Connecticut religous groups want same sex exemptions

[Zoolander]

How does a pastor differ from a devout follower? How does a devout follower who owns a flower shop deal with being forced to provide services to support something that goes directly against their beliefs?

What? Are you serious? How the heck does somone in a flower shop selling flowers to some fags getting married go against their beliefs?

You are crossing a line. I hate delivering to Indian people because they tip me a dollar maximum every time, I hate delivering to people who smell because well...they fucking smell. Do I cry about delivering pizza to someone who is a christian? I find a lot of what they preach to go directly against my beliefs, does that mean I whine about it or even honestly give a shit or get to have legal presidence to not serve them because I don't share the same beliefs as them?

Of course not, that's insane. Just like what you said is, because it is essentially the same thing except in reverse.

 

[Morcheeba]

What? Are you serious? How the heck does somone in a flower shop selling flowers to some fags getting married go against their beliefs?

You are crossing a line. I hate delivering to Indian people because they tip me a dollar maximum every time, I hate delivering to people who smell because well...they fucking smell. Do I cry about delivering pizza to someone who is a christian? I find a lot of what they preach to go directly against my beliefs, does that mean I whine about it or even honestly give a shit or get to have legal presidence to not serve them because I don't share the same beliefs as them?

Of course not, that's insane. Just like what you said is, because it is essentially the same thing except in reverse.

I'm not crossing a line, it's about services rendered and beliefs. That's it. It's no more complicated than that.

If the OWNER of a flower shop decides to not provide services because of someone's sexual preference that just happens to have been strongly preached as being sinful in his/her choice religion, than it's based on beliefs that person refuses services. Not because that person's black or Asian, race is not sinful. A pastor refuses services, THAT'S what the ceremony is, if anyone in here tries to build it up to anything above that you're kidding yourselves. The services being refused by a pastor is because of their sexual preference. How does any of that differ?

Edit:

I'll tell you what. You call around to a number of churches, catholic, Greek orthodox, Presbyterian and see how many will marry you without payment. If you have to open your wallet to anyone for anything in return.. it's a service.

 

[Zoolander]

I'm not crossing a line, it's about services rendered and beliefs. That's it. It's no more complicated than that.

If the OWNER of a flower shop decides to not provide services because of someone's sexual preference that just happens to have been strongly preached as being sinful in his/her choice religion, than it's based on beliefs that person refuses services. Not because that person's black or Asian, race is not sinful. A pastor refuses services, THAT'S what the ceremony is, if anyone in here tries to build it up to anything above that you're kidding yourselves. The services being refused by a pastor is because of their sexual preference. How does any of that differ?

Edit:

I'll tell you what. You call around to a number of churches, catholic, Greek orthodox, Presbyterian and see how many will marry you without payment. If you have to open your wallet to anyone for anything in return.. it's a service.

You are talking about refusing service to people strictly on the basis they are gay as if it was acceptable or even legal, which it is not. And if you discriminate gays, whose to say you dont discriminate against Straight people, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Whites, Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, etc?

Also,

Not because that person's black or Asian, race is not sinful.

I've met several people of a certain faith that believe blacks actually represented someone who had sinned in a previous life or some bull shit like that. You are saying that it is ok to discriminate on them because they have sinned? Their religion tells them that blacks have sinned, so I guess it must be okay to discriminate against them.

Sorry, but religion isn't an excuse for discrimination.

 

[Morcheeba]

You are talking about refusing service to people strictly on the basis they are gay as if it was acceptable or even legal, which it is not. And if you discriminate gays, whose to say you dont discriminate against Straight people, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Whites, Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, etc?

Also,



I've met several people of a certain faith that believe blacks actually represented someone who had sinned in a previous life or some bull shit like that. You are saying that it is ok to discriminate on them because they have sinned? Their religion tells them that blacks have sinned, so I guess it must be okay to discriminate against them.

Sorry, but religion isn't an excuse for discrimination.

You misunderstand. I'm merely asking the question. If you're going to preach it from one aspect, you should consider the other.

I don't think it's right, and I DO believe it's discrimination. But if government is going to allow the church the RIGHT to refuse based on beliefs than HOW is it any different that a business owner do the same for the exact same reason? That's what everyone should be asking themselves. If the church is given the RIGHT to refuse services because of religion, why can people of that same religion not enforce the same practice?

Maybe its because I'm not religious, and because of my upbringing and the evils I've learned that were so rampant in the churches around me pertaining directly to family and friends that I don't view a pastor any more righteous than his followers.

