URL]

[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_in_America[/URL]

[URL]http://www.gradesaver.com/democracy-in-america/study-guide/short-summary/[/URL]

Many Americans could probably remember hearing of de Tocqueville's [I]Democracy in America[/I] at some time, but few have actually read more than a few selected quotes. (I haven't.)

[URL]http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/search/?query=Alexis+de+Tocqueville[/URL]

English:
[URL]http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/815[/URL]

French:
[URL]http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/30513[/URL]
[URL]http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/30514[/URL]
[URL]http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/30515[/URL]
[URL]http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/30516[/URL]

[QUOTE=Spherical Cow;367486]Over here! Mired in Arizona, where our legislature is marching steadfastly into the past (as one headline put it).

[URL="http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2014/0221/Arizona-religious-freedom-bill-Attack-on-gays-or-shield-for-some-Christians"]http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2014/0221/Arizona-religious-freedom-bill-Attack-on-gays-or-shield-for-some-Christians[/URL]

In effect, the state has passed a law that allows businesses to refuse to do business with gays on religious grounds without fear of litigation. I believe the vote was straight down party lines- Republicans for the law, Democrats against. It awaits the governor's signature...

Norm[/QUOTE]

Flame on. I mean [b]really[/b] flame on.

Typical retarded Republican religious SPOS. Just like some of the
participants herein.

The bit about "religious beliefs" is nothing but a f*cking lie. They are
using it as an [b]excuse[/b] to disseminate their hatred toward
a minority by passing laws making it legal to discriminate based upon
these so-called religious beliefs.

People have a right to practice whatever religious perversions come into
their tiny minds. They do not have a right to use those beliefs as an
excuse to pass hateful laws that discriminate against others.

The people who pass these laws are nothing more than sub-human pieces of shit.

:goodposting: :popcorn: :digging:

[QUOTE=xilman;367553]:goodposting: :popcorn: :digging:[/QUOTE]

Right on, Bob!

[QUOTE=Spherical Cow;367486]Over here! Mired in Arizona, where our legislature is marching steadfastly into the past (as one headline put it).[/QUOTE]
You, and people with similar approaches to yours as regards their religion, could well be the driving force needed to move the world towards peace, harmony and equality.:tu:

[QUOTE=cheesehead;367523]Perhaps a better interpretation of the article is that the ideal of human equality, espoused by Jesus, is the principle behind social reform and moves toward legal equality, as well as being a major principle of Christianity.[/QUOTE]
I would have no quarrel with this at all. I still think that the article was attributing reform and moves towards equality to Christianity itself, with the dubious corollary that without Christianity this progress would not be occurring, but I'm only quibbling and there's no harm in putting a favourable interpretation on things.

Thanks, by the way, for your useful links concerning Alexis de Tocqueville.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;367550]Flame on. I mean [B]really[/B] flame on.[/QUOTE]
I couldn't agree more.

Does anyone here think that the recent legal moves in Kansas and Arizona, seeking to allow discrimination against gay people, have anything to do with religious freedom? And if so, what religious freedom is it? I'd be genuinely fascinated to hear the arguments of anyone who is prepared to defend this.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;367559]Does anyone here think that the recent legal moves in Kansas and Arizona, seeking to allow discrimination against gay people, have anything to do with religious freedom?[/QUOTE]If one has been taught since childhood, and genuinely thinks, that (ones) religion should be supreme over secular law, then one could genuinely view it as a matter of religious freedom. This would not be the only such conflict existing, so the same person would have been viewing many other conflicts of secular law vs. religion as matters of religious freedom, though not currently a focus of public attention.

[quote]And if so, what religious freedom is it?[/quote]The freedom to practice ones religion wherever that is superior to secular law.

- - -

There would be far more people for whom it's not fundamentally a matter of supremacy of religion over secular law, but instead a belief that our secular laws were established on a base of religion. Therefore those (usually "liberal") secular laws which are in conflict with that perceived religious basis are invalid and should be repealed, or at least civilly disobeyed until then. That latter opinion would have been shaped/reinforced by the expressed views of other folks close to one. Those, in turn, would be heavily influenced by whichever of such conflicts had been recently the focus of public attention.

For instance, determination not to serve interracial-couple customers would probably have abated (though there may still be muttering) during the several decades since the 1960s as such couples' appearance among ones customers gradually become more common in ones experience (possibly with legal enforcement having been involved once or twice). There's also the considerable dying-off-of-the-old-guard effect.

[QUOTE]Does anyone here think that the recent legal moves in Kansas and Arizona, seeking to allow discrimination against gay people, have anything to do with religious freedom? And if so, what religious freedom is it? I'd be genuinely fascinated to hear the arguments of anyone who is prepared to defend this.[/QUOTE]

(Disclaimer: I don't know the full context of the law, nor am I defending it. I'm only going to present what I think is the argument the law's supporters would give.)

Their argument might go something like the following:

A marriage planner believes gay relations are sinful, and that by planning for a gay wedding they would be explicitly supporting such a union. So they refuse. This laws allows them to refuse without legal repercussions.

The government regulates business. Some of those regulations come into conflict with the rights of the individuals. For instance an individual has the right to freedom of speech, but not all speech is allowed in a workplace (an employer, for instance, can fire an employee for saying bad things about the business itself). This law is saying that the business owner's right to act according to conscience (whether or not we agree with what their conscience says) should not be subject to government sanction. Thus, a wedding planner should not be forced to plan for a wedding they morally disapprove of.

By the way, a similar argument is ongoing here in the U.S. concerning a business's right to not participate in or support abortions.

---------------------------------------

My personal view is that non-discrimination laws, when regarding individuals' characteristics (and not their freely made choices), are a good thing. However, I also believe that business owners should be allowed to choose *behaviors* they will and will not participate in, as long as those behaviors are lawful. Thus, for instance, if a nudist from a nudist colony calls for a photographer to come to the colony, the photographer should not be required to photograph the person; they should be able to object to going to the colony or photographing people naked.

Thus, I would support someone's refusal to paint flowers for a customer if their conscience forbade painting flowers. But I would not support someone's refusal to paint flowers for a black person, just because their conscience forbade them from painting for a black person. In the later case I support government interference (in their business practice), but not in the former case.

Similarly I would support a restaurant's refusal to serve soup (if the government suddenly passed a weird law making soup mandatory), but I would not support a restaurant refusing to serve soup specifically to an albino. The first is discrimination regarding a behavior--the restaurant does not want to behave a certain way; the second is discriminating with respect to a person's characteristics--it has nothing to do with the behavior.

