Well, I think that it's unfair of you to automatically throw churches in with the same lot as private clubs, etc. I think the reason private clubs are allowed to exclude certain people is because the function of a club (and I'm assuming night clubs are what we're talking about?) is very dependent on who goes there. The crowd of people, the music, etc. If a club let just anyone in, wearing anything, it would be damaging to its reputation and image.
Furthermore, I think if a club turned away all black people there would be serious problems.
And colleges aren't allowed to pick whoever they want. They have to accept some minorities.
The workplace allows it, to my understanding, because it is discrimination of a severe and harmful brand to exclude employment based on race or gender (and I believe sexual preference).
Race and gender are well outlined bases for harmful discrimination, sexual preference is not. The common thread between race and gender is that discrimination is not permitted unless doing so preserves the expressive message of the private institution. Race, gender and sexual preference in my view often do not affect the expressive message of a workplace, restaurant, or church.
Discrimination is a lot less tolerated than you seem to think it is. I even recall one case being heard about discrimination of parents because a restaurant refused to serve parents with a baby.
Apparently the case has some weight to it, but I honestly don't know enough to say.
Furthermore, I think if a club turned away all black people there would be serious problems.
And colleges aren't allowed to pick whoever they want. They have to accept some minorities.
The workplace allows it, to my understanding, because it is discrimination of a severe and harmful brand to exclude employment based on race or gender (and I believe sexual preference).
Race and gender are well outlined bases for harmful discrimination, sexual preference is not. The common thread between race and gender is that discrimination is not permitted unless doing so preserves the expressive message of the private institution. Race, gender and sexual preference in my view often do not affect the expressive message of a workplace, restaurant, or church.
Discrimination is a lot less tolerated than you seem to think it is. I even recall one case being heard about discrimination of parents because a restaurant refused to serve parents with a baby.
Apparently the case has some weight to it, but I honestly don't know enough to say.
Club as in a group of people choosing to associate together. Think like the Elks Lodge, or a Gentleman's Club, or a fanclub for some pop idol. That kind of club. And, again, provided they do not accept public funds to operate, they are allowed to exclude whomever they want. There was another recent case that said a christian club in one of the state schools in California was free to exclude homosexual members, but that they could not then expect to receive the funds provided by the public school which came with the caveats of non discrimination policies.
Sorry for the misunderstanding of club ><
But still, those clubs have messages and outlines of their members. It's not the same with churches. Churches that take the bible literally don't have a lot of source material that talks about who is allowed to be a christian. In fact, there's a lot more material saying everyone can be a christian. It's not an exclusive "club." Churches refusing to marry gays is not in the efforts to preserve the church's expressive message. Whereas a hunting club refusing to allow the enlistment of an animal rights' activist would be.
You keep saying private institutions can do whatever they want, but I don't see how the expressive message of a church is altered (at least in most churches) by marrying homosexuals. Hence, discrimination.
You must unlearn what you have learned.
Gay Marriage
- 12/08/2010 10:23:19 AM
2095 Views
I disagree on the latter part
- 12/08/2010 12:04:15 PM
1427 Views
I follow your point...
- 12/08/2010 12:14:17 PM
1413 Views
Suspect you would find plenty of denominations that would argue with you rather strenuously.
- 12/08/2010 12:24:55 PM
1451 Views
See, that's what I'm saying...
- 12/08/2010 07:37:26 PM
1376 Views
You didn't read my post.
- 12/08/2010 09:10:21 PM
1311 Views
Actually, you didn't read my post
- 12/08/2010 09:23:54 PM
1393 Views
Um, you're wrong.
- 12/08/2010 09:37:13 PM
1336 Views
- 12/08/2010 09:37:13 PM
1336 Views
Re: Um, you're wrong.
- 12/08/2010 09:44:17 PM
1296 Views
- 12/08/2010 09:44:17 PM
1296 Views
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale. And no, he described it accurately. *NM*
- 12/08/2010 09:53:31 PM
662 Views
You're still wrong.
- 12/08/2010 09:54:55 PM
1433 Views
- 12/08/2010 09:54:55 PM
1433 Views
Re: You're still wrong.
