The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 34 of 34

Thread: Religious Rights or Gay Rights?

  1. #31
    Senior Member Franco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Lafayette, La.
    Posts
    10,931

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy View Post
    Going by your LP premise given:

    On abortion: I would have to say that if science determined the moment when a fetus became a person, the LP view would have to grant that person the same rights as everyone else. Would that be accurate? The problem with abortion now is that there is no agreed upon definition of when the fetus becomes a person. In the case of abortion when the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, then it would seem that the abortion is a matter of "self-defense", and would be a non-issue in that regard.

    Actually, if we could resolve the issue of when a fetus becomes a person, the Constitution would also make it clear that the rights of the fetus were protected. Privacy of the mother's body would not be an issue .. if you kill someone in the privacy of your own home, the privacy issue does not trump the murder infringing on the right to life of the person who is murdered (presuming the appropriate safeguards to the rights of the accused).

    On gay rights: It would seem that LGBTs would have the legal rights through civil union, but when their right to those civil equalities would interfere with someone else's religious beliefs, those who disagreed could not be forced to participate. I can only see that as an issue when religious ceremonies are involved. Housing, restaurants, employment, i.e. non-religious activities, would not be at issue. Would that be accurate? I believe that Hobby Lobby employed people who were LGBT, but simply would not participate in paying for abortion-inducing drugs.

    When we talk of other civil liberties equality, they do not pertain to things that would interfere with the first amendment rights of others, i.e. compelling the actions of the landlord or restaurant owner to "accept" the religious orientation of the other party.

    In some ways it may be similar to the RC church having a man-made law about celibacy for their priests ... but that is a church "custom" rather than God's law. Thus, the RC priest, who is celibate still performs heterosexual marriage rites for those who choose not to be celibate. The choice of celibacy is left to the individual's "calling." Personally, I think it is more rational for priests to be allowed to marry so they can understand the issues of marriage first-hand, especially when they are called upon to act as marriage counselors.

    The OP raises the question of whether there is freedom to NOT participate in the religious beliefs of someone else. I can participate in a Jewish wedding because the values of Judaism WRT marriage are akin to Christian ones. I would have a problem participating in a wedding of a faith that condoned multiple wives.
    Yes or agree to the first two paragraphs though many in the LP are advocating that it be left up to the states as the issue of when life begins is still in debate. If abortion where to ever be illegal, I would expect those opposed to it to adopt several inner-city babies and see if their actions speak louder than their indignation. On the gay issue, The Constitution trumps religious beliefs. It wasn't long ago that many Christian sects opposed equal rights for black folks based on their religious interpretation. . In the case of the photog, all he really need to say was that he was opposed to same sex marriage and that would affect the quality of his work. They way that he handled it made it a legal issue. If one is in business, they are not allowed to discriminate under the law. We may both find gay to be unnatural but that is not for us to say that we know what is best for other people(or judge other people), in a society where Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness is stated in the Declaration Of Independence.
    Last edited by Franco; 08-26-2013 at 12:45 PM.
    Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery. Calvin Coolidge



  2. #32
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,278

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Franco View Post
    Yes or agree to the first two paragraphs though many in the LP are advocating that it be left up to the states as the issue of when life begins is still in debate. If abortion where to ever be illegal, I would expect those opposed to it to adopt several inner-city babies and see if their actions speak louder than their indignation.

    I don't think the Constitution gets involved with how we are to resolve the issues that result from abiding by it.

    For example, the Constitution stipulates that the govt should should not establish a religion or prevent anyone from worshiping as they wish. It does not provide for the details of how that is to be observed. Hence, for some, it has been interpreted to mean that you can't have a Nativity display on govt property. Others believe that was not the intention.

    On the gay issue, The Constitution trumps religious beliefs.

    The Constitution does not "trump" religious beliefs ... it includes them as a right.

    It wasn't long ago that many Christian sects opposed equal rights for black folks based on their religious interpretation.

    I honestly don't have a rational response to that, since I do not fathom where the basis for that came from in Christian doctrine.


    . In the case of the photog, all he really need to say was that he was opposed to same sex marriage and that would affect the quality of his work. They way that he handled it made it a legal issue.

    I doubt that the remedy you suggest would have protected him.

    If one is in business, they are not allowed to discriminate under the law.

    We may both find gay to be unnatural but that is not for us to say that we know what is best for other people(or judge other people), in a society where Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness is stated in the Declaration Of Independence.
    Franco, I would repeat that regardless of anyone's individual beliefs regarding gay lifestyle, they are absolutely entitled to the protections of their civil equality under the Constitution. Hence, regardless of personal feelings, a civil union should be honored for such individual commitments.

    Since there are a bunch of govt laws that exist that specifically address domestic unions, then the sex of the pariticpants in such a committed union, must have equality in those civil laws.

    The whole problem with the issue is semantic ... the word marriage. Why is it so difficult to consider the overall concept of domestic unions with sub-categories? Marriage might describe a heterosexual union; civil union could describe same-sex unions.

    I am still unsure, however, how I feel about adoption or surrogacy for same-sex couples. I cannot imagine that it is not difficult for a boy to not have a father/male role model; or a girl to have a mother/female role model. In the case of adoption, the couple could choose to adopt a child of their own sex, but in surrogacy to they get to choose the sex of the child as well? If gay youngsters have trouble in discussing their sexual orientation with heterosexual parents, would heterosexual children have the same difficulty in discussing the topic with gay parents? Do gay parents defend & promote their perspective as much as heterosexual parents do theirs?

    If a gay person already has children from a previous marriage, there might be a chance that the child still has the perspectives of both sexes, rather than just one. My concern here is from the perspective of the children. It's tough enough growing up today without adding another complexity for the kids.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  3. #33
    Senior Member Franco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Lafayette, La.
    Posts
    10,931

    Default

    Gerry, the only item I'll disagree with is the, " I don't think the Constitution gets involved with how we are to resolve the issues that result from abiding by it. " Take Sharia Law for example; we the people are protected from many aspects of that belief. Hence, The Constitution pre-empts religious law. People have the Right to practice whatever religion they wish or not to practice any of them. But, when it comes to the Law, it in fact does trump religious laws. In the case of the photog, he was not asked to have sex with them, just take their wedding/civil union photos. Yet, I don't see how this law suit will hold up in a Court of Law against the photog.
    Last edited by Franco; 08-26-2013 at 03:44 PM.
    Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery. Calvin Coolidge



  4. #34
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,278

    Default

    I think that the Constitution would only trump Sharia law when Sharia would be counter to individual rights.

    Part of the debate is whether "marriage" is a "right". A domestic union might be a right (because of legal benefits that are associated with heterosexual marriage) ... but is it a right to force someone else into participating in your religious ceremony?

    If a Muslim wanted to have genital mutilation on his/her daughter, and chose to do this with a doctor, would the doctor be able to refuse to perform the ritual? Hospitals can refuse to do abortions, as long as they refer them to another service provider. Why does the photographer not have the same right?

    I don't want to sound like I pretend to have the right answer. It's just a gut feeling. If I wanted a Jewish caterer to do my Christian wedding, and he refused, I can't imagine suing him/her. I find this discussion useful in parsing the principles involved.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •