The gay marriage case could cost religious schools in a big way

[bonnie]

The gay marriage case could cost religious schools in a big way

Washington Posr

Share on FacebooShare on Twitteron LinkedIn

By Max Ehrenfreund June 26 at 8:23 AM  

This photo taken Oct. 3, 2014 shows the Supreme Court in Washington. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

Thursday was a busy day at the Supreme Court, and details about the justices' decisions on health care and discrimination in housing are below. The court still has to deliver its widely anticipated opinion on gay marriage, and earlier this week, Laurie Goodstein and Adam Liptak of The New York Timesdiscussed a surprising implication of that case:

Conservative religious schools all over the country forbid same-sex relationships, from dating to couples’ living in married-student housing, and they fear they will soon be forced to make a wrenching choice. If the Supreme Court this month finds a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, the schools say they will have to abandon their policies that prohibit gay relationships or eventually risk losing their tax-exempt status.

Married housing is one concern... Dating policies prohibiting same-sex contact are another, along with questions about whether religious institutions would have to extend benefits to same-sex spouses of employees.

Marriage is a potent symbol, first and foremost, but it also means real money. Same-sex couples pay all kinds of unexpected costs if they can't marry, and housing and benefits at religious institutions is another example.

 

[whbae]

One of the signs of imminent coming of our Savior!

[bonnie]

 

Most here seem to think that this will not have any effect on our schools and churches. I am curious. When some of our colleges accept federal money how can they refuse to allow gay couples housing and refuse to hire those living a homosexual lifestyle as instructors? I know Loma Linda has been given millions in federal money and assume same would hold true for Andrews and others..

I believe ADRA also receives  a sizable chunk of federal money so does that give the federal government leverage in forcing our institutions? Of course some believe it couldn't happen but what does our hand out for federal money mean in terms of how are institutions are run?

 

 

 

[phkrause]

I agree Bonnie, it definitely will. I can remember when New England Memorial Hospital had to start serving meat and than pork. It had been taking government money and was than required to serve pork! It eventually went downhill from there and is no longer open.

Edited June 28, 2015 by phkrause

[Gregory Matthews]

Well, the government is into the sale and preparation of food in a big way.  For your reading pleasure, you might want to read the 2013 publication THE FOOD CODE.  That is a document that exceeds 600 pages.  It addresses many aspects of food preparation and sale, to include the preparation of food, in a home kitchen, for sale at a church function.  NOTE:  Before you go off on this one, read what it actually says.  It probably does not say what you might think.  Also, I have not read every page.   But, what I have read does NOT seem to me to require that meat and pork to be served in hospitals. If you do want to read this document, you can access it at: 

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/GuidanceRegulation/RetailFoodProtection/FoodCode/UCM374510.pdf

Interesting and surprising to me, is the fact that there are a number of Internet websites that speculate on the a government that might want to force pork to be served to Islamics and Jews.  None of these, with exceptions that I will  mention, seem to be based upon fact.

There seems to be some factual basis to the government of Norway, in 1914, but that is clearly not a modern situation and as it is 100 years old, the actual enforcement is not known.  In any case, in my thinking, the most that can be said is that this was a recommendation as opposed to a requirement.

There also may be a relationship to a Philadelphia hospital in 1917.  Again, this is not a modern situation.  And questions could be raised as to whether it was a recommendation and  the extent to which it was enforced.

There is some, suggestion that some of this may have occurred in around 1899 and the early 1900's.  But that is interesting.  E.G. in 1899 there was a hospital regulation that seems to have required that hospitalized patients be bathed a minimum of once a week.

I came upon one website that discusses this at length.  However, it was a satirical website that clearly was not factual.  It was just poking fun.

The issues of SDA hospitals serving meat are much more complex than that of any government regulation.  To suggest that our New England Hospital's closure was in any way related to serving meat is simplistic and well beyond actual issues of overall management and other factors.  But, that is something that I am not going to get into here and now.

