Prop. 8 judge to religious believers: "It's not about you"

[GreatLakesGramma]

And we can probably expect that in the future, churches will be shut down for refusing to accept practising homosexuals as members.

[Dr. Shane]

We are talking separation of church and state, not morality. Taking church out of the equation there is no reason to not let gays marry.

Actually that isn't accurate. I am against most of what the Religious Right advocates and think their approach to opposing gay marriage has been completely wrong headed. So I am not riding the band wagon with James Dobson or any other Religious Right-wingers.

Throughout history marriage has been defined as a relationship between the opposite sexes. This has been true on every continent, in every culture and every religion. Homosexuality has existed from very ancient times. Some pagans even incorporated it into their religion. However as far as we know, gay "marriage" was never part of any of these societies.

We do have examples throughout history of polygamy. There are even societies today that allow polygamy. We also have examples through history of incestuous marriages where father-daughter, mother-son or siblings married each other.

So the question becomes, if you believe the state does not have a right to ban gay marriage, do you believe the state has a right to ban polygamy? Does it have a right to ban incestuous marriage? If you want to argue separation of church and state, you have a better case doing so in defending polygamy and incestuous marriage than you do in defending gay marriage.

[shelly]

I wouldn't withhold those services from gay couples. I wouldn't discriminate against someone just because I recognized that there lifestyle was sinful. According to the bible we are all sinners. However, Chrisitians feel gays should be exempt from treating your neighbor as yourself because of their obvious sin. I do not believe that providing services is the same as supporting a lifestyle. If we were being asked to perform gay marriages that would be different. Also, if christians want to protect their right to not have services to gay couples you must stipulate your right to refuse services before turning someone away. You can't advertise a service and then say by the way I've changed my mind. That is why you see some businesses advertise in plain sight that they reserve the right to withhold services for X,Y,Z or no reason at all.

[shelly]

Incestrial marriages are barred more as public health issues rather than religious. According to the bible first cousins can marry where as most states make you wait until you are at least 3rd or 4th cousins. The closer the relationship between individuals the higher the incidence of birth defects-some of them serious and life threatening. So your incest arguement doesn't work here. Polygamy in recent years has been associated with child rape and abuse. Until it can disassociate itself with the practice of child abuse I don't see polygamy having a chance.

[Dr. Shane]

Incestrial marriages are barred more as public health issues rather than religious.

[Dr. Shane]

I wouldn't withhold those services from gay couples.

I wouldn't either. But I am a Seventh-day Adventist.

What about a Catholic or Muslim? Should they have the right to not rent out a banquet hall to a gay couple celebrating their marriage?

What about a Catholic adoption service? Should they have the right not to place children with same-sex couples?

There are a lot of things we Seventh-day Adventists would do because of how we believe we should express the love of Christ that people of other religions wouldn't do. So should Seventh-day Adventists use the civil government to force people of other religions to show the same tolerance to gays that we would show?

[Gerr]

Quote:

Don't think that gay marriage laws will be the end of it. In states where it is legal for gays to marry, people with religious convictions against homosexual activity have been prosecuted and convicted of discrimination for refusing to photograph gay weddings or rent a hall for a gay wedding or reception. I'd imagine you could also be jailed for refusing to rent out a house to a gay couple, and a Christian employer most certainly will be in violation of the law if he/she refuses to provided benefits for a gay spouse on religious grounds.

I'm sure it's only a matter of time before it will be illegal to express your conviction that same-gender sexual activity is wrong, either verbally, or in writing, even in private. I've heard that it already is in Canada. Next, they will probably ban the Bible because it condemns homosexual practise.

I think that's where we're headed.

[Gregory Matthews]

I have read the article in Liberty that Shane referenced. I will acknowledge that it raises a couple of points that are of concern. I will also acknowledge that there are honest people who will disagree with what I say next:

I do not have the religious liberty concern for the majority of the issues that the article raises. I simply do not believe that the majority of their concerns are valid under U.S. law as it currently exists.

