Your Own Way...

[Vraith]

Hello, Av! Hello Fist! Hello all!
Knowing I am there as God doesn't require you to like me.

But..um...since you are God..ummm...can you be sued for plagiarism?
Cuz..umm...I said "I'd make sure you know" before you...

Exactly how much do you, as God, have in actual cash assets?

[Vraith frantically searches back to see if someone else said it before him, since he didn't read all the previous ones either...]

[ur-bane]

Well, in that case, I second your motion!
I am not a God looking for praise or worship.

[aliantha]

Or cash, apparently. Not sure you'd get very far with suing God anyhow, Vraith. For starters, where would you send the subpoena?

[Fist and Faith]

...the secular model that is being enforced today - one that takes "separation of church and state" to a level that fewer and fewer Christians today can accept - thus the Manhattan Declaration - to a level that means that what one believes may not influence one's politics - unless they are not Christian (or at least unless they are not religious).

No, that's not the idea. Obviously, one's beliefs influence one's politics. It is not possible for it to be otherwise. And, in some societies, where a religion is the law of the land, that's not an issue at all. The problem is seen in the USA. This country is supposed to be based on freedom and equality. Many of those who founded the country came here because they were persecuted elsewhere for their beliefs. So they made a country where nobody's religious convictions - not even their own, despite how strongly held they were - could be used to persecute those who did not hold them.

This far down the line, that's forgotten. Some people want their religious beliefs to be the law, even when it would mean persecuting others (at the very least, in the form of denying freedom and equality). We could let the majority rule, and vote on, say, same-sex marriages having the EXACT legal standing in EVERY way as opposite-sex marriages. If we did, I don't doubt the vote would be No. Majority rules. Freedom and equality are buried. The fact that there's no logical or practical reason for it, that the religious beliefs of the majority is the reason for the persecution, isn't important. No non-religious motivation should accomplish such a thing, either. Not in the USA, where freedom and equality are supposed to be the rule.

That is what you need to consider. Which is more important: The USA's ideal of freedom and equality; or your faith? The two are mutually exclusive. Obviously, your faith is the most important thing there is. As it should be. But you should not try to make your faith the law of the land. Not this land, at any rate. You probably could. I think the majority agrees with you on so many issues. If you got more of them to vote, you could vote to change it to the Christian States of America.

Which would mean I'd be in jail most of the time.

[rusmeister]

...the secular model that is being enforced today - one that takes "separation of church and state" to a level that fewer and fewer Christians today can accept - thus the Manhattan Declaration - to a level that means that what one believes may not influence one's politics - unless they are not Christian (or at least unless they are not religious).

No, that's not the idea. Obviously, one's beliefs influence one's politics. It is not possible for it to be otherwise. And, in some societies, where a religion is the law of the land, that's not an issue at all. The problem is seen in the USA. This country is supposed to be based on freedom and equality. Many of those who founded the country came here because they were persecuted elsewhere for their beliefs. So they made a country where nobody's religious convictions - not even their own, despite how strongly held they were - could be used to persecute those who did not hold them.

This far down the line, that's forgotten. Some people want their religious beliefs to be the law, even when it would mean persecuting others (at the very least, in the form of denying freedom and equality). We could let the majority rule, and vote on, say, same-sex marriages having the EXACT legal standing in EVERY way as opposite-sex marriages. If we did, I don't doubt the vote would be No. Majority rules. Freedom and equality are buried. The fact that there's no logical or practical reason for it, that the religious beliefs of the majority is the reason for the persecution, isn't important. No non-religious motivation should accomplish such a thing, either. Not in the USA, where freedom and equality are supposed to be the rule.

That is what you need to consider. Which is more important: The USA's ideal of freedom and equality; or your faith? The two are mutually exclusive. Obviously, your faith is the most important thing there is. As it should be. But you should not try to make your faith the law of the land. Not this land, at any rate. You probably could. I think the majority agrees with you on so many issues. If you got more of them to vote, you could vote to change it to the Christian States of America.

