Conscience protections for those opposed to gay marriage?

[Julianna]

There could be a law that says that people could not discriminate based on sexual orientation.

There is with regard to federal employment.

It is the policy of the government of the United States to provide equal opportunity in federal employment for all persons, to prohibit discrimination in employment because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap, age, sexual orientation or status as a parent, and to promote the full realization of equal employment opportunity through a continuing affirmative program in each executive department and agency. This policy of equal opportunity applies to and must be an integral part of every aspect of personnel policy and practice in the employment, development, advancement, and treatment of civilian employees of the federal government, to the extent permitted by law.

With that stated…as a protected class…if a LGBT is harassed on the job…they can file a formal complaint. I will also add “religion” is a protected class.

 

[Horton]

There is with regard to federal employment.

It is the policy of the government of the United States to provide equal opportunity in federal employment for all persons, to prohibit discrimination in employment because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap, age, sexual orientation or status as a parent, and to promote the full realization of equal employment opportunity through a continuing affirmative program in each executive department and agency. This policy of equal opportunity applies to and must be an integral part of every aspect of personnel policy and practice in the employment, development, advancement, and treatment of civilian employees of the federal government, to the extent permitted by law.

With that stated…as a protected class…if a LGBT is harassed on the job…they can file a formal complaint. I will also add “religion” is a protected class.

A policy within hiring & treatment of government employees is not a law. So does this mean a heterosexual male cannot be discriminated against?

I’m not trying to be argumentative, but it doesn’t make sense.

 

[Julianna]

A policy within hiring & treatment of government employees is not a law. So does this mean a heterosexual male cannot be discriminated against?

I’m not trying to be argumentative, but it doesn’t make sense.

Pretty perceptive of you Horton. As far as the law…it is within the eeo of the fed government. A manager cannot deny a promotion or award (for sake of arguement) to a qualified LGBT employee because he or she doesn’t believe in said lifestyle based on their religious beliefs. This is an argument Justice of Peace will not win because they “are” civil servants whether state (which receives fed funds) or fed. The woman who won the right to enter the Citadel in SC many years…ago…won on the federal anti-discrimination laws…because the Citadel accepted federal funding. Now…when it comes to a small business. …there may be a different laws and regulations.

 

[Forthright234]

Can a homosexual property owner refuse to rent to a heterosexual person? Can a bi-sexual baker refuse to bake a wedding cake for a man/woman marriage? Can a transgendered florist refuse to do flower arrangements for a man/woman marriage?

Horton, those are some pretty funny examples.

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

A policy within hiring & treatment of government employees is not a law. So does this mean a heterosexual male cannot be discriminated against?

I’m not trying to be argumentative, but it doesn’t make sense.

Sorry I should have been more specific…

I don’t believe there are laws that say we can’t discriminate against blacks… What the laws say are that we can’t discriminate based on race or color. So you can’t not hire someone only because they are black or white. So if discrimination based on sexual orientation became a illegal , a homosexual landlord would not be able to choose not to rent a house to a heterosexual tenant based on the fact that he is heterosexual alone.

 

[Listener]

I believe that bakers who refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding are not discriminating against people. Rather, they are discriminating against an event. If the mother of one of the grooms came in and ordered the cake, the answer would still be no.

Marijuana is now legal in a few states. What if the request was to bake a cake for a conference celebrating the legalization of marijuana? Would the baker have a right to say no? If the baker did say no, he or she would be discriminating against the event and not the person who asked for the cake.

I don’t understand why people can’t see the difference. Should a black baker be forced to bake a cake for an event put on by the Ku Klux Klan?

A person who runs a business should not be forced to provide services that go against his or her religious beliefs.

 

[Arandur]

Yeah, I’m not talking about denying service like at a restaurant… I’m talking about when a white woman chooses to marry a black man. That is an ACT just like a man choosing to marry a man is an act.

They are both acts that some Christians are opposed to for religious reasons. Obviously a great many more are opposed to gay marriage than interracial marriage at this moment in history.

My question is for those that disagree with gay marriage and would like the legal protection to not have to provide any service related to gay weddings… Should we afford the same liberty to those few who disagree with the act of interracial marriage and allow them the same legal protection?

Do both groups deserve the same conscience protections? If not, why not? If yes, isn’t that an injustice to the interracial couple?

Focusing on marriage, then, yes, I think conscience protection should allow anyone to to choose which weddings you wish to serve.

This is an extension of the “events” situation I spoke of earlier. It’s not refusing service, as in a restaurant, based upon a fixed trait. It’s refusing to go out and actively participate in an event that the proprietor finds objectionable.

Same thing would be true of a caterer not wanting to serve a KKK event, or a pacifist not wanting to have to print content for a gun show.

The event does not NEED the services, strictly speaking, anyway. Customers should not be able to compel the services to be offered. Moreover, the nature of the event is very much the choice of the individuals to hold – and all peaceful events are protected under the right to freely assemble, so they are all as constitutionally-protected as a wedding.
**
You can’t compel someone to attend an event. Why should you be able to compel someone to serve the event (a greater burden and injury than attendance would be)?**

Isn’t that actually pretty simple, easily applied, common sense, and non-offensive?

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

I believe that bakers who refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding are not discriminating against people. Rather, they are discriminating against an event. If the mother of one of the grooms came in and ordered the cake, the answer would still be no.

Marijuana is now legal in a few states. What if the request was to bake a cake for a conference celebrating the legalization of marijuana? Would the baker have a right to say no? If the baker did say no, he or she would be discriminating against the event and not the person who asked for the cake.

I don’t understand why people can’t see the difference. Should a black baker be forced to bake a cake for an event put on by the Ku Klux Klan?

A person who runs a business should not be forced to provide services that go against his or her religious beliefs.

So if someone says they won’t bake the cake for an interracial marriage because interracial marriage is against their religious beliefs then they are not discriminating against the people getting married based on their skin colors but against their event? Is that how you would view it?

It’s just that although your explanation makes some sense to me it doesn’t seem quite intuitive… If my friend walks into the bakery and comes out telling me they refused to make her cake because she’s marrying a white guy (she’s black), I would never in a million years think of it how you described here - I would see it as discrimination based on her skin color.

Also, just an observation…I think we could make the case that gay weddings are just secular legal unions. The sin is the gay sex, and a baker is not being asked to participate or encourage it in any way. The people opposed to gay civil marriage - it seems to me - are opposed for political reasons. They want the government to use the same definition for civil marriage as their religious group does for Christian or sacramental marriage. It’s fine in my opinion that they want this but it is pretty clearly a political preference… So when the gay couple comes along and says we’re having a party to celebrate the fact that we are going to get a civil marriage… There just isn’t any sin in partying or in getting the legal contract, so a Christian couldn’t actually be opposed for religious reasons - it’s their political feelings that are coming into play saying “I don’t like this.”

 

[Julianna]

So if someone says they won’t bake the cake for an interracial marriage because interracial marriage is against their religious beliefs then they are not discriminating against the people getting married based on their skin colors but against their event? Is that how you would view it?

It’s just that although your explanation makes some sense to me it doesn’t seem quite intuitive… If my friend walks into the bakery and comes out telling me they refused to make her cake because she’s marrying a white guy (she’s black), I would never in a million years think of it how you described here - I would see it as discrimination based on her skin color.

Also, just an observation…I think we could make the case that gay weddings are just secular legal unions. The sin is the gay sex, and a baker is not being asked to participate or encourage it in any way. The people opposed to gay civil marriage - it seems to me - are opposed for political reasons. They want the government to use the same definition for civil marriage as their religious group does for Christian or sacramental marriage. It’s fine in my opinion that they want this but it is pretty clearly a political preference… So when the gay couple comes along and says we’re having a party to celebrate the fact that we are going to get a civil marriage… There just isn’t any sin in partying or in getting the legal contract, so a Christian couldn’t actually be opposed for religious reasons - it’s their political feelings that are coming into play saying “I don’t like this.”

In one sentence your last paragraph defines:

Render to Caesar what is his and to God what is His.

 

[pnewton]

Sorry I should have been more specific…

I don’t believe there are laws that say we can’t discriminate against blacks… What the laws say are that we can’t discriminate based on race or color. So you can’t not hire someone only because they are black or white.

Even this has limits, as in affirmative action programs that discriminate base on race to gain a more diverse, proportionate, employment/admission.

 

[pnewton]

On solution to the “cake” would simply to be stock only cake toppers with a man and woman. Then, a baker could offer a generic cake with no specific wedding theme with or without a heterosexual top.

 

[Arandur]

So if someone says they won’t bake the cake for an interracial marriage because interracial marriage is against their religious beliefs then they are not discriminating against the people getting married based on their skin colors but against their event? Is that how you would view it?

It’s just that although your explanation makes some sense to me it doesn’t seem quite intuitive… If my friend walks into the bakery and comes out telling me they refused to make her cake because she’s marrying a white guy (she’s black), I would never in a million years think of it how you described here - I would see it as discrimination based on her skin color.

Also, just an observation…I think we could make the case that gay weddings are just secular legal unions. The sin is the gay sex, and a baker is not being asked to participate or encourage it in any way. The people opposed to gay civil marriage - it seems to me - are opposed for political reasons. They want the government to use the same definition for civil marriage as their religious group does for Christian or sacramental marriage. It’s fine in my opinion that they want this but it is pretty clearly a political preference… So when the gay couple comes along and says we’re having a party to celebrate the fact that we are going to get a civil marriage… There just isn’t any sin in partying or in getting the legal contract, so a Christian couldn’t actually be opposed for religious reasons - it’s their political feelings that are coming into play saying “I don’t like this.”

Would it be legal to force someone to attend an event that they don’t agree with (or even one they didn’t care about or did agree with)?

Why should it be legal to force someone to serve one, then?

The reasons really don’t matter. You should be able to attend or not, serve or not, without even having to explain why not, much less be judged for your reasons.

 

[Arandur]

In one sentence your last paragraph defines:

Render to Caesar what is his and to God what is His.

Marriage is God’s.

Aside from that, this is not a blanket affirmation to follow any law or participate in anything the State commands. The Church has been pretty clear on that, and has a lot to say about it.

In context, of course, Jesus is most immediately talking about taxation and money, which God doesn’t put much value on, and which the Jews had little hope or opportunity to do anything about, anyway.

But as far as whether you can compromise God’s will by participating in something sinful, consider as a more relevant example the various discussions (particularly in Acts and the letters) about how Christians must not participate in sacrifices to other gods, or the orgies and practices of such common cultural pagan activities. Even when compelled to by law! This is what so many martyrs died for.

Are we to disregard their example and say that the martyrs should have just done what the law commanded to? Those weren’t real gods anyway, so it doesn’t matter if you do what the state asks? (not a real marriage anyway, so…)

Or the examples where Paul talks about giving scandal, whether to other believers or appearing to agree with the pagans (strangled meats, etc.)? Would it not give scandal to participate directly with things clearly contrary to God’s law, like abortion, euthanasia, promotion of unchastity (pornography and much media content these days), same-sex “marriage,” etc?

 

[Julianna]

Marriage is God’s.

Aside from that, this is not a blanket affirmation to follow any law or participate in anything the State commands. The Church has been pretty clear on that, and has a lot to say about it.

In context, of course, Jesus is most immediately talking about taxation and money, which God doesn’t put much value on, and which the Jews had little hope or opportunity to do anything about, anyway.

But as far as whether you can compromise God’s will by participating in something sinful, consider as a more relevant example the various discussions (particularly in Acts and the letters) about how Christians must not participate in sacrifices to other gods, or the orgies and practices of such common cultural pagan activities. Even when compelled to by law! This is what so many martyrs died for.

Are we to disregard their example and say that the martyrs should have just done what the law commanded to? Those weren’t real gods anyway, so it doesn’t matter if you do what the state asks? (not a real marriage anyway, so…)

Or the examples where Paul talks about giving scandal, whether to other believers or appearing to agree with the pagans (strangled meats, etc.)? Would it not give scandal to participate directly with things clearly contrary to God’s law, like abortion, euthanasia, promotion of unchastity (pornography and much media content these days), same-sex “marriage,” etc?

It is God’s within the confines of His Church and doctrine. Not everyone in America is Catholic or Christian. We don’t live in a fishbowl.

 

[Arandur]

It is God’s within the confines of His Church and doctrine. Not everyone in America is Catholic or Christian. We don’t live in a fishbowl.

We were talking in context of a Catholic or Christian participating in things against our deeply held convictions, so I don’t see what the point is of what you just said.

“Render under Caesar” applied to taxes, specifically. It could be generalized to some other laws or requirements (“if they ask you to go a mile, go two” was referencing a law that a soldier or Roman citizen could force a subject to carry stuff for a mile for them), but not to everything, as in the laws that required participation in pagan practices. Just like the Scriptural admonitions against Christians or Jews being forced by law to participate in pagan practices – not all these pagan practices were explicitly religious, but they were all entwined with the State.