This issue, for me, has little to do (per se) with religion and more to do with personal freedom. But I do see it butting up against freedom of conscience.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;367579]If one has been taught since childhood, and genuinely thinks, that (ones) religion should be supreme over secular law, then one could genuinely view it as a matter of religious freedom. This would not be the only such conflict existing, so the same person would have been viewing many other conflicts of secular law vs. religion as matters of religious freedom, though not currently a focus of public attention.

The freedom to practice ones religion wherever that is superior to secular law.
[/QUOTE]

This so called justification is horseshit, because it can justify anything in the
name of religious freedom. If one's religion believes Black people are
inferior it can justify discrimination. If one believes that Jews are bad,
it can justify discrimination. If one believes that their God wants virgins
sacrificed at age 13, it can justify murder.

No right is absolute. The above argument says that religious rights
triumph all others. Bull.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;367583]
The government regulates business. Some of those regulations come into conflict with the rights of the individuals. For instance an individual has the right to freedom of speech, but not all speech is allowed in a workplace .
[/QUOTE]

This shows a misunderstanding of the phrase "freedom of speech".
"freedom of speech" means that the GOVERNMENT can not (except in
certain restricted circumstances) control what you are allowed to say
and can not punish you for what you say.


[QUOTE]
(an employer, for instance, can fire an employee for saying bad things about the business itself). This law is saying that the business owner's right to act according to conscience (whether or not we agree with what their conscience says) should not be subject to government sanction. Thus, a wedding planner should not be forced to plan for a wedding they morally disapprove of.
[/QUOTE]

This is a prime example of twisted thinking. One is NOT allowed
to discriminate against a class of people because you morally disapprove
of them. A business is NOT practicing discrimination against a particular
sub-class of people when it requires that ALL employees subscribe to
a code of conduct.

I morally disapprove of ALL religion and religious people. This does not
give me the right to deny them equal rights with everyone else.



[QUOTE]
My personal view is that non-discrimination laws, when regarding individuals' characteristics (and not their freely made choices), are a good thing. However, I also believe that business owners should be allowed to choose *behaviors* they will and will not participate in, as long as those behaviors are lawful.
[/QUOTE]


No one is requiring that business owners participate in homosexual
conduct. But as long as they do business with the GENERAL PUBLIC
they may not pick and choose who they will provide services to based
upon their hatreds. They must serve ALL or NONE.

I would also ask: How the f*ck does a business owner know what
"behaviors" are performed by others when they are away from the
owner's place of business. Or are they allowed to "judge" that someone
is gay because (perhaps) they are effeminate looking?




[QUOTE]
This issue, for me, has little to do (per se) with religion and more to do with personal freedom. But I do see it butting up against freedom of conscience.[/QUOTE]

Rights are not absolute. They sometimes conflict. The society we live
in has determined that the right to EQUAL TREATMENT FOR ALL takes
precedence over the right to practice prejudice based upon religious beliefs.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;367586]This shows a misunderstanding of the phrase "freedom of speech". "freedom of speech" means that the GOVERNMENT can not (except in certain restricted circumstances) control what you are allowed to say and can not punish you for what you say.[/quote]

Maybe that's why Government never fires employees. ;-)

That said, you are probably correct that my example was ill formed. Replace it with one where government laws restrict freedom of expression in and out of the workplace, such as working at the NSA. As another example, insider trading is illegal. In some cases this government regulation is appropriate (such as with insider trading), and in others it is questionable.

I look back at my post and see that I wasn't very clear in expressing what I think their argument would be. I think that they would say sometimes this interference is good, sometimes it isn't. Similarly, sometimes it is appropriate for government to make restrictions on companies regarding their conscience, sometimes it is not. In this case, they are saying it is not.

[quote]This is a prime example of twisted thinking. One is NOT allowed to discriminate against a class of people because you morally disapprove of them. A business is NOT practicing discrimination against a particular sub-class of people when it requires that ALL employees subscribe to a code of conduct.[/quote]

I personally mostly agree with you, with the caveats that the discrimination you describe is based on an unchanging characteristic of that class of people, and that you are talking about the workplace. (Because, frankly, we ARE allowed to discriminate against any class of people for whatever reason we want, outside of the workplace. And I, for one, and glad of that freedom, even if some people misuse it. I would MUCH rather live in a country that allows bigotry, than one which punishes what it views as bigoted.)

It's a little harder to justify *not* discriminating in giving jobs at elementary schools to people who belong to the class "convicted pedophiles". In other words, when the class is determined by behavior, it is sometimes morally justifiable to discriminate. However, even when it is an unchanging characteristic, it is sometimes appropriate to discriminate (such as not hiring paraplegics as astronauts).

That said, I'm not a big supporter of government intrusion. I don't think we need to punish every little thing.

---------------

The rest of your response was to things I actually believe and am willing to stick behind.

[quote]No one is requiring that business owners participate in homosexual conduct. But as long as they do business with the GENERAL PUBLIC they may not pick and choose who they will provide services to based upon their hatreds. They must serve ALL or NONE.[/quote]

But are they allowed to choose which types of services they provide? In their minds, it is a different service to photograph a family in a park than to go to a nudist colony and photograph them in the buff. That is not the type of service they chose.

Does the mantra "They must serve ALL or NONE" include the nudist? Yes. But their actions must conform to the type of service you are willing to perform. You don't inquire as to whether or not they are a nudist, that is irrelevant, unless they ask you to provide your service to them in the nude.

[quote]I would also ask: How the f*ck does a business owner know what "behaviors" are performed by others when they are away from the owner's place of business. Or are they allowed to "judge" that someone is gay because (perhaps) they are effeminate looking?[/quote]

You seem to have misread my point. Let me say it again. My view is that the business owners should be free pick what types of services they provide (i.e. pick their own behaviors). I was not talking about judging someone's sexual preference; or trying to figure out what customers are doing in their own homes.

So, yes I believe that it should be lawful for a business to define itself as planning weddings between opposite genders and not between same-sex couples; or to provide health services related to women but not men. No, I don't believe it should be lawful for a business to inquire into the personal attractions of its customers, or discriminate because they think a man is effeminate.