 

[Zoolander]

A church is a religious body lol, not a business. They can't be under the "separation of church and state" because they ARE a church. They fall under the church part...they are not a business and businesses are not churches. Sure they might have some small similarities from time to time...but they are far from the same.

 

[Morcheeba]

A church is a religious body lol, not a business. They can't be under the "separation of church and state" because they ARE a church. They fall under the church part...they are not a business and businesses are not churches. Sure they might have some small similarities from time to time...but they are far from the same.

Really? I know a lot of people that would say much differently. I realize they are churches, and so protected. However, I know people who after being involved with the church one way or another would strongly disagree they aren't a functioning business. I don't TRUST patrons of churches.. I have good reason. Not to say I don't trust people who are religious, but those who run the factions.. yeah um I think it's a shady business. Another form of mafia, but that's me.

I still don't see how people are protected while IN their church, and as long as they're IN their church the rules apply and they are not held accountable for discrimination based on beliefs, but once in their very own place of business, outside the sanctity of god their beliefs no longer apply.

 

[Linhjah]

How does a pastor differ from a devout follower? How does a devout follower who owns a flower shop deal with being forced to provide services to support something that goes directly against their beliefs?

That florist is not allowed to not refuse to hire homosexual just because he's gay. Why in the hell would he be allowed to refuse service to a gay man?

Lihn, to be completely honest.. as 'non-profit' as a church is.. when officiating a wedding ceremony... they expect.. yes EXPECT payout.

The pastor to oversaw my cousins wedding very rudely approached them on their wedding day while we were waiting to start walking in and asked when he could expect the payment. They do want payment.

Even a non-profit organization still has bills to pay.

I'm not crossing a line, it's about services rendered and beliefs. That's it. It's no more complicated than that.

If the OWNER of a flower shop decides to not provide services because of someone's sexual preference that just happens to have been strongly preached as being sinful in his/her choice religion, than it's based on beliefs that person refuses services. Not because that person's black or Asian, race is not sinful. A pastor refuses services, THAT'S what the ceremony is, if anyone in here tries to build it up to anything above that you're kidding yourselves. The services being refused by a pastor is because of their sexual preference. How does any of that differ?

Edit:

I'll tell you what. You call around to a number of churches, catholic, Greek orthodox, Presbyterian and see how many will marry you without payment. If you have to open your wallet to anyone for anything in return.. it's a service.

Service it may be. However, everything the church does revolves around religious beliefs. From Sunday mass to the Mother's day pancake feed to helping out at a soup kitchen.

The florist's practice itself has nothing to do with religion. Jesus isn't in there showing off his green thumb growing or selling plants to people, nor is he in there buying flowers.

Furthermore, there are religions who teach that its right to hate based on the color of someone's skin. Here is one example. Those people think that, if you aren't white, you have no soul. Do you think that its acceptable for a florist who is a Christian Identist to refuse service to a black person?

Really? I know a lot of people that would say much differently. I realize they are churches, and so protected. However, I know people who after being involved with the church one way or another would strongly disagree they aren't a functioning business. I don't TRUST patrons of churches.. I have good reason. Not to say I don't trust people who are religious, but those who run the factions.. yeah um I think it's a shady business. Another form of mafia, but that's me.

I still don't see how people are protected while IN their church, and as long as they're IN their church the rules apply and they are not held accountable for discrimination based on beliefs, but once in their very own place of business, outside the sanctity of god their beliefs no longer apply.

Like I said, they have bills to pay. And there are people out there who dress up and act like a church to scam people. I've never seen a priest or pastor from a legitimate non-profit church driving around in a Lamborghini, though.

 

[Morcheeba]

Does the church have the right to refuse a gay man or woman Sunday mass every week knowing they're homosexual? I'm curious to know.

If not, and I don't think the church can or will refuse anyone to partake in mass. There are a lot of things to consider in this debate.

Again, I'm certainly not condoning hate in any form. I'm just uncertain where the line should be. Is it in physical form, being the building in which we call a church? These things make me ponder. I've always believed the church a unnecessary cost. If god and Jesus is around us at all times, and we can pray to them in the comfort and privacy of our own home, or in a cardboard box for that matter, why the expensive of a building they call the house of god. If that's the case, wouldn't a devout follower be protected by the church even when in his or her business? Church and State are separate yes, so how does State extend into a devout Christians property when regarding religious beliefs? Not the best example, but our National Anthem is sung in classrooms each morning, but Jehovah's Witnesses here, in our Country do not have to stand and acknowledge the Anthem. No, they by religious right can refuse to partake and wait outside the classroom until it's over. They're exercising the right to refuse based on religion in a public school, public schools being protected by state not church. You see where I'm going ?