However, to expand upon this a bit.  Any accredited hospital is expected to stock in its pharmacy the items that it will need to treat its hospitalized patients.  On occasion, a physician will prescribe that a patient be     given an alcoholic beverage, such as beer.  Depending upon the type of a hospital, this may not be often. But, it does happen. To meet that requirement hospital pharmacies will likely stock beer.  One should not take this situation, to suggest that all (or most) patients are offered drinks of beer.

  

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Here is a Johns Hopkins study that calls for hospitals to reduce their serving of meat:   http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-a-livable-future/_pdf/research/clf_reports/BMC_Report_Final.pdf

[Naomi]

Gregory this study takes me back to the socialism thread. When the government is involved and strong enough we really have no rights of choices. Folks want the government to give, give, give but you don't get something for nothing. in the Communism prisons SDA prisoners were given only pork to eat. If they ate it they were ridiculed as non believers, if they refused they starved to death. . Sorry I realize this is a bit off topic...

[hch]

... Be sure the Sabbath is a test question, and how you treat this question, places you either on God's side or Satan's side. The mark of the beast is to be presented in some shape to every institution and every individual.  {1888 477.2}  
     The position taken by some is, that this evil enactment has no relation to the present observance of the Sabbath. Here again great blindness is shown to be upon them. In this they are not correct, for every move from the first made by Satan was the beginning of his work to continue to the end to exalt the false, to take the place of the genuine Sabbath of Jehovah. He is just as intent now and more determined to do this than ever before. He has come down with great power to deceive them who dwell on the earth with his Satanic delusions. His work has a direct reference to the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, and should the resolution be passed that because of inconveniences and loss of property, imprisonment and fines, the enactment of laws of the State shall compel Sunday observance, all must obey these laws God would certainly be dishonored; and the lesson given to those who need better advice shall be of a character to open the way and make it easy for souls to be carried away with the bold, swift current of evil. They will be tempted strongly because of the universal scorn which they see thrown upon the law of God to think slightly of it and to place the laws of men on an equality with the laws of God and give less and less reverence to the laws of Jehovah. Shall the overseers of the flock work with the great deceiver to make apostasy from God easy?  {1888 477.3} 

Applying the principles stated above: Can anyone imagine Adventists colleges cooperating with the laws of the land in the gay marriage issue that mocks God's word for financial advantage in which they would help Satan to make apostasy from God easier?

[hch]

Are we there yet?

We would do well to Consider this warning:

"The wants of the cause will continually increase as we near the close of time. Means is needed to give young men a short course of study in our schools, to prepare them for efficient work in the ministry and in different branches of the cause. We are not coming up to our privilege in this matter. All schools among us will soon be closed up. How much more might have been done had men obeyed the requirements of Christ in Christian beneficence! What an influence would this readiness to give all for Christ have had upon the world! It would have been one of the most convincing arguments in favor of the truth we profess to believe--an argument which the world could not misunderstand nor gainsay. The Lord would have distinguished us with His blessing even before the eyes of the world."  {5T 156.2} 

[bonnie]

 

I can. I believe you are going to see just that in some of our schools.I don't think it is that far down the road to see the more liberal SDA churches perform gay marriages. I have grandchildren in some of our colleges and have stopped being surprised or amazed at what passes for "enlightened SDA teaching" I am very thankful for the firm grounding they had.

And realistically,why not? I believe God is fair in all things and gay marriage is seen by many SDA's as only fair equal rights.After all God made them that way. He loves gays to. 

Would God deny fairness and equality? I don't think He would.Many seem to think we can flirt with this and dismiss it as only a civil law that won't have tremendous impact on our denomination.

 

[Aliensanctuary]

Maybe the SDA educational institutions will either have to comply with new USA federal laws, experience loss of funding, tax breaks, and accreditation, or, move to other countries that might accommodate their stance on gay marriage and other biblical principles.

Sadly, our politicians and bureaucrats and unbelievers may not realize how much the promotion and practice of the laws of God could make this a much better and safer country.

[Gregory Matthews]

When one accepts government money one must comply with the obligations that come with it, Naomi.

 

[Naomi]

So true Gregory.  If I indicated anything different I was chasing the wrong train. By accepting government funds for any of our endeavors  we have essentially "sold out" control of policies and procedures. 

[Gregory Matthews]

I did not intend to imply disagreement.