[quote]Rights are not absolute. They sometimes conflict. The society we live in has determined that the right to EQUAL TREATMENT FOR ALL takes precedence over the right to practice prejudice based upon religious beliefs.[/QUOTE]

I agree that rights are not absolute. I agree they sometimes conflict. I agree here in the U.S.A. we value equal treatment for all. And I personally value it.

I don't agree with the idea that our society has determined that the right to equal treatment takes precedence over the right of conscience, especially outside the workplace. Nor that the right to equal treatment transcends rational reasons for discrimination. Nor that the right to "equal" treatment always applies when "equality" is defined in terms of freely chosen acts/behaviors (especially when they ask that we join in those behaviors, to any extent).

Most importantly Welcome Back Zeta-Flux!

Drive-by posting. Nothing to see here. :leaving:

Thanks for the interesting exchange, Zeta Flux and RDS. It has been thought-provoking, so far.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;367523]Perhaps a better interpretation of the article is that the ideal of human equality, espoused by Jesus, is the principle behind social reform and moves toward legal equality, as well as being a major principle of Christianity.

One could also look at the idea that when Jesus declared that his new principles superceded some of the Old Testament, among what was superceded were the Old Testament prescriptions of punishment for homosexuality and other sins. (casting stones, etc.)[/QUOTE]

:goodposting:

Just speaking as a thoughtful Quaker: Much of what is claimed by present-day fundamentalists seems to me to be diametrically opposed to the original teachings of Jesus. The idea that God is judgmental is certainly expressed to a degree in Jesus' teachings, but this is also reframed and mitigated in a major way by Jesus' expression of God's fundamentally forgiving nature. To me, Jesus' central message is not just that God is forgiving, but that we also are transformed by adopting a forgiving and non-judgmental attitude towards our fellow humans.

Here is the actual text of the Arizona law: [url]http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062s.pdf[/url]

It is only two pages long, so it should be a quick read.

And Philmore, I completely agree, although I would probably phrase it as "God is forgiving of the penitent". Jesus had some harsh words for those who didn't sincerely try to change, or for those who tried to hide behind the letter of the law while ignoring the spirit of it.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;367591]I don't agree with the idea that our society has determined that the right to equal treatment takes precedence over the right of conscience, especially outside the workplace.



[/QUOTE]

This shows ignorance of our government.

Look up the 14th amendment and the EQual Protection Clause of the
consitution.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;367585][QUOTE=cheesehead;367579]If one has been taught since childhood, and genuinely thinks, that (ones) religion should be supreme over secular law, then one could genuinely view it as a matter of religious freedom. This would not be the only such conflict existing, so the same person would have been viewing many other conflicts of secular law vs. religion as matters of religious freedom, though not currently a focus of public attention.

The freedom to practice ones religion wherever that is superior to secular law.[/QUOTE]This so called justification is horseshit,[/QUOTE]You do recognize that I was explaining the view of the person with that religious belief, not myself, don't you?

[quote]because it can justify anything in the name of religious freedom.[/quote]... which, if one believes that religion is supreme over secular law, as I specified was the case in the hypothetical example, makes sense. Of course, if the person were lying about the thing's being done in the name of religious freedom, that's different, but my example presumed that the person was honest.

[quote]The above argument says that religious rights triumph all others.[/quote]That was one of the specified conditions about the person's belief in the example, not a conclusion of an argument.

I wasn't justifying that sort of belief; I was [U]explaining[/U] it to someone who asked.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;367621]You do recognize that I was explaining the view of the person with that religious belief, not myself, don't you?[/QUOTE]

It was crystal clear that the words were not your own.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;367583]A marriage planner believes gay relations are sinful, and that by planning for a gay wedding they would be explicitly supporting such a union. So they refuse. This laws allows them to refuse without legal repercussions.[/QUOTE]But what about (if you don't know what the Arizona law specifies, what is your view) a grocery store owner refusing to sell food to a gay soon-to-be-wedded couple (that status being known to the owner) because of the owner's religious opposition to gay weddings?
Cases:
1) the food is to be served at their wedding reception and the owner knows that?
2) the owner has no direct knowledge of where the food is to be served but strongly suspects, from circumstances, that the food is to be served at their wedding reception?
3) the owner has neither direct knowledge nor suspicion that the food is to be served at their wedding reception?
What if the customers are known to the owner to be an already-wedded-for-years gay couple and the owner has neither direct knowledge nor suspicion that the food is to be served at somebody else's gay wedding reception (but in fact it is so intended by the purchasers)?

Unlike your first example, these do not involve the taking of any part in the action of the wedding itself (or is that debatable in any of the cases?). Are any of them more like your later example of refusing to serve soup to an albino?

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;367618]This shows ignorance of our government.

Look up the 14th amendment and the EQual Protection Clause of the
consitution.[/QUOTE]

I imagine the part you are taking about is: "... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

My comment was concerning the private actions of individuals outside the workplace. In such a context, the 14th amendment does not (and I would add, *should not*) apply. Sorry I wasn't sufficiently clear.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;367624]But what about (if you don't know what the Arizona law specifies, what is your view) a grocery store owner refusing to sell food to a gay soon-to-be-wedded couple (that status being known to the owner) because of the owner's religious opposition to gay weddings?
Cases:
1) the food is to be served at their wedding reception and the owner knows that?
2) the owner has no direct knowledge of where the food is to be served but strongly suspects, from circumstances, that the food is to be served at their wedding reception?
3) the owner has neither direct knowledge nor suspicion that the food is to be served at their wedding reception?
What if the customers are known to the owner to be an already-wedded-for-years gay couple and the owner has neither direct knowledge nor suspicion that the food is to be served at somebody else's gay wedding reception (but in fact it is so intended by the purchasers)?

Unlike your first example, these do not involve the taking of any part in the action of the wedding itself (or is that debatable in any of the cases?). Are any of them more like your later example of refusing to serve soup to an albino?[/QUOTE]If the service being provided is "I sell food", and in no previous cases have they inquired of other customers how their food is being used, then they have no business (pun intended) worrying about whether the food will be served at a gay wedding.

On the other hand, if they are a catering service that historically has inquired about the type of venue being serviced, then they should be allowed to set the restrictions of what types of venues they will serve.

Similarly, if someone sells goats and doesn't inquire how they are being used, then they shouldn't worry about selling a goat for a satanic ritual. On the other hand, if they have historically inquired about how the goat is going to be used (thinking of themselves not as a seller of goats, but as finding good homes for said goats) then they have a legitimate reason for not selling to a satanist.