I wish I could be more specific, forgive me sometimes I just can't find the right words to describe just what I'm trying to say.

I just know I feel a certain way about this, but am curious about both sides of the argument.

 

[Halifirien]

That florist is not allowed to not refuse to hire homosexual just because he's gay. Why in the hell would he be allowed to refuse service to a gay man?

It's worth pointing out that there are no federal laws protecting gay people, and in most states it is perfectly legal to refuse to hire gay people or to refuse to rent to them just because they're gay. There are only 20 states with anti-discrimination laws that include gay people. I live in West Virginia, and my landlord could evict me tomorrow if she went to church, found Jesus, and decided I had to leave.

 

[Linhjah]

I've never been to any service for any religion where a homosexual person was not allowed in. They let plenty of other "sinners" in, so I don't see why they'd not allow gay people. If anything, I think many Churches would see as an opportunity for the homosexual to redeem his/her soul. Committing your life to another member of the same sex pretty much indicates you're not willing to be "saved", though.

 

[Miros]

Churches don't receive payment, they receive "donations" remember.

 

[Linhjah]

It's worth pointing out that there are no federal laws protecting gay people, and in most states it is perfectly legal to refuse to hire gay people or to refuse to rent to them just because they're gay. There are only 20 states with anti-discrimination laws that include gay people. I live in West Virginia, and my landlord could evict me tomorrow if she went to church, found Jesus, and decided I had to leave.

Connecticut is one of those 20 states, though, isn't it?

 

[Morcheeba]

Churches don't receive payment, they receive "donations" remember.

They charge for wedding ceremonies. Might I add, they're not shy about expecting a hefty 'donations' either. I'm right in reading your comment as sarcasm aren't I?

 

[Zephayra]

They charge for wedding ceremonies. Might I add, they're not shy about expecting a hefty 'donations' either. I'm right in reading your comment as sarcasm aren't I?

$150-200 (average) per funeral too..but its called an Honourarium lol.

 

[Halifirien]

Connecticut is one of those 20 states, though, isn't it?

Yes. I was addressing the broader scope and forgot we were only talking about one state.

 

[Pompidou]

I can see how hardcore conservatives might not want the word marriage to include homosexual unions. I can't see how anyone would object to extending the legal protections to such. It should make almost everyone happy to just use the term civil unions, or make up a new word for it. I have no problem with gay marriage. I can't understand why this is even a battle. I do think that the bigot generation is old and dying, and pretty soon good people will run the show. I don't see the gay rights movement being fought by our grandchildren. It's not the youth opposing gay rights. Granted, you'll have fringe groups forever, but the days of antihomosexuality being the power base are numbered. Religion altogether is dying slowly. The far right is beginning to overstay its welcome amongst the moderates, and it's the moderates that give religion any credibility whatsoever. Gays should just move to CT and MA - CT for the boring gays, and MA for the lively ones. There isn't much at all worth doing in CT. Boston has everything.

 

[Zoolander]

I can see how hardcore conservatives might not want the word marriage to include homosexual unions. I can't see how anyone would object to extending the legal protections to such. It should make almost everyone happy to just use the term civil unions, or make up a new word for it. I have no problem with gay marriage. I can't understand why this is even a battle. I do think that the bigot generation is old and dying, and pretty soon good people will run the show. I don't see the gay rights movement being fought by our grandchildren. It's not the youth opposing gay rights. Granted, you'll have fringe groups forever, but the days of antihomosexuality being the power base are numbered. Religion altogether is dying slowly. The far right is beginning to overstay its welcome amongst the moderates, and it's the moderates that give religion any credibility whatsoever. Gays should just move to CT and MA - CT for the boring gays, and MA for the lively ones. There isn't much at all worth doing in CT. Boston has everything.

Just as a tangent, remember that the youth of the 60s was pretty damn liberal, but as they grew older they became more conservative. I can't say for sure whether or not our generation (Im part of the college student population) will follow suit, but its an interesting lesson history has shown us.

