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
2045 Views
I disagree on the latter part
- 12/08/2010 12:04:15 PM
1374 Views
I follow your point...
- 12/08/2010 12:14:17 PM
1361 Views
Suspect you would find plenty of denominations that would argue with you rather strenuously.
- 12/08/2010 12:24:55 PM
1398 Views
See, that's what I'm saying...
- 12/08/2010 07:37:26 PM
1326 Views
You didn't read my post.
- 12/08/2010 09:10:21 PM
1253 Views
Actually, you didn't read my post
- 12/08/2010 09:23:54 PM
1330 Views
Um, you're wrong.
- 12/08/2010 09:37:13 PM
1279 Views
- 12/08/2010 09:37:13 PM
1279 Views
Re: Um, you're wrong.
- 12/08/2010 09:44:17 PM
1248 Views
- 12/08/2010 09:44:17 PM
1248 Views
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale. And no, he described it accurately. *NM*
- 12/08/2010 09:53:31 PM
635 Views
You're still wrong.
- 12/08/2010 09:54:55 PM
1382 Views
- 12/08/2010 09:54:55 PM
1382 Views
Re: You're still wrong.
- 12/08/2010 09:58:26 PM
1237 Views
- 12/08/2010 09:58:26 PM
1237 Views
Again, you are still wrong.
- 12/08/2010 10:04:42 PM
1299 Views
- 12/08/2010 10:04:42 PM
1299 Views
Re: Again, you are still wrong.
- 12/08/2010 10:17:13 PM
1126 Views
- 12/08/2010 10:17:13 PM
1126 Views
Wrong definition of "club"
- 12/08/2010 10:30:52 PM
1386 Views
Re: Wrong definition of "club"
- 12/08/2010 10:40:55 PM
1295 Views
Also
- 12/08/2010 10:02:44 PM
1345 Views
And wrong again.
- 12/08/2010 10:08:24 PM
1362 Views
- 12/08/2010 10:08:24 PM
1362 Views
Not so quick!
- 12/08/2010 10:21:31 PM
1197 Views
- 12/08/2010 10:21:31 PM
1197 Views
Yes, so quick!
- 12/08/2010 10:32:13 PM
1147 Views
Let's be reasonable here
- 12/08/2010 10:41:53 PM
1253 Views
Why do you get to judge?
- 12/08/2010 10:48:57 PM
1286 Views
I don't
- 12/08/2010 10:53:21 PM
1175 Views
OK.
- 12/08/2010 10:58:22 PM
1283 Views
Re: OK.
- 12/08/2010 11:03:50 PM
1244 Views
Here's the thing: your opinion seems to be informed by the Roman Catholic Faith.
- 12/08/2010 11:14:03 PM
1191 Views
Re: Here's the thing: your opinion seems to be informed by the Roman Catholic Faith.
- 12/08/2010 11:23:35 PM
1303 Views
Then please stop.
- 12/08/2010 11:01:05 PM
1248 Views
- 12/08/2010 11:01:05 PM
1248 Views
What's wrong with discussion?
- 12/08/2010 11:05:48 PM
1204 Views
Discussion? Nothing. Your assertions about other people's views, something.
- 12/08/2010 11:09:48 PM
1221 Views
What, because the expressive message of scouting is anti-gay?
- 12/08/2010 10:12:54 PM
1114 Views
Re: What, because the expressive message of scouting is anti-gay?
- 12/08/2010 10:23:36 PM
1235 Views
Well then that brings us back to my question, which you have yet to answer.
- 12/08/2010 10:36:48 PM
1211 Views
Re: Well then that brings us back to my question, which you have yet to answer.
- 12/08/2010 10:46:22 PM
1310 Views
Not entirely true either... or, well, true as far as Brown goes.
- 12/08/2010 10:08:42 PM
1206 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
1293 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
1198 Views
Gah.
- 12/08/2010 09:59:45 PM
1155 Views
What a mature response.