Which would mean I'd be in jail most of the time.

Obviously, we have different ideas on who exactly has forgotten what. Fortunately, I don't take insult from that.

My point was that the war of religion on science is over. The war of science, or secularism, on religion, has begun. What for you is a joke on being in jail is a quite real possibility for people who refuse to back down from their religious beliefs in the face of laws (and court decisions) that demands they deny them. Although at the moment, it is not yet jail - it is their job, their business, law suits or whatever.

On what basis do you say I SHOULD anything? One thing I love as a grammar teacher about the modal verbs "should" and "ought to" - they appeal to an objective standard. It's ironic when subjectivists use those verbs at all. It's how the language itself denies subjectivism, just as the fact that we say "the truth", but "a lie" does. (Love them articles!)

I would say that my faith does really lead to freedom and equality, and in fact hold that it is the doctrine of the divine origin of man that makes democracy possible, and the doctrine of free will that allows a man to choose to not believe in the very doctrine that grants him the freedom to do so. But when you say "the USA's ideal", you are anthropomorphizing and imposing YOUR ideal of freedom and equality onto it - things which ought to be products of a philosophy, not the philosophy itself (there I go, saying "ought to"...)

One of those essays that nobody reads...
www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/The_ ... ligion.txt

Teaser:

The mystics are very likely
to be the martyrs when the psychologists become the kings.

[danlo]

Why should there be war of any sort and why should you have any angst against homosexuality????

[Worm of Despite]

My way would be 75% less green house emissions, about 5 billion less people, more space, less hate... We need a simpler existence, one that hurts the earth less, and yet one that doesn't sacrifice any of our current conveniences.

And of course, it'd be just one world government--the United States. Suckers.

Nah. And I'm not saying I'd like to euthanize 5 billion of our human race. Just saying--way too many people. And we might have to lose a lot to food shortages in the future.

That's my way. Dogma can stay, for all I care. People need it, depending on the amount of pain they have (or conversely, the deity they wish to be thankful to for the lack of pain).

[rusmeister]

Why should there be war of any sort and why should you have any angst against homosexuality????

Don't think I've said anything about homosexuality here, Danlo - you need to reference that on the other thread.
Why should there be war of any sort? (If you like, you may say "conflict")
For the simple reason that when it comes to public behavior and what is acceptable in public, somebody or other's philosophy will predominate, and traditional religion (which claims truth and says that it is objective and knowable) and pluralism (which says that it isn't) are mutually exclusive. One or the other must prevail. Your views (speaking in general about the prevailing mood at KW) must and do result in the suppression of those traditional religions; they insist that a person's views are private and personal (subjective) and must not affect (and, more importantly, dominate) public life.

[Xar]

Why should there be war of any sort and why should you have any angst against homosexuality????

Don't think I've said anything about homosexuality here, Danlo - you need to reference that on the other thread.
Why should there be war of any sort? (If you like, you may say "conflict")
For the simple reason that when it comes to public behavior and what is acceptable in public, somebody or other's philosophy will predominate, and traditional religion (which claims truth and says that it is objective and knowable) and pluralism (which says that it isn't) are mutually exclusive. One or the other must prevail. Your views (speaking in general about the prevailing mood at KW) must and do result in the suppression of those traditional religions; they insist that a person's views are private and personal (subjective) and must not affect (and, more importantly, dominate) public life.

Religion is about as personal a topic as there could ever be: but the suggestion that religion shouldn't be allowed to interfere in public policy does not equate with suppressing religion. Nobody is saying that Christians shouldn't be allowed to go to Church or to even build Churches, or that Muslims should be force-fed pork and wine, and so on. But they are saying that the moment religion convictions would lead to the oppression of a minority, then they should NOT be taken into account when drafting public policy. For instance, since Danlo brought it up - many religions would refuse to consider the rights of homosexuals in regards to marriage. While the law cannot enforce a religion to change its position about this concept (and therefore it cannot force a religion to allow homosexuals to marry using its rites), religion cannot enforce the law to forbid homosexual civil marriages, and it cannot forbid homosexual couples from having the same basic rights as heterosexual couples. What you or I or anyone else thinks as a personal opinion about these topics, which likely of course will be influenced by religion or lack thereof, is irrelevant: everyone should be entitled to the same rights and freedoms under the (secular) law.

[rusmeister]

Why should there be war of any sort and why should you have any angst against homosexuality????

Don't think I've said anything about homosexuality here, Danlo - you need to reference that on the other thread.
Why should there be war of any sort? (If you like, you may say "conflict")
For the simple reason that when it comes to public behavior and what is acceptable in public, somebody or other's philosophy will predominate, and traditional religion (which claims truth and says that it is objective and knowable) and pluralism (which says that it isn't) are mutually exclusive. One or the other must prevail. Your views (speaking in general about the prevailing mood at KW) must and do result in the suppression of those traditional religions; they insist that a person's views are private and personal (subjective) and must not affect (and, more importantly, dominate) public life.

Religion is about as personal a topic as there could ever be: but the suggestion that religion shouldn't be allowed to interfere in public policy does not equate with suppressing religion. Nobody is saying that Christians shouldn't be allowed to go to Church or to even build Churches, or that Muslims should be force-fed pork and wine, and so on. But they are saying that the moment religion convictions would lead to the oppression of a minority, then they should NOT be taken into account when drafting public policy. For instance, since Danlo brought it up - many religions would refuse to consider the rights of homosexuals in regards to marriage. While the law cannot enforce a religion to change its position about this concept (and therefore it cannot force a religion to allow homosexuals to marry using its rites), religion cannot enforce the law to forbid homosexual civil marriages, and it cannot forbid homosexual couples from having the same basic rights as heterosexual couples. What you or I or anyone else thinks as a personal opinion about these topics, which likely of course will be influenced by religion or lack thereof, is irrelevant: everyone should be entitled to the same rights and freedoms under the (secular) law.

Thanks, Xar,
You've made my point quite nicely.

As soon as the law requires a priest or church to marry a couple that should not be married according to the religion or that a photographer be required to photograph a wedding, or a religious adoption charity to violate the teachings of said religion, and punishes them if they do not, then you are. suppressing. that. religion. And these things have already happened.

The thing is, you guys only hear one side of the story. The side that gets trumpeted the loudest.

[Fist and Faith]

Exampes would be good. I imagine you have some, since those are specific things. I suspect your interpretation of the events will differ from mine, but nothing new there.

[rusmeister]

Exampes would be good. I imagine you have some, since those are specific things. I suspect your interpretation of the events will differ from mine, but nothing new there.

I already posted these here.
NPR is a fairly neutral source, I would say. Interpret as you will, it will take a really creative interpretation that drifts far from the facts to not see imposing of one creed on another (but I'm sure we'll find one or more of those here). There are two sides to the story. You guys generally hear only one, and that's a big reason as to why bias tends the way it does here. I think NPR is pretty fair here in reporting facts without judgement.