- 12/08/2010 09:58:26 PM
1287 Views
- 12/08/2010 09:58:26 PM
1287 Views
Again, you are still wrong.
- 12/08/2010 10:04:42 PM
1358 Views
- 12/08/2010 10:04:42 PM
1358 Views
Re: Again, you are still wrong.
- 12/08/2010 10:17:13 PM
1180 Views
- 12/08/2010 10:17:13 PM
1180 Views
Wrong definition of "club"
- 12/08/2010 10:30:52 PM
1452 Views
Re: Wrong definition of "club"
- 12/08/2010 10:40:55 PM
1349 Views
Also
- 12/08/2010 10:02:44 PM
1408 Views
And wrong again.
- 12/08/2010 10:08:24 PM
1419 Views
- 12/08/2010 10:08:24 PM
1419 Views
Not so quick!
- 12/08/2010 10:21:31 PM
1247 Views
- 12/08/2010 10:21:31 PM
1247 Views
Yes, so quick!
- 12/08/2010 10:32:13 PM
1200 Views
Let's be reasonable here
- 12/08/2010 10:41:53 PM
1301 Views
Why do you get to judge?
- 12/08/2010 10:48:57 PM
1338 Views
I don't
- 12/08/2010 10:53:21 PM
1226 Views
OK.
- 12/08/2010 10:58:22 PM
1336 Views
Re: OK.
- 12/08/2010 11:03:50 PM
1304 Views
Here's the thing: your opinion seems to be informed by the Roman Catholic Faith.
- 12/08/2010 11:14:03 PM
1242 Views
Re: Here's the thing: your opinion seems to be informed by the Roman Catholic Faith.
- 12/08/2010 11:23:35 PM
1356 Views
Then please stop.
- 12/08/2010 11:01:05 PM
1307 Views
- 12/08/2010 11:01:05 PM
1307 Views
What's wrong with discussion?
- 12/08/2010 11:05:48 PM
1261 Views
Discussion? Nothing. Your assertions about other people's views, something.
- 12/08/2010 11:09:48 PM
1270 Views
What, because the expressive message of scouting is anti-gay?
- 12/08/2010 10:12:54 PM
1164 Views
Re: What, because the expressive message of scouting is anti-gay?
- 12/08/2010 10:23:36 PM
1282 Views
Well then that brings us back to my question, which you have yet to answer.
- 12/08/2010 10:36:48 PM
1265 Views
Re: Well then that brings us back to my question, which you have yet to answer.
- 12/08/2010 10:46:22 PM
1367 Views
Not entirely true either... or, well, true as far as Brown goes.
- 12/08/2010 10:08:42 PM
1255 Views
Actually, I did. And since everyone else told you you're wrong about that I didn't see any need
- 12/08/2010 09:38:33 PM
1351 Views
Re: Actually, I did. And since everyone else told you you're wrong about that I didn't see any need
- 12/08/2010 09:55:05 PM
1249 Views
Gah.
- 12/08/2010 09:59:45 PM
1203 Views
What a mature response.
- 12/08/2010 10:11:00 PM
1418 Views
I can't speak for Rebekah, but I don't think the issue is that your points are invalid per se.
- 12/08/2010 10:22:30 PM
1220 Views
Um
- 12/08/2010 09:46:43 PM
1363 Views
That's a very good question. *NM*
- 12/08/2010 09:49:05 PM
640 Views
It makes no sense
- 12/08/2010 04:29:24 PM
1208 Views
Re: It makes no sense
- 12/08/2010 07:39:25 PM
1273 Views
Re: It makes no sense
- 12/08/2010 07:41:02 PM
1371 Views
Yes, but while marrying two murderers does not ensure that they will continue to murder...
- 12/08/2010 09:08:53 PM
1192 Views
Re: Yes, but while marrying two murderers does not ensure that they will continue to murder...
- 12/08/2010 09:42:21 PM
1305 Views
What other church sanctioned circumstances encourage continued sin?
- 12/08/2010 09:45:33 PM
1362 Views
Re: What other church sanctioned circumstances encourage continued sin?