- 12/08/2010 10:11:00 PM
1357 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
1161 Views
Um
- 12/08/2010 09:46:43 PM
1307 Views
That's a very good question. *NM*
- 12/08/2010 09:49:05 PM
607 Views
It makes no sense
- 12/08/2010 04:29:24 PM
1153 Views
Re: It makes no sense
- 12/08/2010 07:39:25 PM
1225 Views
Re: It makes no sense
- 12/08/2010 07:41:02 PM
1316 Views
Yes, but while marrying two murderers does not ensure that they will continue to murder...
- 12/08/2010 09:08:53 PM
1139 Views
Re: Yes, but while marrying two murderers does not ensure that they will continue to murder...
- 12/08/2010 09:42:21 PM
1249 Views
What other church sanctioned circumstances encourage continued sin?
- 12/08/2010 09:45:33 PM
1313 Views
Re: What other church sanctioned circumstances encourage continued sin?
- 13/08/2010 11:04:02 AM
1264 Views
Wow, it's almost like an entire denomination believes that!
*NM*
- 13/08/2010 03:41:07 PM
610 Views
- 13/08/2010 03:43:26 PM
1055 Views
*NM*
- 13/08/2010 03:41:07 PM
610 Views
- 13/08/2010 03:43:26 PM
1055 Views
Yeah, that's the Roman Catholic basis against masturbation and contraception. *NM*
- 13/08/2010 04:12:00 PM
575 Views
Yes
- 13/08/2010 04:22:58 PM
1096 Views
Dude....please at least have a working knowledge of the Bible before you spout off.
- 12/08/2010 10:47:13 PM
1126 Views
secular marriage is decoupled from religious marriage
- 12/08/2010 02:50:43 PM
1333 Views
Simple, require the legal and religious marriage to be performed separately.
- 12/08/2010 02:58:43 PM
1156 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
1208 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
1210 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
1191 Views
What in the world would that accomplish?
- 12/08/2010 03:44:32 PM
1251 Views
Provide some much-needed clarity, evidently.
- 12/08/2010 03:49:33 PM
1085 Views
the problem is it would be changing a centuries old tradition..
- 12/08/2010 04:26:47 PM
1113 Views
heheheheheheheHAHAHAHEHEHehehehehahheeh*cough*
- 12/08/2010 04:55:09 PM
1135 Views
thats OK I am sure you will get over it
- 12/08/2010 05:22:08 PM
1149 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
1259 Views
Really? I was hoping for something better
- 12/08/2010 10:06:00 PM
1206 Views
So government recognition makes your religion meaningful?
- 12/08/2010 10:11:54 PM
1297 Views
not my religion I'm agnostic
- 12/08/2010 10:34:40 PM
1147 Views
I'm not far left, thank you very much. *NM*
- 12/08/2010 10:20:31 PM
672 Views
no but your are European and that slants your views
*NM*
- 12/08/2010 10:36:01 PM
652 Views
*NM*
- 12/08/2010 10:36:01 PM
652 Views
Simples
- 12/08/2010 09:30:31 PM
1227 Views
there are about 140 post ranging from boyscouts to infant babtism
- 12/08/2010 10:57:46 PM
1188 Views
So.
- 14/08/2010 01:27:59 AM
1075 Views
sorry I responded I forgot what a tool you are. my bad
- 14/08/2010 02:48:57 AM
1587 Views
You spout some utter gibberish then dish out insults when called on it? Very funny
- 15/08/2010 12:47:04 PM
1410 Views
- 15/08/2010 12:47:04 PM
1410 Views
Agreed *NM*
- 12/08/2010 03:45:04 PM
530 Views
I love you, Camilla
- 12/08/2010 04:02:15 PM
1020 Views
Re: I love you, Camilla
- 12/08/2010 04:04:10 PM
1221 Views
A couple of things
- 12/08/2010 12:58:09 PM
1203 Views
there is major flaw in your argument
- 12/08/2010 03:31:45 PM
1335 Views
Re: there is major flaw in your argument
- 12/08/2010 04:01:32 PM
1221 Views
I should clarify that I support gay marriage
- 12/08/2010 05:20:36 PM
1154 Views
One point about Prop. 8
- 12/08/2010 07:38:55 PM
1188 Views
I know that is the commonl;y held belief but I thinkit is wrong
- 12/08/2010 10:32:58 PM
1118 Views
Religious institutions, though, pushed hard to pass it.