So, who is right? I guess that time will tell.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

And we can probably expect that in the future, churches will be shut down for refusing to accept practising homosexuals as members.

The above statement, as it applies to the United States of America reflects a total lack of understanding of the First Ammendment to the U.S. Constitution.

I cannot speak to the situaiton in other countries.

[Nan]

Originally Posted By: shelly

I wouldn't withhold those services from gay couples.

I wouldn't either. But I am a Seventh-day Adventist.

What about a Catholic or Muslim? Should they have the right to not rent out a banquet hall to a gay couple celebrating their marriage?

What about a Catholic adoption service? Should they have the right not to place children with same-sex couples?

There are a lot of things we Seventh-day Adventists would do because of how we believe we should express the love of Christ that people of other religions wouldn't do. So should Seventh-day Adventists use the civil government to force people of other religions to show the same tolerance to gays that we would show?

There is a push in the Sydney newspaper today by the Anglican (Episcopalian) adoption agency for a State law to ban adoption by gay couples. Currently a single gay person can legally adopt.

[Dr. Shane]

If we are going to allow civil unions for gays (which I support) I do not see why we should ban adoption. I do think that gays wanting to adopt should have to have been legally together for at least two or three years before allowing them to adopt.

However I do not believe that orphanages or adoption agencies ran by religious organizations should be forced to place children with gay couples. That seems clearly to be a violation of religious liberty.

[doug yowell]

I believe in religious freedom-and this just does not include mine. If a gay couple wants to marry why should I try to force my views on them and prevent such a union. Not allowing them to marrt does not make them any less gay or change their lifestyle. They will practice homosexuality with or without a legal union.

Apparently you don't really believe in religious freedom for every one. After all you're supporting the right of a small minority of sexual deviants (yes, homosexuality IS deviant sexual behaviour) to force (yes, overturning the standard of morality thru judicial fiat IS force) the majority of California's religious community to recognize and support homosexuality,(yes, tax dollars and public recognition ARE forms of legal establishment)a moral practice that their religion forbids, as having the moral and societal benefits as normal and exclusively historical sexuality. And you argue against your argument,if they will practice homosexuality with or without marriage rights why do they need to force the rest of the country to include them in our "club"?Perhaps there's a bigger agenda? Perhaps they've foisted another lie on those willing to believe it?Perhaps Paul's judgment has become a prophecy in fullfillment when he states,"...who,knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death...approve of those who practice them.""therefore God gave them over to a debased mind..."

[GreatLakesGramma]

I wouldn't withhold those services from gay couples.

So just because you wouldn't, nobody else should have a right to either? Religious freedom means that ANYBODY should have the right to follow their own convictions, unless they follow some kind of "religion" that involves actually harming other people.

[GreatLakesGramma]

Quote:

And we can probably expect that in the future, churches will be shut down for refusing to accept practising homosexuals as members.

The above statement, as it applies to the United States of America reflects a total lack of understanding of the First Ammendment to the U.S. Constitution.

I cannot speak to the situaiton in other countries.

No it doesn't. It reflects a recognition of how the Constitution is already being undermined and reinterpreted in this country. When practising Christians and churches themselves are already suffering legal penalties for following their religious convictions in not providing support services for gay weddings, and the Supreme Court has already ruled that it's discrimination for a Christian student organization to restrict its membership to Christians, why should we believe that churches will always be protected? The legislature and the Supreme Court are already chipping away at our freedom of speech and religious freedom.

Supreme Court Rules that Christianity Is Unlawful Discrimination

[Bravus]

Just sad when the churches put so much money and energy into fighting for their right to discriminate, in a world where people are starving.

[Gregory Matthews]

Shane asked:

Quote:

What about a Catholic or Muslim? Should they have the right to not rent out a banquet hall to a gay couple celebrating their marriage?

His question is an important one.