- 13/08/2010 11:04:02 AM
1332 Views
Wow, it's almost like an entire denomination believes that!
*NM*
- 13/08/2010 03:41:07 PM
634 Views
- 13/08/2010 03:43:26 PM
1111 Views
*NM*
- 13/08/2010 03:41:07 PM
634 Views
- 13/08/2010 03:43:26 PM
1111 Views
Yeah, that's the Roman Catholic basis against masturbation and contraception. *NM*
- 13/08/2010 04:12:00 PM
602 Views
Yes
- 13/08/2010 04:22:58 PM
1143 Views
Dude....please at least have a working knowledge of the Bible before you spout off.
- 12/08/2010 10:47:13 PM
1172 Views
secular marriage is decoupled from religious marriage
- 12/08/2010 02:50:43 PM
1396 Views
Simple, require the legal and religious marriage to be performed separately.
- 12/08/2010 02:58:43 PM
1211 Views
And they are, in fact, separate right now in the US. They're just called the same thing.
- 12/08/2010 03:29:26 PM
1265 Views
It's not the same name that's confusing so much as the single ceremony. Or so it seems to me.
- 12/08/2010 03:37:20 PM
1255 Views
I disagree. I think giving the legal institution the same name as the sacrament is the problem.
- 12/08/2010 03:59:43 PM
1250 Views
What in the world would that accomplish?
- 12/08/2010 03:44:32 PM
1305 Views
Provide some much-needed clarity, evidently.
- 12/08/2010 03:49:33 PM
1135 Views
the problem is it would be changing a centuries old tradition..
- 12/08/2010 04:26:47 PM
1163 Views
heheheheheheheHAHAHAHEHEHehehehehahheeh*cough*
- 12/08/2010 04:55:09 PM
1197 Views
thats OK I am sure you will get over it
- 12/08/2010 05:22:08 PM
1205 Views
Just guessing, but I think it was the "centuries old tradition" that set off the giggle fit.
- 12/08/2010 07:25:38 PM
1306 Views
Really? I was hoping for something better
- 12/08/2010 10:06:00 PM
1258 Views
So government recognition makes your religion meaningful?
- 12/08/2010 10:11:54 PM
1363 Views
not my religion I'm agnostic
- 12/08/2010 10:34:40 PM
1193 Views
I'm not far left, thank you very much. *NM*
- 12/08/2010 10:20:31 PM
700 Views
no but your are European and that slants your views
*NM*
- 12/08/2010 10:36:01 PM
680 Views
*NM*
- 12/08/2010 10:36:01 PM
680 Views
Simples
- 12/08/2010 09:30:31 PM
1277 Views
there are about 140 post ranging from boyscouts to infant babtism
- 12/08/2010 10:57:46 PM
1248 Views
So.
- 14/08/2010 01:27:59 AM
1126 Views
sorry I responded I forgot what a tool you are. my bad
- 14/08/2010 02:48:57 AM
1634 Views
You spout some utter gibberish then dish out insults when called on it? Very funny
- 15/08/2010 12:47:04 PM
1466 Views
- 15/08/2010 12:47:04 PM
1466 Views
Agreed *NM*
- 12/08/2010 03:45:04 PM
554 Views
I love you, Camilla
- 12/08/2010 04:02:15 PM
1073 Views
Re: I love you, Camilla
- 12/08/2010 04:04:10 PM
1273 Views
A couple of things
- 12/08/2010 12:58:09 PM
1265 Views
there is major flaw in your argument
- 12/08/2010 03:31:45 PM
1393 Views
Re: there is major flaw in your argument
- 12/08/2010 04:01:32 PM
1279 Views
I should clarify that I support gay marriage
- 12/08/2010 05:20:36 PM
1219 Views
One point about Prop. 8
- 12/08/2010 07:38:55 PM
1240 Views
I know that is the commonl;y held belief but I thinkit is wrong
- 12/08/2010 10:32:58 PM
1172 Views
Religious institutions, though, pushed hard to pass it.
- 12/08/2010 10:42:33 PM
1259 Views
that doesn’t translate into people voting for religious reasons
- 12/08/2010 11:19:48 PM
1069 Views
Bigotry and Fear that are supported and encouraged by religious institutions.
