How does one respond to this charge regarding Equality Laws?

[NPC]

Of course it’s a hot topic at the moment - especially given that the Pope spoke to his English and Welsh bishops on defending against attacks on religious freedoms…

One example which was given in the Irish press was that if a church hall would not be rented out to a gay couple wishing to celebrated their civil union, it could be sued. The religious ethos of those who own and govern the hall would not matter.

In response to this statement, a person said that in that case a church hall could refuse all couples who have had pre-marital sex, couples who work on Sundays, couples who wear clothes of more than one cloth type, mixed-race couples, or those who eat pork - obviously the attack is not solely attacking the Catholic Church. Essentially the point is, who could be let into the hall to celebrate a civil union or anything else given that we’ve all “broken the rules” to some extent at some stage.

Is there something that makes the refusal of the homosexual couple different from, say, refusing a couple who have had pre-marital sex? Perhaps one aspect of the example cited above is that a homosexual couple celebrating a civil union are openly defying and stating their intention to continue to defy the Church’s teachings. In the case of those who have had pre-marital sex, perhaps the case is different because of the possibility that they’ve confessed their sins and ceased their sexual relationship until they marry…

Please enlighten me and add any further angles or secular parallels…

 

[Ron_Conte]

One example which was given in the Irish press was that if a church hall would not be rented out to a gay couple wishing to celebrated their civil union, it could be sued. The religious ethos of those who own and govern the hall would not matter.

In response to this statement, a person said that in that case a church hall could refuse all couples who have had pre-marital sex, couples who work on Sundays, couples who wear clothes of more than one cloth type, mixed-race couples, or those who eat pork - obviously the attack is not solely attacking the Catholic Church. Essentially the point is, who could be let into the hall to celebrate a civil union or anything else given that we’ve all “broken the rules” to some extent at some stage.

The prohibitions about cloth of more than one type, and dietary restrictions, are Old Testament disciplines (not doctrines) that have been dispensed by Christ. But even in the OT mixed race marriages were not prohibited (that is a fundamentalist Protestant idea, and not very common among them either).

A church hall cannot be rented out for a same-sex marriage because the parish would be committing sinful material cooperation with evil. The danger of scandal alone would also prohibit this act of renting the hall. The hall would be used for a ceremony that falsely claims to be a type of marriage. Also, a same-sex marriage ceremony constitutes a type of approval for homosexual acts, making the ceremony intrinsically evil (since all acts of formal cooperation are intrinsically evil).

A marriage between a man and a woman who have had premarital sex does not constitute formal cooperation with premarital sex, since the marriage certainly represents an end to that particular sin. The use of the hall for the Sacrament of Marriage does not imply approval for, or cooperation with, sins of premarital sex.

 

[Jermosh]

I think its a valid point, just needs to be refined. I think the issue is that finding what can be a honest religious infraction. In your case, Jews have no issue with gentiles eating pork or failing to observe sabbath and the other laws, they allow all this to happen in Israel which laws are based are Judaic.

A more valid one would be allowing the hall for 2nd or 3rd marriage relationships.

 

[DOShea]

What makes anyone think they have the “right” to use property that isn’t theirs and demand it be used in the manner they see fit, and the owners of the facility have no say? If that is the way things should be, then why don’t we see mud wrestling events held at exclusive country clubs? Try renting one hotel room anywhere and tell them there will be 20 people staying in it and watch what happens. You don’t get to use that room as you see fit, the management enforces occupant limits of their choosing.

You have no intrinsic “right” to tell another property owner what they can do on their property. Just ask the Catholics (including priests) who are still facing charges for protesting on Notre Dame’s campus. Because a facility is “public” doesn’t mean anyone can do anything in or with that property. I don’t know what the laws in that land are, but there is one thing clear in the attempts by gays to use churches in weddings. That is, to give their marriages more authenticity, and to diminish the ability of the Church to continue making the distinctions they make. There are plenty of other churches who will support gay marriage, so the simple answer is to go there. Insisting a church suppor it when it does not want to support it is nothing more than political challenge.

 

[NPC]

I think its a valid point, just needs to be refined. I think the issue is that finding what can be a honest religious infraction. In your case, Jews have no issue with gentiles eating pork or failing to observe sabbath and the other laws, they allow all this to happen in Israel which laws are based are Judaic.

A more valid one would be allowing the hall for 2nd or 3rd marriage relationships.

Well Jews may not have an issue with gentiles eating pork, but say, for example, I went to eat in a Jewish restaurant and I wanted to eat pork, but there is no pork on the menu. If I was to make a fuss in the media, what would the response be? I suspect it would be - “you were in a Jewish restaurant - what did you expect?”

I suppose the point is that there are some customs which we expect all people to respect as “visitors”. For example, in Catholic churches gentlemen do not wear hats - if there are non-Catholic visitors to Catholic churches it is expected that they will remove head-coverings. However, when they are back on “home turf” they can revert to their own particular customs. If I, as a Catholic, were to visit a mosque, I would be expected to remove my footwear - I would do so out of respect for their customs. A case of “when in Rome…” This then ties in with Ron’s point of co-operation with evil.

To go back to the example of Jews and pork - if I wanted to have a party at which would be served sausages, sausage-rolls etc. I probably wouldn’t have at the top of my list venues which are likely to have reservations about such a menu or if I did, I could hardly go about shouting that they are discriminating against me if they refuse to provide pork - surely it’s their property to do with as they wish & if I don’t like it, I can go elsewhere… Now, perhaps that particular example is eminently unrealistic, but in relation to homosexuals celebrating civil unions in Catholic church halls, one must ask why they would choose to celebrate in a structure of a Church which (as the media frequently and wrongly affirms) says that homosexuals are evil people and which actively discriminates against them… It seems to me that such people are happy to use the Church’s teachings and values (not to mention its property) in their favour while at the same time throwing these values back in the Church’s face when it doesn’t suit…

 

[Stephen168]

Of course it’s a hot topic at the moment - especially given that the Pope spoke to his English and Welsh bishops on defending against attacks on religious freedoms…

One example which was given in the Irish press was that if a church hall would not be rented out to a gay couple wishing to celebrated their civil union, it could be sued. The religious ethos of those who own and govern the hall would not matter.

In response to this statement, a person said that in that case a church hall could refuse all couples who have had pre-marital sex, couples who work on Sundays, couples who wear clothes of more than one cloth type, mixed-race couples, or those who eat pork - obviously the attack is not solely attacking the Catholic Church. Essentially the point is, who could be let into the hall to celebrate a civil union or anything else given that we’ve all “broken the rules” to some extent at some stage.

One difference I see is they want to use to hall in order to break the rules. I don’t think the Church should be forced to let people use the hall for pre-marital sex, or breaking the Sabbath either. And a synagogue should not be forced to let a group have a ‘Pork Sausage Fair’ inside.

 

[curlycool89]

In response to this statement, a person said that in that case a church hall could refuse all couples who have had pre-marital sex

That is actually quite an easy response. If a couple is having pre-marital sex, they’re usually not broadcasting it to the rest of the world. Unless there is something concrete to suggest otherwise, the Church assumes good faith that they are living within their faith.
You can’t assume good faith when 2 men ask for the hall for their “wedding”. It’s pretty public.

I like DOShea’s answer about private property above too.

 

[Jermosh]

Well Jews may not have an issue with gentiles eating pork, but say, for example, I went to eat in a Jewish restaurant and I wanted to eat pork, but there is no pork on the menu. If I was to make a fuss in the media, what would the response be? I suspect it would be - “you were in a Jewish restaurant - what did you expect?”

I suppose the point is that there are some customs which we expect all people to respect as “visitors”. For example, in Catholic churches gentlemen do not wear hats - if there are non-Catholic visitors to Catholic churches it is expected that they will remove head-coverings. However, when they are back on “home turf” they can revert to their own particular customs. If I, as a Catholic, were to visit a mosque, I would be expected to remove my footwear - I would do so out of respect for their customs. A case of “when in Rome…” This then ties in with Ron’s point of co-operation with evil.

To go back to the example of Jews and pork - if I wanted to have a party at which would be served sausages, sausage-rolls etc. I probably wouldn’t have at the top of my list venues which are likely to have reservations about such a menu or if I did, I could hardly go about shouting that they are discriminating against me if they refuse to provide pork - surely it’s their property to do with as they wish & if I don’t like it, I can go elsewhere… Now, perhaps that particular example is eminently unrealistic, but in relation to homosexuals celebrating civil unions in Catholic church halls, one must ask why they would choose to celebrate in a structure of a Church which (as the media frequently and wrongly affirms) says that homosexuals are evil people and which actively discriminates against them… It seems to me that such people are happy to use the Church’s teachings and values (not to mention its property) in their favour while at the same time throwing these values back in the Church’s face when it doesn’t suit…

Emm, Kosher restaurants are recognised by a different authority with the Health Department. Having pork or breaking Kosher rules like meat and dairy would make the kitchen non-kosher, kosher is not only about religion as well. More of a culture thing.

I understand your point, just need more refinement.