[url]http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/23/conservative-christians-selectively-apply-biblical-teachings-in-the-same-sex-marriage-debate.html[/url]

[QUOTE=chappy;367650][url]http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/23/conservative-christians-selectively-apply-biblical-teachings-in-the-same-sex-marriage-debate.html[/url][/QUOTE]

In my mind, this is a stupid debate.

If a business doesn't want to take the business, that's their loss. Word will get around not to try to retain them in the future; others will be more than willing to step-up to fulfill the requests...

Bakers, flower arrangers and photographers et al are not exactly an exclusive domain, after all....

[QUOTE=chalsall;367653]In my mind, this is a stupid debate.

If a business doesn't want to take the business, that's their loss. Word will get around not to try to retain them in the future; others will be more than willing to step-up to fulfill the requests...

Bakers, flower arrangers and photographers et al are not exactly an exclusive domain, after all....[/QUOTE]
Well...

That may be right, certainly in those parts of the world where marriage is open to all, but perhaps you can also empathise with the feelings of a marrying couple when they are choosing the arrangements for their wedding, finally approach the bakery/florist/photographer whose services have taken their fancy, and then get told that although the business does indeed cater for weddings, an exception is being made in this particular case. In other words - religious sensitivities notwithstanding - this couple's happiest day of their lives is being disapproved of, simply because they are the same gender.

Here in The Netherlands there is still, nearly 13 years after marriage was opened, an issue with (a small minority of) marriage registrars who refuse to officiate at same sex marriages due to their religious beliefs. Despite strong political moves to outlaw this discrimination, it is still legal at a national level here and a few local authorities still employ some so-called "weigerambtenaren" (refusing officers) to this day. The argument put forward particularly by the Christian political parties here is basically similar to what you say above: same sex couples can get married in any local authority here, because all local authorites must employ at least one registrar who will perform these marriages, so what is the problem? Well, the problem is that same sex couples are still being discriminated in that not all officers will handle their weddings, and this is (1) insulting to the couple concerned and those close to them, and (2) conducive to perpetuating the idea in the psyche of the general public that same sex marriages are not as worthy as opposite sex ones.

So in summary, I abhor the idea that discrimination doesn't matter provided that the services can be obtained from other businesses or officials who are prepared to provide them.

It smacks a bit of apartheid as used to be officially practised in South Africa and several other countries in southern Africa, in that case treating people separately according to their race as opposed to the gender of those they love. I accept that that is an offensive exaggeration considering the appalling situation there at the time (and while it may be officially over, the repercussions continue to this day). But the principle is similar, and it is an insidious one.

---

On another note, I just want to express my delight that Zeta-Flux has returned to this discussion, even if it is only fleetingly. I have read the arguments put forward by him and various other people above with great interest.

[QUOTE=chalsall;367653]In my mind, this is a stupid debate.

If a business doesn't want to take the business, that's their loss.
[/QUOTE]

Indeed. It is their loss. And it is the customer's loss as well.

How would you like to be someone who is visiting a strange city
and is refused a hotel room? [as Blacks and Jews were in the 40's and 50's]
Or refused gasoline at a gas station because you are part of a gay couple
with a "just married" sign on your car?

Not all "services" are small and/or trivial. Not all services are easily
obtained elsewhere.

Get this through your thick head: WE have an equal protection clause
in our constitution. Discriminating against someone because they are part
of a minority that you dislike is both illegal and morally reprehensible.

[QUOTE]
Word will get around not to try to retain them in the future; others will be more than willing to step-up to fulfill the requests...
[/QUOTE]

Sheer fantasy on your part. Especially if the business is located in the
U.S. bible belt. It is more probable that similar bigots will come forward to
applaud their actions.



[QUOTE]
Bakers, flower arrangers and photographers et al are not exactly an exclusive domain, after all....[/QUOTE]

But if you are only of of two hotels in town? Or the only gas station?
Not all situations are as trivial as you portray.

There is also a scene from a MASH episode. I don't know if it is true.
A person in the South died because he was black and the only available
hospital was for whites only.....

To quote a over-used and hackneyed phrase: "You can't get a little
bit pregnant". Discriminination of the kind you think is OK [b]can not be
and must not be tolerated[/b].

[QUOTE=Brian-E;367691]Here in The Netherlands there is still, nearly 13 years after marriage was opened, an issue with (a small minority of) marriage registrars who refuse to officiate at same sex marriages due to their religious beliefs.[/QUOTE]

Is there symmetry: would a marriage registrar get into trouble if he accepted only to officiate at same-sex marriages?

(Britain has had this issue litigated, and ended up deciding that all registrars must officiate at all marriages)

As always, there is a lighter side to the controversy here in Arizona- One of the more popular pizza restaurants now has a large sign posted clearly stating:

"We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Arizona State Legislators!"

(I'm out of town now, but plan to eat there as soon as I get back...)

Norm

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;367700]Get this through your thick head: WE have an equal protection clause in our constitution. Discriminating against someone because they are part of a minority that you dislike is both illegal and morally reprehensible.[/QUOTE]

Sorry guys... I was being overly flippant, and naively arguing that "the market will settle on what is right".

Being a liberal person, who believes that right-thinking people will converge on what is correct, I was thinking that those business owners who were discriminatory would, at the end of the day, go out of business.

Stupid, I know; I'm often sadly stupid....

Dear Brian-E,

One more post, then I'll probably go into reclusiveness again (although it was fun to be back for a bit).

You said something profound. Namely:

[QUOTE=Brian-E;367691]The argument put forward particularly by the Christian political parties here is basically similar to what you say above: same sex couples can get married in any local authority here, because all local authorites must employ at least one registrar who will perform these marriages, so what is the problem? Well, the problem is that same sex couples are still being discriminated in that not all officers will handle their weddings, and this is (1) insulting to the couple concerned and those close to them, and (2) conducive to perpetuating the idea in the psyche of the general public that same sex marriages are not as worthy as opposite sex ones.[/quote]

There are many issues here that I want to address, and hopefully I can keep everything separated into its own box.

In my mind there are at least three distinct levels of behavior we are talking about. (A) Official government action. (B) Business activity. (C) Private behavior. Similarly, we are talking about different levels of response to these activities. (I) Legal repercussions. (II) Social repercussions.