- 12/08/2010 11:32:30 PM
1241 Views
there are major flaws in your argument
- 12/08/2010 07:51:52 PM
1386 Views
Women can't be priests in the Catholic church.
- 12/08/2010 08:00:24 PM
1024 Views
Forcing religious institutions to marry gay couples is hideously unconstitutional.
- 12/08/2010 04:18:59 PM
1344 Views
You are absolutely wrong
- 12/08/2010 07:57:19 PM
1312 Views
Your arguments are so specious and stupid I don't know where to begin.
- 13/08/2010 05:04:17 AM
1206 Views
Why do people equate....
- 12/08/2010 07:11:15 PM
1247 Views
Because "homophobic", like "xenophobic", has shifted a bit in meaning...
- 12/08/2010 07:33:56 PM
1274 Views
Because your reasons for being against gay marriage are so specious *NM*
- 12/08/2010 07:59:42 PM
698 Views
I particularly enjoy the implied assumption that your a good enough judge of my motivations. *NM*
- 12/08/2010 09:24:14 PM
654 Views
Re: Why do people equate....
- 12/08/2010 08:04:24 PM
1455 Views
+1
- 12/08/2010 08:06:19 PM
1398 Views
Stop with the pile on Camilla.
- 12/08/2010 09:22:35 PM
1326 Views
You would have said nothing if I had just said "agreed"
- 12/08/2010 09:27:33 PM
1152 Views
Which speaks highly of you....
- 12/08/2010 09:36:30 PM
1321 Views
This is being very petty. *NM*
- 12/08/2010 09:41:26 PM
642 Views
As opposed to a snarky +1 comment? *NM*
- 12/08/2010 09:45:02 PM
668 Views
It's not snarky.
- 12/08/2010 09:47:47 PM
1316 Views
Its a +1 shorthand comment...
- 12/08/2010 09:52:04 PM
1555 Views
Wow. Those two characters allowed you to read Camilla's motivations?
- 12/08/2010 09:54:25 PM
1198 Views
Re: Why do people equate....
- 12/08/2010 09:13:07 PM
1390 Views
you are exactly why the state needs to make a clear seperation between the secular and religious
- 12/08/2010 09:33:22 PM
1248 Views
Ok, so if the state does then...
- 12/08/2010 09:44:31 PM
1170 Views
No, marriage started because of property.
- 12/08/2010 09:59:14 PM
1275 Views
So then two things come to mind...
- 12/08/2010 10:04:39 PM
1250 Views
Only two?
- 12/08/2010 10:27:08 PM
1245 Views
- 12/08/2010 10:27:08 PM
1245 Views
That's a little difficult to do
- 13/08/2010 03:19:32 PM
1462 Views
Re: That's a little difficult to do
- 13/08/2010 03:30:14 PM
1299 Views
yes but about half of the old testament deals with protecting those rights
- 13/08/2010 05:16:09 PM
1248 Views
The relationship between religion and rain go even farther back...
- 13/08/2010 06:15:32 PM
1246 Views
Actually, I agree with that
- 12/08/2010 10:01:37 PM
1143 Views
See, what I don't get is why gay people care about
- 12/08/2010 08:18:45 PM
1239 Views
It's mostly about getting married in the eyes of the state.
- 12/08/2010 08:42:52 PM
1351 Views
I'm fairly sure Jonte was referring only to the "churches have to accept gay marriages" bit. *NM*
- 12/08/2010 08:44:52 PM
694 Views
Starting again
- 12/08/2010 08:23:08 PM
1366 Views
Not at all
- 12/08/2010 10:58:45 PM
1277 Views
Re: Not at all
- 13/08/2010 09:14:48 AM
1060 Views
Agreed *NM*
- 13/08/2010 10:21:06 AM
541 Views
Oh dear
- 13/08/2010 10:30:45 AM
1164 Views
I suppose you also think that religious Pacifists should be eligible for the draft?
- 12/08/2010 08:42:21 PM
1322 Views

*NM*
*NM*
*NM*