Jump to content

SCOTUS on religious liberty [relevant to recent decision on same-sex marriage]


Recommended Posts

The SCOTUS passed same-sex marriage as the law of the land.

 

Here are the dissertations of some of the judges.

 

"Many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises," acknowledges Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority in Obergefell v. Hodges, "and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here." He explains that while that "sincere, personal opposition" cannot be "enacted law and public policy" without harming gay couples and violating the Fourteenth Amendment, he favors a continued "open and searching debate" between those who favor and oppose same-sex marriage.

 

Chief Justice John Roberts is less confident. In his dissent, he argues that today’s decision "creates serious questions about religious liberty."

 

"Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority—actually spelled out in the Constitution," he writes. "Respect for sincere religious conviction has led voters and legislators in every State that has adopted same-sex marriage democratically to include accommodations for dissenting religious practice." But he says the Supreme Court is too much of a "blunt instrument" to do likewise. [Thus the evangelical argument for "if you can't beat them, amend them."]

"The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to 'advocate' and 'teach' their views of marriage," writes Roberts. "The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to 'exercise' religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses."

 

Regarding how gay rights and religious rights will coexist, the AP noted:

 

 

The AP-GfK poll [in April] found that a slim majority of Americans (52 percent) say that wedding-related businesses should be allowed to refuse service to same-sex couples, but just 40 percent say that businesses more generally should be allowed to do so. Still, most said it's more important for the government to protect religious liberties than the rights of gays and lesbians if the two come into conflict, by a 56 percent to 40 percent margin.

 

I guess the question is, How do we, as a nation, protect the rights of all its citizens? If we have the right to free assembly and exercise, it seems that someone is going to lose out on their rights.

 

Care to discuss your views and how you see this ruling leading us in the future.

I see the religious views being maligned and marginalized in favor of the majority. You can practice/teach your religion in church but you can't exercise it outside of that institution.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Grumpybutfun

This decision has nothing to do with religious views but with civil rights. By granting civil rights to same sex couples, we are establishing equality and legal protections for all citizens. No one is maligning other people's or even their own religions by establishing equal protections for same sex couples and their families.

Best,

Grumps

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Since we already have a currently running thread on the SCOTUS decision here:

 

http://www.loveshack.org/forums/off-topic/current-events/534969-supreme-court-rule-states-must-allow-gay-marriage

 

If members wish to discuss impacts to their faith or religion and their religious views on this decision, they may do so here. If the content is relevant to the decision itself, then please discuss it in Current Events.

 

Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Religious liberty is rallying cry after gay marriage ruling

 

The religious liberty fight isn't about what happens inside the sanctuary. First Amendment protections for worship and clergy are clear. Potential conflicts could arise, however, over religious organizations with some business in the public arena. That category ranges from small religious associations that rent reception halls to the public, to the nation's massive network of faith-based social service agencies that receive millions of dollars in government grants. Some groups, such as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, also want protections for individual business owners who consider it immoral to provide benefits for the same-sex spouse of an employee or cater gay weddings.

 

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy raised the issue in the majority opinion Friday granting gays the right to marry. He said First Amendment protections are in place for religious objectors, who "may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned."

 

But in his dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts predicted a clash ahead between religious freedom and same-sex marriage. He specifically noted the dilemma for religious colleges that provide married student housing, and adoption agencies that won't place children with gay couples.

 

 

Here we go.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
Clarence_Boddicker

Maybe if religious groups were not involved in secular activities like running a business as a religious group, there wouldn't be a conflict.

 

 

How about a voluntary separation of business & church?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can not believe in gay marriage on a personal level, thinking the term "marriage" is meant to refer to a man or woman based on what scripture says, but yet also believe people ought to be treated equally from a legal standpoint and not be denied the same benefits as a hetero-couple does from their union.

 

Just as you might find abortion morally repugnant yourself, but believe women ought to have a choice in what to do with their bodies up to the point of viability.

 

Lying is a sin. Adultery is a sin. Sodomy is a sin. Envy is a sin. None of these things are illegal now, for the most part (lying to law enforcement being one exception, for example).

 

I believe this is where Obama and Hilary are coming from. They don't believe in it themselves based on their respective faiths, but will defend your right to have it, as no faith controls this country.

 

In any event, the past week has been very telling to me in terms of who I'm going to maintain close connections with, and those who I'm going to distance myself from. The bigotry I've observed from a very select few on FB, for example, astounds me. Quick "deletes" for some folks.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
autumnnight
I like how marriage is a "sacred institution" when its convenient

 

I will say this....I find it ironic when any Christian who has been married and divorced multiple times makes derogatory remarks about gay marriage. If you've done it 3 or 4 times already, you've kinda lost your leg to stand on

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
pureinheart
I will say this....I find it ironic when any Christian who has been married and divorced multiple times makes derogatory remarks about gay marriage. If you've done it 3 or 4 times already, you've kinda lost your leg to stand on

 

I've been divorced four times and have taken most of the blame all of my life for those failed marriages, which is ok because I accept responsibility for my wrong actions and have a low opinion of my own past behavior. I've repented. It's done.