If we don't keep these separate is can get a bit confusing. For instance, Silverman said, in bold-face font, that discrimination "[B]can not be and must not be tolerated[/B]." If he means that when a private individual expresses unjust discrimination we should socially disapprove, then I agree. If he means that we should punish private individual expressions of bigotry with legal action, then I completely (and strongly) disagree. So, in my post to follow, I'll try to take care to keep these options separate.

In the United States, when a state legalizes gay marriage then any government official whose responsibilities include ratifying marriages is required to ratify those unions as well. There is no opting out for reasons of conscience. This, in my opinion, is both just and proper. The 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the law, and the law says the relations are equivalent (for governmental purposes).

Two of the reasons you gave for being opposed to opt-outs are of a different nature (although one reason was similar, and I'll get back to that momentarily). You said: "this is (1) insulting to the couple concerned and those close to them, and (2) conducive to perpetuating the idea in the psyche of the general public that same sex marriages are not as worthy as opposite sex ones." It seems to me that you are upset by the message these people are giving. In other words, you want to limit their speech because you find it disgusting.

In my mind, being insulted or disagreeing with an idea being perpetuated are not sufficient reasons (in and of themselves) to justify limiting someone's speech by legal means, whether it be government, business, or private expression we are limiting. That said, [b]in government actions[/b], I strongly believe in the principle of equal treatment, and so when that insulting speech is ALSO a form of inequal treatment [b]under the law[/b] (as is the situation in your country) it should cease. If your government recognizes that marriage and gay marriage are legally equivalent, then they should be treated equivalently. (If they are not equivalent, then that is another issue.)

I don't believe that the law should be used to put out of business those businesses who say things that upset us. I do think that businesses should provide their services equally; but should also be (mostly) free to define their own services.

One puzzling thing here in America is that some of those opposed to religious interference in law because they don't want other's morality imposed upon them in law [and I sympathize with this position] nevertheless want to impose their moral view that discrimination is bad by having legal consequences for (their view of) bigotry.

Anyway, I hope that helps clarify things on my end.

:goodposting:

Paul

Zeta-Flux, I am in broad agreement with what you write - for what must be the first time in this thread! (We've never discussed the aspect of being free to express bigoted opinions here before, as far as I can remember.)

Like you, I don't believe that people or businesses should be prevented from expressing bigoted views, or to define their services on their own terms [I]in general[/I].

However, I think there are exceptions to this. I think it is an important role of government and law to protect minority groups against majority oppression. If a particular minority group is being oppressed by huge swathes of the population, then specific legislation is necessary to protect that group. For this reason, I believe that a business should not be permitted to tailor its services only to opposite gender couples (or to white people, or to able-bodied people, or to non-muslims) if this discrimination is not obviously justified due to the type of service which it is.

[QUOTE=fivemack;367706]Is there symmetry: would a marriage registrar get into trouble if he accepted only to officiate at same-sex marriages?

(Britain has had this issue litigated, and ended up deciding that all registrars must officiate at all marriages)[/QUOTE]
This is a very astute question, and one which I've never heard asked before.

As far as I can tell, it's not symmetrical. The law specifically allows discrimination against same sex couples by marriage registrars, if I understand it correctly. (But I'm not absolutely sure and I cannot find the wording of the law.) Discrimination against opposite sex couples when officiating at a wedding has not been tested in the law courts as far as I know!

Incidentally, the permission for marriage registrars to discriminate against same sex couples may shortly be about to end. A proposed end to this legal discrimination was passed by our parliament last summer. It still has to pass through the other House before it can take effect.

I think Britain is wise to have this discrimination outlawed from the start. In The Netherlands in 2001 when marriage was opened, the law at that stage allowed registrars who were already in service to discriminate so that none would have to be sacked. But then, when the small Christian Union party managed to get into government in 2006, it succeeded in putting in a clause in the law which allowed new registrars who refused same sex couples to be taken on. This is still in effect now and will be until the new anti=discrimination legislation can be signed onto the books.

[url]http://www.csmonitor.com/World/2014/0225/Uganda-s-anti-gay-bill-refocuses-attention-on-US-evangelical-influence[/url]

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;367804][URL]http://www.csmonitor.com/World/2014/0225/Uganda-s-anti-gay-bill-refocuses-attention-on-US-evangelical-influence[/URL][/QUOTE]

Oh my brothers.....:no:

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;367613]Here is the actual text of the Arizona law: [url]http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062s.pdf[/url]

It is only two pages long, so it should be a quick read.

And Philmore, I completely agree, although I would probably phrase it as "God is forgiving of the penitent". Jesus had some harsh words for those who didn't sincerely try to change, or for those who tried to hide behind the letter of the law while ignoring the spirit of it.[/QUOTE]

[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-26363704[/url] is the first I read of some sort of sense being shown.

[QUOTE=xilman;367911][URL]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-26363704[/URL] is the first I read of some sort of sense being shown.[/QUOTE]
This looks to me like a Republican governor putting the requirements of her function in front of party politics. Good to see!

[QUOTE=Brian-E;367913]This looks to me like a Republican governor putting the requirements of her function in front of party politics. Good to see![/QUOTE]

Though I am loath to express cynicism, I'm afraid I don't share your sunny view of her reasons. It looks more to me like she was responding to the considerable pressure put on her to veto the bill. Such pressure came from some national Republican quarters (e.g. Arizona senator John McCain) as well as from many business interests within the state (apparently state tourism officials had already begun to see a drop in interest, and the NFL was reportedly considering moving the location of next year's Super Bowl out of Arizona).

[QUOTE=jyb;367934]Though I am loath to express cynicism, I'm afraid I don't share your sunny view of her reasons. It looks more to me like she was responding to the considerable pressure put on her to veto the bill. Such pressure came from some national Republican quarters (e.g. Arizona senator John McCain) as well as from many business interests within the state (apparently state tourism officials had already begun to see a drop in interest, and the NFL was reportedly considering moving the location of next year's Super Bowl out of Arizona).[/QUOTE]I believe that both of you are right in part. Some of the Republicans who voted in favo{,u}r have subsequently expressed regret at having done so. They apparently thought it good for the caucus ("party" in most versions of English) despite their personal misgivings.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;367613]Here is the actual text of the Arizona law: [URL]http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062s.pdf[/URL][/QUOTE]Though there's no reference to "gay" in the text, there's also no reference to either "skin" or "color". So, someone who has a sincerely-held religious belief that he must not serve customers who have dark skin is given protection by this bill. Do you consider that a desirable effect of this supposed "religious freedom" law?