- 12/08/2010 10:42:33 PM
1205 Views
that doesn’t translate into people voting for religious reasons
- 12/08/2010 11:19:48 PM
1023 Views
Bigotry and Fear that are supported and encouraged by religious institutions.
- 12/08/2010 11:32:30 PM
1190 Views
there are major flaws in your argument
- 12/08/2010 07:51:52 PM
1335 Views
Women can't be priests in the Catholic church.
- 12/08/2010 08:00:24 PM
978 Views
Forcing religious institutions to marry gay couples is hideously unconstitutional.
- 12/08/2010 04:18:59 PM
1296 Views
You are absolutely wrong
- 12/08/2010 07:57:19 PM
1239 Views
Your arguments are so specious and stupid I don't know where to begin.
- 13/08/2010 05:04:17 AM
1162 Views
Why do people equate....
- 12/08/2010 07:11:15 PM
1189 Views
Because "homophobic", like "xenophobic", has shifted a bit in meaning...
- 12/08/2010 07:33:56 PM
1231 Views
Because your reasons for being against gay marriage are so specious *NM*
- 12/08/2010 07:59:42 PM
668 Views
I particularly enjoy the implied assumption that your a good enough judge of my motivations. *NM*
- 12/08/2010 09:24:14 PM
631 Views
Re: Why do people equate....
- 12/08/2010 08:04:24 PM
1400 Views
+1
- 12/08/2010 08:06:19 PM
1345 Views
Stop with the pile on Camilla.
- 12/08/2010 09:22:35 PM
1265 Views
You would have said nothing if I had just said "agreed"
- 12/08/2010 09:27:33 PM
1095 Views
Which speaks highly of you....
- 12/08/2010 09:36:30 PM
1269 Views
This is being very petty. *NM*
- 12/08/2010 09:41:26 PM
618 Views
As opposed to a snarky +1 comment? *NM*
- 12/08/2010 09:45:02 PM
638 Views
It's not snarky.
- 12/08/2010 09:47:47 PM
1245 Views
Its a +1 shorthand comment...
- 12/08/2010 09:52:04 PM
1500 Views
Wow. Those two characters allowed you to read Camilla's motivations?
- 12/08/2010 09:54:25 PM
1141 Views
Re: Why do people equate....
- 12/08/2010 09:13:07 PM
1334 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
1195 Views
Ok, so if the state does then...
- 12/08/2010 09:44:31 PM
1122 Views
No, marriage started because of property.
- 12/08/2010 09:59:14 PM
1214 Views
So then two things come to mind...
- 12/08/2010 10:04:39 PM
1197 Views
Only two?
- 12/08/2010 10:27:08 PM
1189 Views
- 12/08/2010 10:27:08 PM
1189 Views
That's a little difficult to do
- 13/08/2010 03:19:32 PM
1404 Views
Re: That's a little difficult to do
- 13/08/2010 03:30:14 PM
1236 Views
yes but about half of the old testament deals with protecting those rights
- 13/08/2010 05:16:09 PM
1181 Views
The relationship between religion and rain go even farther back...
- 13/08/2010 06:15:32 PM
1191 Views
Actually, I agree with that
- 12/08/2010 10:01:37 PM
1083 Views
See, what I don't get is why gay people care about
- 12/08/2010 08:18:45 PM
1187 Views
It's mostly about getting married in the eyes of the state.
- 12/08/2010 08:42:52 PM
1294 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
667 Views
Starting again
- 12/08/2010 08:23:08 PM
1312 Views
Not at all
- 12/08/2010 10:58:45 PM
1211 Views
Re: Not at all
- 13/08/2010 09:14:48 AM
1013 Views
Agreed *NM*
- 13/08/2010 10:21:06 AM
512 Views
Oh dear
- 13/08/2010 10:30:45 AM
1111 Views
I suppose you also think that religious Pacifists should be eligible for the draft?
- 12/08/2010 08:42:21 PM
1264 Views

*NM*
*NM*
*NM*