When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash
by Barbara Bradley Hagerty
NPR.org, June 13, 2008
• In recent years, some states have passed laws giving residents the right to same-sex unions in various forms. Gay couples may marry in Massachusetts and California. There are civil unions and domestic partnerships in Vermont, New Jersey, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Oregon. Other states give more limited rights.
Armed with those legal protections, same-sex couples are beginning to challenge policies of religious organizations that exclude them, claiming that a religious group's view that homosexual marriage is a sin cannot be used to violate their right to equal treatment. Now parochial schools, "parachurch" organizations such as Catholic Charities and businesses that refuse to serve gay couples are being sued — and so far, the religious groups are losing. Here are a few cases:
Adoption services: Catholic Charities in Massachusetts refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by Massachusetts law. After a legislative struggle — during which the Senate president said he could not support a bill "condoning discrimination" — Catholic Charities pulled out of the adoption business in 2006.
Housing: In New York City, Yeshiva University's Albert Einstein College of Medicine, a school under Orthodox Jewish auspices, banned same-sex couples from its married dormitory. New York does not recognize same-sex marriage, but in 2001, the state's highest court ruled Yeshiva violated New York City's ban on sexual orientation discrimination. Yeshiva now allows all couples in the dorm.
Parochial schools: California Lutheran High School, a Protestant school in Wildomar, holds that homosexuality is a sin. After the school suspended two girls who were allegedly in a lesbian relationship, the girls' parents sued, saying the school was violating the state's civil rights act protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination. The case is before a state judge.
Medical services: A Christian gynecologist at North Coast Women's Care Medical Group in Vista, Calif., refused to give his patient in vitro fertilization treatment because she is in a lesbian relationship, and he claimed that doing so would violate his religious beliefs. (The doctor referred the patient to his partner, who agreed to do the treatment.) The woman sued under the state's civil rights act. The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in May 2008, and legal experts believe that the woman's right to medical treatment will trump the doctor's religious beliefs. One justice suggested that the doctors take up a different line of business.
Psychological services: A mental health counselor at North Mississippi Health Services refused therapy for a woman who wanted help in improving her lesbian relationship. The counselor said doing so would violate her religious beliefs. The counselor was fired. In March 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sided with the employer, ruling that the employee's religious beliefs could not be accommodated without causing undue hardship to the company.
Civil servants: A clerk in Vermont refused to perform a civil union ceremony after the state legalized them. In 2001, in a decision that side-stepped the religious liberties issue, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that he did not need to perform the ceremony because there were other civil servants who would. However, the court did indicate that religious beliefs do not allow employees to discriminate against same-sex couples.
Adoption services: A same-sex couple in California applied to Adoption Profiles, an Internet service in Arizona that matches adoptive parents with newborns. The couple's application was denied based on the religious beliefs of the company's owners. The couple sued in federal district court in San Francisco. The two sides settled after the adoption company said it will no longer do business in California.
Wedding services: A same sex couple in Albuquerque asked a photographer, Elaine Huguenin, to shoot their commitment ceremony. The photographer declined, saying her Christian beliefs prevented her from sanctioning same-sex unions. The couple sued, and the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found the photographer guilty of discrimination. It ordered her to pay the lesbian couple's legal fees ($6,600). The photographer is appealing.
Wedding facilities: Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of New Jersey, a Methodist organization, refused to rent its boardwalk pavilion to a lesbian couple for their civil union ceremony. The couple filed a complaint with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights. The division ruled that the boardwalk property was open for public use, therefore the Methodist group could not discriminate against gay couples using it. In the interim, the state's Department of Environmental Protection revoked a portion of the association's tax benefits. The case is ongoing.
Youth groups: The city of Berkeley, Calif., requested that the Sea Scouts (affiliated with the Boy Scouts) formally agree to not discriminate against gay men in exchange for free use of berths in the city's marina. The Sea Scouts sued, claiming this violated their beliefs and First Amendment right to the freedom to associate with other like-minded people. In 2006, the California Supreme Court ruled against the youth group. In San Diego, the Boy Scouts lost access to the city-owned aquatic center for the same reason. While these cases do not directly involve same-sex unions, they presage future conflicts about whether religiously oriented or parachurch organizations may prohibit, for example, gay couples from teaching at summer camp. In June 2008, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals asked the California Supreme Court to review the Boy Scouts' leases. Meanwhile, the mayor's office in Philadelphia revoked the Boy Scouts' $1-a-year lease for a city building.

www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340

If this be admitted in fair debate, that at least some of these cases are indeed imposition that is against the general principles you espouse of "laissez faire", then you might understand why the other side feels just as offended and you do about perceived oppression of homosexuals. (Where's Jean-Luc Picard and the ability to actually understand the other side here?)