[I]How, exactly, would anyone be kept from using this law to claim protection from being punished for, or restrained from, any sort of discrimination whatsoever, so long as that person has a sincerely-held religious belief that such sort of discrimination is a requirement of his religion?

Should it be valid for any Arizona businessperson to claim this bill's protection of his refusal to serve black (or red or yellow or brown ...) people on the grounds that his sincerely-held religious beliefs (perhaps based on certain Old Testament passages) prohibit that? If not, why is the bill written in such a way as to allow that claim?

[/I][QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;367723]One puzzling thing here in America is that some of those opposed to religious interference in law because they don't want other's morality imposed upon them in law [and I sympathize with this position] nevertheless want to impose their moral view that discrimination is bad by having legal consequences for (their view of) bigotry.[/QUOTE]Yes, isn't it strange that some who are opposed to religious interference in law because they don't want others' morality imposed upon them in law nevertheless want to impose their moral view that discrimination on the basis of skin color or ancestry or previous condition of servitude of ones great-great-grandparents is bad by having legal consequences for (their view of) racial bigotry?

Shouldn't white people who sincerely hold a religious belief that black people are inferior to white people be allowed to discriminate against black people?

Isn't any one religious belief just as good as any other religious belief -- when claiming religious freedom to discriminate, at least?

Or might you agree that maybe, just maybe, some religious beliefs are just not valid excuses for discrimination?

[url]http://www.andrewturnbull.net/states.html[/url]

nice graphic of the state of the same-sex union.

[COLOR="White"](USA centric, I know.)[/COLOR]

[QUOTE=cheesehead;368029]Though there's no reference to "gay" in the text, there's also no reference to either "skin" or "color". So, someone who has a sincerely-held religious belief that he must not serve customers who have dark skin is given protection by this bill. Do you consider that a desirable effect of this supposed "religious freedom" law?[/quote]I'm admittedly not an expert on the law. I've read the text now, and have read some commentary on both sides. So take what I say with a grain of salt.

When you ask "Do you consider that a desirable effect of this supposed "religious freedom" law?" I see some different possibilities for what you mean. If by "that" you mean something like:

(A) The ability to [b]claim in court[/b] your right of conscience is being unduly burdened, and have the judge seriously consider that claim.

Then yes, I would think that is a desirable effect. (I think this right mostly already exists under the old wording, although the changes to the law would have clarified a few areas where this right was unclear.) On the other hand, if you mean something like:

(B) The ability to automatically win in a court case when a sincerely-held religious belief has been burdened.

Then no. There are multiple hurdles that would have to be met. The judge in the case would need to decide if those conditions are met.

[quote][I]How, exactly, would anyone be kept from using this law to claim protection from being punished for, or restrained from, any sort of discrimination whatsoever, so long as that person has a sincerely-held religious belief that such sort of discrimination is a requirement of his religion?[/I][/quote]Good question. I don't think anyone should be kept from using the law to [b]claim[/b] protection. However, if you meant to ask, moreover, what prevents them from succeeding in court on such a claim, I would say it depends entirely on the case and the judge. The wording in the (modified, but not old) bill makes it clear that the claimant must establish the following:

E. A PERSON THAT ASSERTS A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION MUST ESTABLISH ALL OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. THAT THE PERSON'S ACTION OR REFUSAL TO ACT IS MOTIVATED BY A RELIGIOUS BELIEF.
2. THAT THE PERSON'S RELIGIOUS BELIEF IS SINCERELY HELD.
3. THAT THE STATE ACTION SUBSTANTIALLY BURDENS THE EXERCISE OF THE PERSON'S RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

[quote][I]Should it be valid for any Arizona businessperson to claim this bill's protection of his refusal to serve black (or red or yellow or brown ...) people on the grounds that his sincerely-held religious beliefs (perhaps based on certain Old Testament passages) prohibit that? If not, why is the bill written in such a way as to allow that claim?[/I][/quote]To answer the second question first, I believe that bill is written to allow the claim, because we respect the right of conscience.

To answer the first question, I sincerely doubt you could find a judge who would be convinced that you have a [b]sincerely[/b] held religious belief that prohibits you from serving people of a certain skin color. Or that providing your service is a [b]substantial[/b] burden on your exercise of religion.

To be perfectly honest, I would very much doubt you would find more than a handful of people trying to make such a claim before a judge in the first place. There are always the loons out there, and the bigots, true. But I'm willing to endure their claims in order for my freedoms to be protected. On the other hand, I can believe people would tell a judge that supporting an abortion in any way would substantially burden their freedom to practice their religion. Or participating in a gay wedding. Or taking pictures of nude people. etc... [In other words, it might be better in understanding the purpose of this law to look at what cases are currently in litigation, or have been recently, rather than some far-fetched scenarios.]

[quote]
Yes, isn't it strange that some who are opposed to religious interference in law because they don't want others' morality imposed upon them in law nevertheless want to impose their moral view that discrimination on the basis of skin color or ancestry or previous condition of servitude of ones great-great-grandparents is bad by having legal consequences for (their view of) racial bigotry?[/quote]Exactly. They recognize that on occasion morality has a place in law, but they seem to not recognize the validity of others expressing their moral views by voting their conscience.

[quote]
Shouldn't white people who sincerely hold a religious belief that black people are inferior to white people be allowed to discriminate against black people?[/quote]In the private sphere, of course! We are not a police state which controls all the actions of the public.

In government or business, of course not. (Even [b]if[/b] [and this is a HUGE if) a religious belief that black, or white, or whatever people were inferior was sincerely held, it would be difficult if not impossible to say that this inferiority somehow prevented you from selling groceries to them, and you were substantially burdened.)

[quote]
Isn't any one religious belief just as good as any other religious belief -- when claiming religious freedom to discriminate, at least?[/quote]Nope.

[quote]Or might you agree that maybe, just maybe, some religious beliefs are just not valid excuses for discrimination?[/QUOTE]I agree that some religious beliefs are just not valid excuses for discrimination (in both the public and private sectors). I don't believe, however, that this means we should [i]disallow[/i] someone from [i]claiming[/i] a serious burden on their religious practice. The validity of their claim should be given its day in court, if it comes to that.

Can you explain why I should hold that "religious belief" is a special class of belief deserving of more protections than other kinds of beliefs?

