How can gay marriage trample religious freedom?

[margotb822]

I came across this article this morning (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-stern17-2008jun17,0,5628051.story), in which the author claims that by protecting gay rights, people won't be able to exercise their religious freedom. Here are his examples:

* A San Diego County fertility doctor was sued for refusing to perform artificial insemination for one partner of a lesbian couple for religious reasons. The doctor referred the patient to a colleague, promised there would be no extra cost and offered to care for her during her subsequent pregnancy. The case is now before the California Supreme Court, and justices seemed hostile to the doctor's defense during oral arguments last month.

* Catholic Charities in Boston and San Francisco ended adoption services altogether rather than be compelled by anti-discrimination laws to place children with same-sex couples. In the Boston case, Catholic Charities was prepared to refer same-sex couples seeking to adopt to other providers, but that was not sufficient.

* A Lutheran school in Riverside County was sued in 2005 under California's Unruh Act (which forbids discrimination by businesses) for expelling two students who allegedly were having a lesbian relationship, in contravention of the religious views of the school. The case was thrown out in Superior Court in January, but the students have appealed.

* Public school officials in Poway, Calif., so far have successfully barred students from wearing T-shirts that register their opposition to homosexuality on campus. One lawsuit made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court before being dismissed (as moot, because the students had graduated), but another federal lawsuit is pending.


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

Does this sound like a stinking pile to anyone else? Last time I checked, your religious freedom only extended to you, not onto other people. If you have qualms doing your job because of your religion, maybe you need to find a new job. If you want to wear hate-filled shirts, maybe you need to move to a compound in Waco. The way I see it, using religion to counter gay rights is in violation of the First amendment. Therefore, all arguments against gay marriage based on religion are moot. I just get so peeved when people act like jerks. Wasn't Jesus the one who preached love and acceptance?

[JDPriestly]

1. Mass. and Ca. now allow legal gay marriages.

When people realize that extending respect and freedom to others actually doesn't hurt them at all, their feelings will change.

Gay rights are still a rather new concept. Slavery was frowned upon long before it was abolished, and the very concept of racial intermarriage and equal rights didn't become possible until decades, and as to equal rights for people of different races, almost a century after slavery was ended. It just takes time.

[margotb822]

2. It just seems so spiteful to me

Why deny something to someone else? Especially when it has no bearing on you personally. I just can't imagine that (maybe it's because I come from a mixed race family. I don't know, my family stressed acceptance).

[tjwash]

3. It doesn't. A lot of conservative churches confuse "freedom of religion" with...

..."freedom to shove our beliefs down everyones throat". No one is sending the people to jail for believing in their faith, or burning them at the stake. They are just not letting them turn the US into a theocracy. A lot of the same churches use it interchangeably with the the "we are being oppressed" card. Either way, it's how a lot of ultra-conservative denominations keep their people sending the money in.

They just need a common enemy to focus on, and keep the flock distracted. It happens to be gays right now. Muslims, feminists, or liberals will work in a pinch though.

[Somawas]

4. Not at all a stinking pile.

Does this sound like a stinking pile to anyone else? Last time I checked, your religious freedom only extended to you, not onto other people. If you have qualms doing your job because of your religion, maybe you need to find a new job. If you want to wear hate-filled shirts, maybe you need to move to a compound in Waco. The way I see it, using religion to counter gay rights is in violation of the First amendment. Therefore, all arguments against gay marriage based on religion are moot. I just get so peeved when people act like jerks. Wasn't Jesus the one who preached love and acceptance?

No. It does not at all sound like a stinking pile to me. Hate speech is fully protected by the First Amendment, whether religiously motivated or just motivated from hatred. When you say that "using religion to counter gay rights" violates the First Amendment, you betray a lack of understanding of the First Amendment. Religion, expression, speech and ideas are all protected, no matter how wrong they may be.

[margotb822]

5. I should have specified

In a school. Yes, freedom of speech is protected by the 1st Amendment, but schools have the right to draw the line in order to maintain discipline. I was referring to the example of schools banning anti-gay clothing.

[Somawas]

8. You cite two examples involving schools.

In the case of the Lutheran school, I agree with the school. A religious school is entitled to maintain and enforce its releigious beliefs. That is a purely private discrimination that is and should be lawful.

In the second case, regarding the T-shirts, I wopuld tend to support the students in the free exercise of their religious and speech rights. While their wearing message clothing might be disruptive in the hall ways or the playground, it is not inherently disruptive to the educational process. In fact, probably a teaching moment.

[margotb822]

10. Those were the examples from the editorial

As far as the Lutheran school, I would like to know what evidence there was to support their claim. A "supposed" relationship doesn't sound very strong to me, but if they were involved in activities on school property, I would see where the expulsion had grounds.

For the t-shirts, I think it's a matter of drawing the line sooner rather than later. Would it be different if people wore racially discriminating shirts? I think it's one of those things that can spiral very quickly, so they cut it off early. Also, I think it takes a level of maturity to discuss things like gay rights, and many high schoolers just don't have that.

