U.S.: Virginia To Assault Religious Institutions and People Who Do Not Endorse Gay Ideology

[mdgspencer]

see Rights for LGBTs—But Not God

“And let there be no doubt that the supporters of this legislation aim to use it against religious institutions and individuals who do not endorse LGBTQ ideology.”

“As The Family Foundation president, Victoria Cobb, notes, ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’ will now be considered specially protected categories for practically all parts of Virginia’s state code.” This applies to churches and religious ministries.

 

[TMC]

The article seems a bit alarmist. The Virginia law doesn’t seem different than the gay rights laws already passed in 20 or 30 states.

 

[dscath]

The article seems a bit alarmist.

A bit? The entire crisis magazine website seems to be a fringe site hiding behind the label of Catholicism.

 

[JimG]

No doubt there will be lawsuits against religious institutions.

http://www.familyfoundation.org/blog-posts/northam-signs-bill-targeting-churches-and-religious-schools

 

[phil19034]

Honestly, sometimes I wonder if they used to be correct when they used execute heretics…

 

[adamhovey1988]

gender identity

I don’t think something you can change on a daily basis should be considered a protected class, call me old-fashioned.

 

[Freddy]

mdgspencer:

gender identity

I don’t think something you can change on a daily basis should be considered a protected class, call me old-fashioned.

Maybe they could put it in the legislation that you can only do it once.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Trust me, when a state decides to start coming down hard on churches and people who don’t endorse LGBTQ, it’s not going to be Virginia leading the pack. Virginia pretty much has a church on every corner, most of them not Catholic, and many if not most of them even more disapproving of LGBTQ than us Catholics. I sense that some politician is engaging in fearmongering here.

 

[LilyM]

mdgspencer:

gender identity

I don’t think something you can change on a daily basis should be considered a protected class, call me old-fashioned.

Lots of things about you can change over time - marital status, religious beliefs, health, disabilty, pregnancy, age.

I don’t think that by itself should mean it isn’t subject to discrimination laws.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

A bit? The entire crisis magazine website seems to be a fringe site hiding behind the label of Catholicism.

I agree, it would be nice if people would consider the source before they start threads or respond on them.

 

[Hume]

The article seems a bit alarmist. The Virginia law doesn’t seem different than the gay rights laws already passed in 20 or 30 states.

It’s terrible!

If we want to deny them a unit in our apartment building because they’re gay, we can’t be open about it!

 

[JanR]

What ever happened to separation of church and state?

 

[signit]

Quick question:

The actual legislation:

legislation

(1) From the “public accommodation” part of the legislation, the definition of “public accommodation”:

C. The provisions of this section shall not apply to a private club, a place of accommodation owned
by or operated on behalf of a religious corporation, association, or society that is not in fact open to
the public, or any other establishment that is not in fact open to the public.

(2) And, from the employment discrimination provision, a couple of exceptions:

C. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, it is not an unlawful employment practice:

1. For an elementary or secondary school or institution of higher education to hire and employ
   employees of a particular religion if such elementary or secondary school or institution of higher
   education is, in whole or in substantial part, owned, supported, controlled, or managed by a particular
   religion or by a particular religious corporation, association, or society or if the curriculum of such
   elementary or secondary school or institution of higher education is directed toward the propagation > of a particular religion;

[and:]

The provisions of this section shall not apply to the employment of individuals of a particular
religion by a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society to perform work
associated with its activities.

So where’s all this “assault on religious institutions”?

It seems pretty “alarmist” to me; it seems like they put in some broad exceptions for religious institutions.

 

[blackforest]

“And let there be no doubt that the supporters of this legislation aim to use it against religious institutions and individuals who do not endorse LGBTQ ideology.”

Actually, our religious institution, the Catholic Church, expressly prohibits discrimination against LGBTQ people:

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

It sounds like this bill may actually be promoting and upholding Church teaching. Can you point to anything specific in it that goes against it? Richmond Sunlight » SB868: Discrimination; prohibited in public accommodations, etc., causes of action.

 

[Genesis315]

Actually, our religious institution, the Catholic Church, expressly prohibits discrimination against LGBTQ people:

The CCC rightly (and a bit tautologically) rules out “unjust discrimination.” But as that phrase implies, there is also just discrimination. The Church does not prohibit that (but encourages and even sometimes mandates it). See here from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. See especially part II Applications (paragraphs 10-16).

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...faith_doc_19920724_homosexual-persons_en.html

 

[JimG]

A few paragraphs from the Vatican document linked in the prior post:

" 10. “Sexual orientation” does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder (cf. Letter , no. 3) and evokes moral concern.

1. There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment."

 

[signit]

A few paragraphs from the Vatican document linked in the prior post:

" 10. “Sexual orientation” does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder (cf. Letter , no. 3) and evokes moral concern.

1. There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment."

See post #13.

As I see it, the Catholic Church or other churches (or other religious organizations) could still discriminate in this way.

If a Catholic school didn’t want to hire gay teachers or coaches, or other employees, they wouldn’t have to.

I still don’t see what the problem is.

 

[JimG]

There may not be a problem. I think it will depend on how forcefully the LGBT lobby wishes to pursue alleged discrimination lawsuits, especially considering that substantial punitive damage awards may be available to litigants.

I’m still unhappy that Catholic adoption agencies had to shut down in several locations due to similar legislation.