Although I generally think of Richard Dawkins as a [SPOILER]redacted[/SPOILER], his argument against this kind of thinking is pretty compelling for me. As an example he uses (and I'm paraphrasing from memory) the notion of Conscientious Objector. Where a famous philosophy professor who has published on ethics and whose thesis was written on the moral evil of war. That this hypothetical person would have spent hundreds and thousands of hours thinking critically about the subject and developing arguments for and against and settling upon a conclusion would have no basis for granting CO status.

Being born a Quaker would.

Just because a person believes something fervently doesn't mean that the Government should value that belief.

[QUOTE]Can you explain why I should hold that "religious belief" is a special class of belief deserving of more protections than other kinds of beliefs?[/QUOTE]Yes, just as I could justify race as more deserving of protections than hair color.

But that's not to say I don't value the right of conscience, as in the example you provided, more than "religious belief".

Edited to add: Also, there is a difference between the government valuing someone's specific religious beliefs, and government valuing the right to believe as you wish.

I'm still unclear, are you saying that "race" for whatever definition you are claiming for that word (and assuming I agree that it has more value as a definer of rights than hair color--which I'm pretty sure I don't) has been justifiably used to grant more rights to one individual over another?

Notice that I use the adverb justifiably.

[url]https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0200210100[/url]

Social Security Administration:

GN 00210.100 Same-Sex Marriage - Benefits for Aged Spouses

Sorry I wasn't more clear. In my opinion, race has been justifiably given more protections than hair-color only because historically race has been the source of major persecution whereas hair-color has not been the source of such acts. If people started acting in a similar manner towards hair-color, then it would probably become a protected classification as well.

Similarly, historically religious belief has been the source of extreme persecution, but being a platonist has not. One of the founding principles of the United States was to protect the right to believe as you wish without government interference. I view this in a more comprehensive way as protecting the right of conscience (which would include your philosopher).

This is, of course, just one of many reasons to protect the right of conscience.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;368069]Sorry I wasn't more clear. In my opinion, race has been justifiably given more protections than hair-color only because historically race has been the source of major persecution whereas hair-color has not been the source of such acts.[/QUOTE]But homosexuality _has_ been the target of major persecution, with numerous gays being killed simply because they're gay.
Why should it not have the same status as race in regard to discrimination?

[quote]If people started acting in a similar manner towards hair-color, then it would probably become a protected classification as well.[/quote]So, are you granting that since people have, for a long time, been acting in a similar (to race) manner towards homosexuality, then it should also be a protected classification?

[quote]Similarly, historically religious belief has been the source of extreme persecution, but being a platonist has not. One of the founding principles of the United States was to protect the right to believe as you wish without government interference.[/quote][U]believe[/U] - yes, [U]act[/U] (i.e., discrimination) - no. The proposed bill would protect discriminatory [U]actions[/U]; vetoing it requires no one to change beliefs.

(Laws against theft don't require anyone to give up a belief that theft is okay; they just provide punishment for people who [U]act[/U] on that belief by actually stealing.)

Therefore, characterization of the proposed bill as being for protection of "religious freedom" is, and always has been, just a sham. Religious freedom was not what was being protected by the proposed bill. Backers who claimed that the bill protected religious freedom were either ignorant or lying. [U]Discriminatory [B]action[/B][/U] was what was being protected by the proposed bill.

[quote]This is, of course, just one of many reasons to protect the right of conscience.[/quote]No one's threatening the right of conscience.

What's at question here are [U]acts[/U] of discrimination, not beliefs or conscience. The provisions of the proposed bill were plainly aimed at protecting discriminatory [U]actions[/U], not beliefs or conscience.

If a businessperson's conscience prevents him/her from treating gay customers the same as non-gay customers, that person needs to find some other way of making a living, or do it in some other legal jurisdiction, ... or examine his/her conscience to determine just what proper and equitable basis there is for discriminating against gays. A religion that teaches discrimination against gays is a religion that deserves no followers.

[QUOTE]But homosexuality _has_ been the target of major persecution, with numerous gays being killed simply because they're gay.
Why should it not have the same status as race in regard to discrimination?
[/QUOTE]That is a good question. First, my comment about persecution was with respect to [i]governmental[/i] persecution. There was a time in this country where there were [b]laws[/b] forcing people to discriminate against blacks. Similarly, many people fled from Europe to the United States because their home country's [b]laws[/b] prevented the free exercise of their religion. Sorry I wasn't more clear on that.

In the United States, there are no laws against being homosexual. Those who do persecute to the level of violent acts are punished, and not protected, by the law.

[QUOTE]believe - yes, act (i.e., discrimination) - no. The proposed bill would protect discriminatory actions; vetoing it requires no one to change beliefs.

(Laws against theft don't require anyone to give up a belief that theft is okay; they just provide punishment for people who act on that belief by actually stealing.)

Therefore, characterization of the proposed bill as being for protection of "religious freedom" is, and always has been, just a sham. Religious freedom was not what was being protected by the proposed bill. Backers who claimed that the bill protected religious freedom were either ignorant or lying. Discriminatory action was what was being protected by the proposed bill.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]No one's threatening the right of conscience.

What's at question here are acts of discrimination, not beliefs or conscience. The provisions of the proposed bill were plainly aimed at protecting discriminatory actions, not beliefs or conscience.[/QUOTE]I appreciate your viewpoint, and can see that you believe as you do. And on some points I wouldn't necessarily disagree.

However, on the point that freedom of religion consists only in the ability to believe, but not act, according to the dictates of our conscience, I completely and utterly disagree. A society needs rules to keep the peace, but those don't include forcing a business to support abortion, for example. Or force a wedding photographer to participate in an event that photographer would not consider a wedding. Or to force an artist to create a piece of art against their conscience.

If you would consider these acts "discriminatory", then indeed I support the freedom to discriminate, even in business. However, I think most people (including judges) can see the difference between claiming that these actions would substantially burden a sincere religious belief, whereas claiming you couldn't serve someone because they were effeminate would not be a substantial burden, nor motivated out of a sincere religious belief.

That was in response to cheesehead, but I can't resist butting in here.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;368130]That is a good question. First, my comment about persecution was with respect to [I]governmental[/I] persecution. There was a time in this country where there were [B]laws[/B] forcing people to discriminate against blacks. Similarly, many people fled from Europe to the United States because their home country's [B]laws[/B] prevented the free exercise of their religion. Sorry I wasn't more clear on that.