[Somawas]

13. Schools

As far as the Lutheran school is concerned, I don't think they actually ahve to have proof of an actual relationship, nor does the activity offensive to their beliefs have to occur on school property. As a private organization they are not obligated to give due process hearings before acting in what they perceive to be thier best interests. So their action appears to be precipitous, but not illegal.

As for the t-shirts, I see no difference between discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation vs. discriminating on the basis of race. Both forms of speech are protected, if offensive. As far as high schoolers and maturity levels, maybe they can't discuss gay rights, but they can discuss tolerance. But I have never been a fan of the "maintain discipline" doctrine in education law. Makes the public schools sound like the military or a prison. Not much of a place to be.

[TrogL]

14. Disruption in the hallway is disruptive to the educational process

It's called a "poisonous work environment".

I worked in an office where some contractors insisted upon playing Rush Limbaugh at full volume all day, every day. I called management on it, citing a "poisonous work environment" (they knew I was going to follow up with a sexual harassment claim) and they shut it down.

If you allow looking the other way to bullying a "teaching moment" (I know it as "teachable moment"), I'd love to know what value you're teaching.

[Somawas]

17. Who said anything about

a disruption in the hallway?

As I said above, I have never been a fan of the "maintain discipline" doctrine in education law. It makes a school sound like the army or a prison.

And I have no idea what you are talking about when you accuse of "looking the other way" to "bullying." I did not suggest that anyone look the other way. And I don't believe that holding offensive views is bullying. Its disagreeing, to be sure. and offensive. But not bullying.

Shutting down offensive views simply because they are offensive teaches oppression. And I find that offensive.

[Peace Patriot]

6. There is a long history of bloody religious wars in Europe and England underpinning

the First Amendment's complete ban on the establishment of religion (the state favoring one religion over another, or having anything at all to do with religion), and freedom of speech. The religious wars included one 'Christian' sect drawing and quartering members of another, the mixing of religion with royal and state power and all their conflicts, and Inquisitions, witch-burnings, pogroms and Crusades against Christians and non-Christians. Our Founders knew this history, and were determined to prevent it from visiting these shores. It is the clearest, firmest, most adamant intention of those who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and who fought the Revolutionary War, to create an entirely secular state that is entirely neutral on religion. Their other most adamant intention was to prevent presidential wars of choice.

The Bush Junta has egregiously violated both of these fundamental principles of our democracy. They have stirred up religious bigotry--such that this most volatile of human hatreds now haunts our land--and have outright sponsored religious institutions with taxpayers' money. As for presidential war, there has never been a clearer case of an out-of-control executive committing this nation to invade and occupy another for no justifiable reason, and in defiance of national and international law, and in violation of the lessons of our own history.

The two things go together. Religion + politics = war. Our Founders knew it. They tried their best to keep them apart, and to subject both to the rules of secular democracy. Now it is up to us to restore those vital principles, or we will join the slagheap of nations that have destroyed themselves with religion-driven hatred and war.

[Beetwasher]

7. Freedom Of Religion=Freedom To Shove MY Religion Down YOUR Throat

At least for some people that's what it means. If I can't force YOU to obey MY idiotic religious tenets, then YOU are persecuting ME. Get it? Me neither.

[Howler]

9. it doesn't !

Religious theology is trampling what is clearly a constitutional issue.

[mdmc]

11. I know! I know!

See, you have the right to follow any religious doctrine you want - you just can't force it on others.

Gays get "equal" protection under the law, so they are allowed to get married just like everyone else.

So the individual right to pursue happiness trumps the religious right to limit the pursuit of happiness.

[Alter Ego]

12. A load of horse hockey if I ever heard one.

We're not telling the churches that they have to marry gays and lesbians.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

15. The only way I could see that headline holding

is if they forced churches to perform Gay Marriages or other sacraments...

[colinmom71]

16. It doesn't...

The only way legal recognition of gay marriage would be an unconstitutional denial of freedom of religion is if the law attempted to compel churches and/or religious officials into performing marriage ceremonies for homosexual couples. Which is not an issue at all... Religious institutions are free to determine whether or not they will choose to participate in marriage ceremonies according to their religious dogma and will remain free to do so even if/when marriages for homosexual persons becomes the law of the land...

[ColbertWatcher]

18. Last time I checked, your religious freedom only extended to you,

Hmm, maybe that's it?

The Christers believe their right to spew non-stop (they call it proselytizing) is more legal than everyone else's "right" not to hear it.

If that right is "infringed" the Christers will claim they are being persecuted.

California's ruling legally argues against one of the key tenets of their hatred: gays are second class citizens.

Their belief that "man shall not lie down with man" is directly attacked by California's ruling, forcing every True Believer® to instantaneously lie down with a person of the same sex.

Or, at the very least, having to endure that another state recognizes everyone has the same right to something under the protection of law, despite what they believe and shout to the Heavens.

[rucky]

19. It's nice of him to admit that there is institutional discrimination in religion.

and totally misguided of Stern to try and defend that.


Mr Stern, from one Jew to another...