The answer to the issue that Shane has raised lies in the fact that it is a business question. The Roman Catholic and the Islamic has chosen to engage in the business of renting out a banquet hall for people who want to celebrate their marriages. That is their choice. Nothing in the law requires them to engage in the business of renting their banquet hall for such purposes. What the law requires is that once they have made that choice they must rent it ont on a basis that is fair to all and does not discriminate against any class of people.

From the same perspective, Longs Supermarket can not refuse to sell its groceries to a homosexual person. A taxi driver cannot refuse to transport a gay person simply because the person is gay. Southwest Airlines cannot refuse to sell a ticket to a person simply because that person is gay.

[Gregory Matthews]

It has been asked:

Quote:

I'd imagine you could also be jailed for refusing to rent out a house to a gay couple, and a Christian employer most certainly will be in violation of the law if he/she refuses to provided benefits for a gay spouse on religious grounds.

In general terms, no one is going to be forced to rent a room in the home in which they live to anyone. IOW, that law will generally have a stated exception that allows discrimination against anyone in such a situation.

However, if a person is in the business of renting out homes, appartments, rooms, etc, thay cannot under the law discrimiante. IOW if I am renting out 20 homes (appartments, roomes, etc) I cannot discriminate.

NOTE: The common standard in some places is four (4). IOW I cannot discriminate if I have four (4) or more. If I have less than four (4) I can discriminate. But, that will depend on the local statute.

[GreatLakesGramma]

I personally would not have a problem with any of those things, but I know there are those who do.

And I actually don't believe that this country will reach the point of taking all rights away from churches, because I believe the Adventist end-time scenario. More likely it will provoke a huge backlash in the opposite direction. But that is where the current trend is heading, and where it would go were it not stopped.

[Gregory Matthews]

NOTE: My following commet relates to an area of the law that is undeveloped as well as dependent upon the local statute. Therefore while what I say will be accurate in some places and in some situations, it will not be accurate for everywhere in the USA.

Let us look at medical issues:

In general terms, just about everywhere, the statute gives an individual clinician (physician, nurese, etc.) the individual right not to participate in a medical practice that is against thier conscientious beliefs.

NOTE: Yes, an exception might be the LPN, employed by a hospital, who refused to administer the medications prescribed by the physician because she has conscientious beliefs that required her to cure patients with prayer and what she has determined to be natural means. This is an actual case that I once had to deal with related to a SDA LPN. The end result was that she beleived me to be the agent of Saten (and I kept her from going to trial, a criminal conviction, and potentially going to jail) because I agreed that the hospital could not contiue to employ her as she could not perform any useful function in that hospital.

But, does that apply to the institution itself? IOW, Can it be said that a hospital has a belief against giving a legal abortion and is it discrimination if a hospital refuses to allows a licensed MD to perform an abortion when there is clinical staff working for the hospital willing to participate in such a proceedure? The law is not settled on this question.

NOTE: The law does not require a hospital to offer OB services to non-emergency patients. The law does not require any hospital to staff an Emergency departmente. E.G. a psychiatric hospital is not required to do either.

[Gregory Matthews]

Gramma, I think you missed the boat. Read the decision of the court in full.

I will agree that there are times when the U.S. courts have infringed upon individual religious liberties granted us by the Constitution. I am not convinced that your example from the Hastings College of Law case is discriminatory.

In evaluating such a case, it is always well to read the entire decision of the Court. As I read that decision I find the following aspects to be of interest:

1) The CLS was not prohibited from publishing any position or belief and they were not required to admit any person. To this day they can continue to exclude whomever they wish from their organization.

2) At the beginning of the litigation CLS agreed with the opposing side to certain specific stipulations (agreements). The Court in its decision held CLS to those stipulations.

3) Hastings College of Law provided recognized groups certain support. In order to receive that support, the groups had to agree to certain terms. Hastings believed that student fees should not be used to support groups that did not agree to the terms required for support. I agree. African-American students should not have their fees used to support groups that do not allow African-Americans to join their group. The underlying issue here is more of support than it is the ability of CLS to do its thing.