In the United States, there are no laws against being homosexual. Those who do persecute to the level of violent acts are punished, and not protected, by the law.[/QUOTE]
My knowledge of USA history is very poor, but I know enough to be sure that this idea that gay people have never been directly discriminated by law in the USA does not stand up. What about the freedom of the armed forces not to discriminate against openly gay people when taking people into service? This freedom (let alone requirement) not to discriminate against gay people has only be in force since 2011.

Aside from this inaccuracy, why would it matter if gay people had never been discriminated by government or forced by law to be discriminated? Why would that make this discrimination okay whereas racial discrimination needs to be outlawed?

[QUOTE]I appreciate your viewpoint, and can see that you believe as you do. And on some points I wouldn't necessarily disagree.

However, on the point that freedom of religion consists only in the ability to believe, but not act, according to the dictates of our conscience, I completely and utterly disagree. A society needs rules to keep the peace, but those don't include forcing a business to support abortion, for example.[/QUOTE]Refusing to support abortion does not involve discrimination. This is a different type of issue. Unless an abortion clinic were, for example, to refuse abortions to lesbians while offering them to other women, which would be discrimination and should certainly be outlawed.
[QUOTE]Or force a wedding photographer to participate in an event that photographer would not consider a wedding.[/QUOTE]If a photographer boycotts mixed race weddings because he/she does not consider them weddings, you would agree, would you not, that this is discrimination and should be outlawed. I see no difference between that and refusing to offer the services at same sex weddings.
[QUOTE]Or to force an artist to create a piece of art against their conscience.[/QUOTE]That depends. Artists should of course be free to create whatever they wish to. But if an artist sets up a business whereby he or she paints people's portraits, but then proceeds to decline certain customers on the basis of their sexual orientation, then that is discrimination.

It's true that the last Federal ban on consensual sodomy was repealed all the way back in [URL="http://www.washingtonblade.com/2013/12/20/defense-bill-contains-gay-related-provisions/"]December of 2013[/URL]. So I don't know why we are even talking about it still.

Of course that same law contained some troubling language that will become more and more meaningless as millennials continue to question the homophobia of their forefathers.

You might also remember way back in aught 3, if you are old enough, when the Supreme Court ruled that all the state laws against consensual sex by homosexuals. (my state was one of 4 that said butt sex was okay as long as it's good old fashioned boy on girl action.)

At that time 14 states still had laws against consensual homosexual sex.

This doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of all the legal rights granted to same sex couples which have historically (and continue to be) denied to same-sex couples. (examples include that a husband can't be compelled to testify against his wife in a court of law under most circumstances (spousal privilege) , visitation rights at hospitals, inheritance, insurance, public housing, etc.)

To pretend like the discrimination against homosexuals is a thing of the distant past, or that it wasn't pervasive in all levels of society all the way up to Federal Law is nonsense.

[QUOTE=chappy;368050][URL]http://www.andrewturnbull.net/states.html[/URL]

nice graphic of the state of the same-sex union.

[COLOR=White](USA centric, I know.)[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

Thanks for that, Chap! :smile:

Brian-E,

[QUOTE]Refusing to support abortion does not involve discrimination.[/QUOTE]And therein lies the crux of the entire problem. If you agree with it, it isn't discrimination. If you don't agree with it, it is discrimination.

Of course refusing to support abortion involves discrimination. So does making laws against drunk driving. So does deciding to help a poor neighbor.

Each and every one of these acts is an act of discrimination. You make a distinction between two things, and choose one over the other.

The only difference between justified discrimination and unjust discrimination is whether or not you think the judgement was made due to the class of people being discriminated against, or whether the decision was made on the merits of the proposition.

Take opposition to drunk driving. Your natural response would probably be that this doesn't involve (unjust) discrimination because the merits of the proposition are so obvious to you. Your opposition to drunk driving is not born out of a hatred of people who like drinking--it is born out of a respect of life. Similarly, opposition to stealing is not born out of a hatred of kleptomaniacs. While laws against stealing certainly affect kleptomaniacs more than the average Joe, the laws were not passed with them in mind, or out of any ill intent towards them.

Now take abortion. You said it didn't involve discrimination. In the negative sense of the word, I personally agree with you. But there is a major segment of the U.S. population which does not agree. They frame it as a "war on women". Opposition to abortion can only be born out of hatred for women because of a desire to control their sexual lives. I am not joking. That is how they frame the issue. For them, it is one of unjust, hate-filled discrimination.

Now, finally, take opposition to gay marriage. There are people who are opposed because they hate homosexuals. We can agree that those people are unjustly discriminating. Then there are those people who are opposed because they believe it will be negative for the marriage culture, and negative for children in particular. [We've gone through the reasoning here, ad naseum. So I'll let the rest of this thread speak on that issue.] Are these individuals discriminating (unjustly)? Are they judging the issue out of hatred for a class of individuals? Are they passing laws only to punish homosexuals? Or could it be that while homosexuals are indeed a large class affected by this restriction (but perhaps not even the biggest, if you include bisexuals, etc...) the opposition had nothing to do, per se, with any individual's personal sexual preferences?

It is sometimes difficult to separate one's proclivities from the actions taken due to those natural propensities. And some people think that indeed this separation cannot be done. If you discriminate against a behavior you are automatically discriminating against the class of people prone to said behavior. Thus, if you are against abortion you are automatically against women who choose abortions. If you choose not to support gay marriages you are a homophobe. Indeed, there have been numerous judicial rulings recently in the U.S. that say opposition to gay marriage could be motivated by [b]no other possible motive than [i]hatred[/i][/b].

[QUOTE]If a photographer boycotts mixed race weddings because he/she does not consider them weddings, you would agree, would you not, that this is discrimination and should be outlawed.[/QUOTE]If a photographer boycotts arranged weddings between 40-year-olds and 10-year-olds because he/she finds them morally disturbing, you would agree, would you not, that this is discrimination and should be outlawed.

[QUOTE]That depends. Artists should of course be free to create whatever they wish to. But if an artist sets up a business whereby he or she paints people's portraits, but then proceeds to decline certain customers on the basis of their sexual orientation, then that is discrimination.[/QUOTE]Probably unjustly so. And as I've said before I think businesses should be able to define their services. If the service is "I paint people's portraits" and they don't inquire into lifestyle's of their subjects, then they should paint the picture. If the artist's service has been "I only paint those whom I want to paint" then they should be able to discriminate against anyone for any reason whatsoever.