I didn't say I agree. I merely said I understand.

(TOS, A Taste of Armageddon)
I'd be happy with the understanding.

[Fist and Faith]

Can't read right this second. But two things:

1) There are CERTAINLY times when injustice is done to all groups. I'm not assuming you're wrong about all of the examples. But I'm not assuming you're right. Our worldviews give us opposing interpretations of Job, and the need for a cause of the universe. Certainly, we're going to disagree on some legal cases. Hung juries would indicate that it's not always cut & dried. But it could be one or more of the cases you cite are, and in the direction you claim they are.



2)

There are two sides to the story. You guys generally hear only one, and that's a big reason as to why bias tends the way it does here.

You believe you are the fair and impartial judge of all things. You are not. You are as bad as anyone else here. And yes, we are all "bad" when it comes to certain things. "Bad" being defined as "tending to accept one side of things more easily than the other side." There is absolutely zero chance you will ever come to believe anything I say about something you and I disagree on. It is not always because I have not put the required effort into researching the topic. It is sometimes because we have very different feelings for things, resulting in opposing worldviews.

[ur-bane]

Let me make sure I understand, Rus.
Because in the article posted above religious groups are losing legal battles over what is considered to be discrimination according to the laws of the land in which that religious group operates, said religious group is being suppressed? Hmmm...then religious groups are not to be bound by the same laws that bind others? It's OK to discriminate as long as one's discrimination is founded on religious tradition?

[rusmeister]

Let me make sure I understand, Rus.
Because in the article posted above religious groups are losing legal battles over what is considered to be discrimination according to the laws of the land in which that religious group operates, said religious group is being suppressed? Hmmm...then religious groups are not to be bound by the same laws that bind others? It's OK to discriminate as long as one's discrimination is founded on religious tradition?

Hi, ur-bane!
No, that is not what I mean. Your question was framed in terms of your world-view, which makes it difficult to understand others'. I mean that if a person is forced by law (if law is used to force a person) to act contrary to what they believe, then what they believe is being suppressed. In the examples provided above, people are forced by law to act in violation of their conscience - they are asked to condone grave destructive acts - and they do see them as such - and to participate in them. The fact that you do NOT see them as such does not change the fact that THEY do.

Hope that helps...

[rusmeister]

Can't read right this second. But two things:

1) There are CERTAINLY times when injustice is done to all groups. I'm not assuming you're wrong about all of the examples. But I'm not assuming you're right. Our worldviews give us opposing interpretations of Job, and the need for a cause of the universe. Certainly, we're going to disagree on some legal cases. Hung juries would indicate that it's not always cut & dried. But it could be one or more of the cases you cite are, and in the direction you claim they are.

Fair enough.

2)

There are two sides to the story. You guys generally hear only one, and that's a big reason as to why bias tends the way it does here.

You believe you are the fair and impartial judge of all things. You are not. You are as bad as anyone else here. And yes, we are all "bad" when it comes to certain things. "Bad" being defined as "tending to accept one side of things more easily than the other side." There is absolutely zero chance you will ever come to believe anything I say about something you and I disagree on. It is not always because I have not put the required effort into researching the topic. It is sometimes because we have very different feelings for things, resulting in opposing worldviews.

Actually I deny that I am impartial. I am quite partial. I am partisan, having chosen a side. I DO say that I really do know both sides, having spent most of my adult life steeped in it, and it was what the other side led to that eventually led to my conversion. Or as Frances Chesterton said, "The devil (caused me to convert)".
Also, I would not say that feeling is primarily responsible for my worldview. Reason and experience had far more to do with it, and as far as reason goes, I'd concede that cases like mine are an exception - most people do not come to faith via the intellectual path. It was precisely CS Lewis that convinced me, because what he said made sense of all my experience, and my previous muddled worldview did not.

[ur-bane]

Of course my question would be from my point of view. But to say that that would make it difficult to understand another viewpoint....I cannot agree with.
But I thank you for your response.
I am ( and always have been) on a quest for understanding. Agreement or disagreement is of little or no consequence to me.

[Avatar]

I'm happy to agree with Rus there...the law cannot force churches to marry same sex couples, and churches can't force the law to forbid them from marrying.

IIRC, there are churches that do marry same sex couples, so if you want to be married, go to one of those.

(And welcome back Ur-Bane. )

--A

[Fist and Faith]

Adoption services: Catholic Charities in Massachusetts refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by Massachusetts law. After a legislative struggle — during which the Senate president said he could not support a bill "condoning discrimination" — Catholic Charities pulled out of the adoption business in 2006.

This blurb doesn't give enough information. Adoption is a legal institution, with legally-binding contracts and legal requirements. If it's illegal to discriminate for this reason, then it's illegal to discriminate for this reason.

But maybe Catholic Charities plays a role that's not a part of the legal requirements? Simply matching couples with babies is something any number of companies might be able to do before getting to any legal issues, and they might all do the matching using whatever criteria they want. Then the matches have to go through legal procedures.

However, from this blurb, it doesn't seem to matter. According to this, Catholic Charities was not fined, ordered to place children with same-sex couples, ordered to shut down, or penalized in any other way. People were fighting the organization's stance, but it seems to say they quit the business before things were officially decided. That's their decision.

Housing: In New York City, Yeshiva University's Albert Einstein College of Medicine, a school under Orthodox Jewish auspices, banned same-sex couples from its married dormitory. New York does not recognize same-sex marriage, but in 2001, the state's highest court ruled Yeshiva violated New York City's ban on sexual orientation discrimination. Yeshiva now allows all couples in the dorm.

Depends. If the school is funded with tax dollars, then they are obligated to follow the laws. Privately funded schools do not.

On a similar note, there are Catholic and Jewish highschools in my area, and I live a mile from Most Precious Blood Elementary School. They all have classes that teach their specific religions. It individuals and churches are paying for the school, and parents want to send their kids there, go for it.

Parochial schools: California Lutheran High School, a Protestant school in Wildomar, holds that homosexuality is a sin. After the school suspended two girls who were allegedly in a lesbian relationship, the girls' parents sued, saying the school was violating the state's civil rights act protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination. The case is before a state judge.

Same as the above.

Medical services: A Christian gynecologist at North Coast Women's Care Medical Group in Vista, Calif., refused to give his patient in vitro fertilization treatment because she is in a lesbian relationship, and he claimed that doing so would violate his religious beliefs. (The doctor referred the patient to his partner, who agreed to do the treatment.) The woman sued under the state's civil rights act. The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in May 2008, and legal experts believe that the woman's right to medical treatment will trump the doctor's religious beliefs. One justice suggested that the doctors take up a different line of business.

Try as I may, I cannot come up with anything close to a good reason the doctor shouldn't be able to treat whoever he damned well pleases, for whatever reason. Fining him, giving him jail time, or forcing him to treat the woman would be as bad a violation of his rights as any I've ever heard.

Psychological services: A mental health counselor at North Mississippi Health Services refused therapy for a woman who wanted help in improving her lesbian relationship. The counselor said doing so would violate her religious beliefs. The counselor was fired. In March 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sided with the employer, ruling that the employee's religious beliefs could not be accommodated without causing undue hardship to the company.

North Mississippi Health Services has the right to employ whoever they want. If they want their image and direction to be one where same-sex issues are welcome, then that's their business. If they want to be one where same-sex issues are welcome, but not every employee is obligated to be involved, that's also their business.

Unless the NMHS is funded with tax dollars. In which case, the laws must be complied with.

In this particular case, the lesbian is stupid. Why would she want to force someone who opposes her lifestyle to work with her in this way?? Does she think the counselor is able to put her all into the case? Is she going to be truly trying? Is it possible in such a case? I doubt it, and I sure wouldn't want a counselor working with me if they didn't really want me to achieve my goals.

Civil servants: A clerk in Vermont refused to perform a civil union ceremony after the state legalized them. In 2001, in a decision that side-stepped the religious liberties issue, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that he did not need to perform the ceremony because there were other civil servants who would. However, the court did indicate that religious beliefs do not allow employees to discriminate against same-sex couples.

The clerk was in the wrong. He is paid by the government to follow the laws. If the laws say two consenting adults, regardless of their gender combination, can be joined in a civil union if they fill out the forms correctly, and whatever other requirements, the clerk does not have the right to refuse. The clerk needs to get a job that does not put him in such a position. I wouldn't get a job in a synagogue, then refuse to wear the skullcap.

Adoption services: A same-sex couple in California applied to Adoption Profiles, an Internet service in Arizona that matches adoptive parents with newborns. The couple's application was denied based on the religious beliefs of the company's owners. The couple sued in federal district court in San Francisco. The two sides settled after the adoption company said it will no longer do business in California.

Same as the first one.

Wedding services: A same sex couple in Albuquerque asked a photographer, Elaine Huguenin, to shoot their commitment ceremony. The photographer declined, saying her Christian beliefs prevented her from sanctioning same-sex unions. The couple sued, and the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found the photographer guilty of discrimination. It ordered her to pay the lesbian couple's legal fees ($6,600). The photographer is appealing.

Another absolutely insane case. Unless there's information we don't know about, this is disgusting. Did the photographer initially agree, then, after soul-searching for days/weeks/month, decide she couldn't do it - but only a couple days before the wedding, when there was no time to find another photographer?

Wedding facilities: Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of New Jersey, a Methodist organization, refused to rent its boardwalk pavilion to a lesbian couple for their civil union ceremony. The couple filed a complaint with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights. The division ruled that the boardwalk property was open for public use, therefore the Methodist group could not discriminate against gay couples using it. In the interim, the state's Department of Environmental Protection revoked a portion of the association's tax benefits. The case is ongoing.

Does the OGCMAofNJ own the boardwalk or not??? That should be the end of it.

Youth groups: The city of Berkeley, Calif., requested that the Sea Scouts (affiliated with the Boy Scouts) formally agree to not discriminate against gay men in exchange for free use of berths in the city's marina. The Sea Scouts sued, claiming this violated their beliefs and First Amendment right to the freedom to associate with other like-minded people. In 2006, the California Supreme Court ruled against the youth group. In San Diego, the Boy Scouts lost access to the city-owned aquatic center for the same reason. While these cases do not directly involve same-sex unions, they presage future conflicts about whether religiously oriented or parachurch organizations may prohibit, for example, gay couples from teaching at summer camp. In June 2008, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals asked the California Supreme Court to review the Boy Scouts' leases. Meanwhile, the mayor's office in Philadelphia revoked the Boy Scouts' $1-a-year lease for a city building.

Not enough info. Does any other group get free access? Or were they asking for special treatment?



And no, of course the church cannot be forced to marry same-sex couples.

[aliantha]

Fist beat me to it.

I only have one other comment, about the social worker in Mississippi. We *all* have to live within the strictures set by our employers if we want to work at our jobs. This has nothing to do with religion, but when I was hired, I was told that after 10 years of employment, I would be granted a three-month paid sabbatical. Seven or eight years later, the sabbatical was reduced to two months' paid leave. Last year, the program was suspended temporarily due to the economy. It was reinstated in December, but it's still two months, not three, and now we lose two weeks of regular vacation during the sabbatical year. I became eligible for a sabbatical in November. Should I sue my employer because I was promised three months when I was hired, and now I'm only getting (in essence) a month and a half? Am I being discriminated against because I didn't start working there soon enough? (Those are rhetorical questions, btw...)

You do the job you were hired to do. If you don't like the company's rules, you can quit and find another job. Or -- in the case of a social worker -- you can start your own private practice.