4) After Hastings denied recognition and support, Hastings still allowed the CLS to use classrooms to conduct meetings and to use school facilities to advertise their meetings. It should be noted that after Hastings denied recognition, the membership in CLS doubled.

NOTE: The actions of Hastings in denying recognition clearly did not inhibit CLS from either doing their thing or from increasing its membership.

In my mind, this decision of the Court was correct.

Quote:

CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOCIETY CHAPTER OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, HASTINGS COLLEGEOF THE LAW, AKA HASTINGS CHRISTIAN FELLOW-SHIP v. MARTINEZ ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No. 08–1371. Argued April 19, 2010—Decided June 28, 2010

* * * * *

The court held that the all-comers condition on access to a limited public forum was both reasonable and viewpoint neutral, and therefore did not violate CLS’s right to free speech. Nor, in the court’s view, did Hastings impermissibly impair CLS’s right to expressive association: Hastings did not order CLS to admit any student, nor did the school proscribe any speech; Hastings merely placed conditions on the use of school facilities and funds.

* * * *

The policy’s written terms, CLS contends, target solely those groups that organize around religious beliefs or that disapprove of particular sexual behavior, and leave other associations free to limit membership to persons committed to the group’s ideology. This argument flatly contradicts the joint stipulation of facts the parties submitted at the summary-judgment stage, which specified: “Hastings requires that [RSOs] allow any student to participate, . . . regardless of [her] status or beliefs. For example, the Hastings Democratic Caucus cannot bar students holding Republican political beliefs. . . .” This Court has long recognized that parties are bound by, and cannot contradict, their stipulations. See, e.g., Board of Regents of Univ. of Wis. System v. Southworth, 529 U. S. 217, 226. The Court therefore rejects CLS’s attempt to escape from the stipulation and shift its target to Hastings’ policy as written. Pp. 8–12.

* * *

2) The justifications Hastings asserts in support of its all comers policy are reasonable in light of the RSO forum’s purposes. First, the policy ensures that the leadership, educational, and social opportunities afforded by RSOs are available to all students. RSOs are eligible for financial assistance drawn from mandatory student activity fees; the policy ensures that no Hastings student is forced to fund a group that would reject her as a member. Second, the policy helps Hastings police the written terms of its Nondiscrimination Policy without inquiring into an RSO’s motivation for membership restrictions. CLS’s proposal that Hastings permit exclusion because of belief but forbid discrimination due to status would impose on Hastings the daunting task of trying to determine whether a student organization cloaked prohibited status exclusion in belief-based garb.

* * * *

(3) Hastings’ policy is all the more creditworthy in light of the “substantial alternative channels that remain open for [CLS-student] communication to take place.” Perry Ed. Assn. v. Perry Local Educators’ Assn., 460 U. S. 37, 53. Hastings offered CLS access to school facilities to conduct meetings and the use of chalkboards and certain bulletin boards to advertise events. Although CLS could not take advantage of RSO-specific methods of communication, the advent of electronic media and social-networking sites lessens the importance of those channels. Private groups, such as fraternities and sororities, commonly maintain a presence at universities without official school affiliation. CLS was similarly situated: It hosted a variety of activities the year after Hastings denied it recognition, and the number of students attending those meetings and events doubled.

* * * *

[Dr. Shane]

The Roman Catholic and the Islamic has chosen to engage in the business of renting out a banquet hall for people who want to celebrate their marriages... What the law requires is that once they have made that choice they must rent it ont on a basis that is fair to all and does not discriminate against any class of people.

This is the position that accurately reflects the position of gay-rights activists. Of course, what it means is that people with certain religious convictions would be denied employment and the opportunity to financially provide for their families. That is where gay rights clashes with religious liberty.

Many religions have taught for centuries that to enable others to commit a sin is to share the guilt of such sin. They believe they cannot sell alcohol or pornography in their store and not bear some portion of guilt for those that use it. We have a member in our church that has an ATM business. He placed an ATM in a gentleman's club and it quickly became his most profitable ATM. After a couple of months he and his wife decided it was immoral to keep their ATM in that business and they removed it. Were they discriminating against the gentleman's club? Most certainly. If they would have removed it from a business because the business owner had been black, that would have been illegal. However gentlemen club owners are not a protected class so he was not breaking the law by removing his ATM machine.

Now the gay-rights group will tell the owner of a dance hall that he or she needs to sell their dance hall and find other employment if their conscience doesn't allow them to participate in the sin of homosexuality. Of course the other option is for the gay couple to go down the street and rent a dance hall from someone else that doesn't have strong religious convictions. But that is not what the gay-rights movement is about. The gay-rights movements wants to trump private property rights and make themselves a protected class of people like racial minorities are.

As explained in Hernandez v. Robles (2006), "Racism has been recognized for centuries — at first by a few people, and later by many more — as a revolting moral evil." The same cannot be said for gay discrimination. Discrimination against gays has historically been seen in the same light as discrimination against alcoholics and prostitutes. Homosexuality has been viewed as a behavior which can be refrained from unlike a person's race which cannot be changed.

Just a note of clarity: If I were a dance hall owner, I would have no problem renting out my dance hall to gays. In fact, I would make it a policy that the profits gained from renting out the dance hall to gays would be donated to a ministry helping gays leave that lifestyle. That policy would be printed on all my rental agreements.

[Dr. Shane]

However, if a person is in the business of renting out homes, appartments, rooms, etc, thay cannot under the law discrimiante. IOW if I am renting out 20 homes (appartments, roomes, etc) I cannot discriminate.

What about if the person is a known prostitute who has been convicted of using her past residences for servicing clients? Can you discriminate against her because you don't want prostitution going on in one of your rental properties or do yo have to rent to her and wait for her to commit the same crime again? Basically, should a prostitute have the same protected status as gays want to have?

[Gregory Matthews]

Shane asked:

Quote:

. . . do yo have to rent to her and wait for her to commit the same crime again?

In most places, prostitution is a crime. One will never be rquired to rent a home (appartment, etc.) to be used in the commission of a crime.

NOTE: A place of prostitution, where is is legal, is reqauiared to obtain a business license and otherwise comply with the law as to where a place of prostitution may be located. Where prostittuion is legal, it is never legal in a residential area where a personal home would be located.

[Gregory Matthews]

Shane asked:

Quote:

. . . should a prostitute have the same protected status as gays want to have?

Protestatution is a business activity. It does not have a so-called protected status.

A prostitute is a person who conducts a specific business in the same sense that a clergyperson is a person who conducts a sepecific business activity and the same applies to a taxi dariver.

Business activities, in general, do not carry protected status under the civil rights laws.

[Gregory Matthews]

Shane has several times referenced Hernandez v Robles, 2006.

I beleive that an important statement in this rulling is the following:

Quote:

We hold that the New York Constitution does not compel recognition of marriages between members of the same sex. Whether such marriages should be recognized is a question to be addressed by the Legislature. [*2]

The judges ruled on the basis of the New YorkConstitution, not the Constitution of any oher State and not the Federal Constitution.

I tend to agree with the above part of the rullling. However, the decision then went on to state in clear terms that "It is undisputed that the benefits of marriage ar many." It later lists some and clarly agrees that homosexual unions do not recieve those benefits. The judge ruled that the legislature could dprovide those benefits to the exclulsion of homosexual marriages.

That is where I disagree. Benefits, in my thinking, that a legislature gives to one catagory of people must be granted to others.

This is the argument of those promoting homosexual unions.

I happen to think that it is up to the legislature to decide whether or not to grant those benefits by marriage or by civil unions. Some, to included judges, disagree with me.