I do think everyone is a little tired of this gay marriage debate, but every day I see bumper stickers here in Gainesville of people who feel the need to tell me they voted for amendment 2, aka the marriage protection act or some bull shit like that which passed in FL and screwed over domestic partnerships and is like the third law to "ban" gay marriage. Peoples ignorance never ceases to amaze me. All it was was a ploy by the state republicans to get conservatives out to vote, there were already laws against gay marriage lol.

 

[Rips]

The main issue here is that people of religion (all religions) will follow the rules of their creator and abide by that before anything else. That's what is the main issue and the hurtle for same sex marriage.

 

[Raesvelg]

Just as a tangent, remember that the youth of the 60s was pretty damn liberal, but as they grew older they became more conservative. I can't say for sure whether or not our generation (Im part of the college student population) will follow suit, but its an interesting lesson history has shown us.

There's an old saying, "A liberal is just a conservative who hasn't been mugged yet."

Like many old sayings, there's an element of truth there. Though mostly it applies to attitudes on criminals, but still...

Screw you, I'm tired and I felt like using the quote.

Anyway.

It's worth pointing out that there are no federal laws protecting gay people

There don't have to be, and this is a bit of a sore spot. Reprising a recent argument, homosexuals are guaranteed the same rights as anyone else under the Constitution, and as such, are afforded equal protection under all existing laws, the same as anyone else.

Which is not to say that people don't occasionally get victimized by the rampant douchebaggery of lease agreements. Depending on what you signed when you leased the apartment, there could be a wonderful little caveat in there that states that the landlord or tenant may terminate the lease at any time without reason. So, technically, they can evict you just because they don't like your new haircut, much less because they happen to have found Jesus and feel that your dangerous homosexual lifestyle is a one-way ticket to eternal hellfire. One would think that a true Christian at this juncture would attempt to do anything in their power to save your heathen soul, but typically what really happens is that they find some flimsy pretext for terminating the lease agreement so as not to provoke a civil rights lawsuit.

Frankly, in that instance, while you're guaranteed the same rights as anyone else (and really don't need additional legislation to prove it), you may well get the short end of the stick because it can be extremely difficult to prove that sort of malicious intent if the landlord has two brain cells to rub together that aren't devoted wholly to bigotry.

Morcheeba raises an interesting point, but it's 2:36 in the morning here, so I'm going to wait and come back on the status of religious institutions in western democracies where separation of church and state are taken as a given. Short version: For my money, religions should be taxed like everything else, and be bound by the same laws as similar organizations.

 

[Rips]

There's an old saying, "A liberal is just a conservative who hasn't been mugged yet."

Like many old sayings, there's an element of truth there. Though mostly it applies to attitudes on criminals, but still...

Screw you, I'm tired and I felt like using the quote.

Anyway.



There don't have to be, and this is a bit of a sore spot. Reprising a recent argument, homosexuals are guaranteed the same rights as anyone else under the Constitution, and as such, are afforded equal protection under all existing laws, the same as anyone else.

Which is not to say that people don't occasionally get victimized by the rampant douchebaggery of lease agreements. Depending on what you signed when you leased the apartment, there could be a wonderful little caveat in there that states that the landlord or tenant may terminate the lease at any time without reason. So, technically, they can evict you just because they don't like your new haircut, much less because they happen to have found Jesus and feel that your dangerous homosexual lifestyle is a one-way ticket to eternal hellfire. One would think that a true Christian at this juncture would attempt to do anything in their power to save your heathen soul, but typically what really happens is that they find some flimsy pretext for terminating the lease agreement so as not to provoke a civil rights lawsuit.

Frankly, in that instance, while you're guaranteed the same rights as anyone else (and really don't need additional legislation to prove it), you may well get the short end of the stick because it can be extremely difficult to prove that sort of malicious intent if the landlord has two brain cells to rub together that aren't devoted wholly to bigotry.

Morcheeba raises an interesting point, but it's 2:36 in the morning here, so I'm going to wait and come back on the status of religious institutions in western democracies where separation of church and state are taken as a given. Short version: For my money, religions should be taxed like everything else, and be bound by the same laws as similar organizations.

I agree with your last part but what I think Hali was saying is that they shouldn't be able to evict you for the reason you're homosexual.

You steered off topic a tad. Your saying all homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals. That's not true. Hali was just explaining that a workplace can fire someone if they found out they're gay. That's one example I know out of many others out there. That's not equal protection and equal rights to me.

Now, someone is going to be a fool and come back and quote me saying something along the lines of "Employers have the right to fire for whichever reason they want so that's okay" garbage. Well let me tell you, they do not have the right to fire a straight person for being straight.