 

Because of my past I'm not allowed or shouldn't comment concerning something very specific in Gods Word? Now to be mean or uncool is not ok... ya I talk mess sometimes and should be more clear- I am being uncool to the concept and not the person.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If a pastor runs a business, he can refuse to be the one who marries two gay people in his church.

 

But he can not refuse service to people at his place of business. You have the freedom to practice your religion, but you don't have the freedom to use your religion to discriminate against gay people in the private sector. Especially when the states constitution has anti-discrimination legislation.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
autumnnight
I've been divorced four times and have taken most of the blame all of my life for those failed marriages, which is ok because I accept responsibility for my wrong actions and have a low opinion of my own past behavior. I've repented. It's done.

 

Because of my past I'm not allowed or shouldn't comment concerning something very specific in Gods Word? Now to be mean or uncool is not ok... ya I talk mess sometimes and should be more clear- I am being uncool to the concept and not the person.

 

I think there is a difference between a person who has approached their past with repentance and humility and a person who flat out ignores their own sin.

 

On a different note, I got into a war of words with a very old acquaintance yesterday because of something he posted on FB that I thought was way over the top - it was way past quoting the Bible and into..."we should be free to call THEM the same name as the Bible does blah blah"...just really hateful. I thought I could make him think by asking him if a gay couple walked into his church service on Sunday, how would they be treated (he is a pastor). That you don;t have to agree with someone to be kind to them.

 

He actually said:

 

They would be welcome as long as they agreed to sit separately. If they did not agree, they would be asked to leave.

 

I was floored. What???????

 

THAT is why so many people hate Christians. That right there.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
pureinheart
You can not believe in gay marriage on a personal level, thinking the term "marriage" is meant to refer to a man or woman based on what scripture says, but yet also believe people ought to be treated equally from a legal standpoint and not be denied the same benefits as a hetero-couple does from their union.

 

This works well from a secular standpoint, but not spiritual. I'm sure there are other arguments, but I haven't had the time to research them. Where does it end though? Are child unions next? Please don't say I am out of line or exaggerating, I've seen it and when I do have the time to research this entire matter completely I will show you the evidence.

 

 

Just as you might find abortion morally repugnant yourself, but believe women ought to have a choice in what to do with their bodies up to the point of viability.

 

This is a large copout IMO. I wouldn't murder anyone, but it is ok if you do.

 

Lying is a sin. Adultery is a sin. Sodomy is a sin. Envy is a sin. None of these things are illegal now, for the most part (lying to law enforcement being one exception, for example).

 

Some of them are illegal.

 

I believe this is where Obama and Hilary are coming from. They don't believe in it themselves based on their respective faiths, but will defend your right to have it, as no faith controls this country.

 

Both of these individuals have a proven track record of not being reliable on any count.

 

In any event, the past week has been very telling to me in terms of who I'm going to maintain close connections with, and those who I'm going to distance myself from. The bigotry I've observed from a very select few on FB, for example, astounds me. Quick "deletes" for some folks.

 

In the event you have exaggerated the use of the term 'bigotry', (which I see more than not), I have no doubt they will not miss you.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
UpwardForward
I've been divorced four times and have taken most of the blame all of my life for those failed marriages, which is ok because I accept responsibility for my wrong actions and have a low opinion of my own past behavior. I've repented. It's done.

 

Because of my past I'm not allowed or shouldn't comment concerning something very specific in Gods Word? Now to be mean or uncool is not ok... ya I talk mess sometimes and should be more clear- I am being uncool to the concept and not the person.

 

Divorce has Nothing to do with same sex marriage, legalized abortion - or any of it.

 

With divorce there are limited people involved. With legalized abortion and same sex marriage, there are tremendous numbers affected.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
autumnnight
Divorce has Nothing to do with same sex marriage, legalized abortion - or any of it.

 

With divorce there are limited people involved. With legalized abortion and same sex marriage, there are tremendous numbers affected.

 

My point was not that divorce and gay marriage are exactly the same.

 

Here's a better question....do you feel as much anger, angst, and sarcasm when thinking about two heterosexual people who are committing fornication? And before you say that sin is just between the two of them...read Matthew 18 and I Corinthians 5.

 

My issue is not with believing the Bible's statement that homosexual behavior is a sin. My issue is with the way we deem it as a "special" horrific sin worse than any we ourselves would commit.

 

I think some of us need to take a note from Paul's attitude when he said "Christ died to save sinners, of whom I am chief," and Jesus, when He said, "If you keep the whole law but stumble at one point, you are guilty of braking all of it."

 

If we behaved less like the Pharisee and more like the tax collector maybe we'd do a better job of fulfilling the 2 greatest commandments, neither of which said anything about anger and political activism.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
UpwardForward

Lukewarm, I'm not.

 

And I will speak up for righteousness.

 

Even if people do not believe in God, they should reason actions according to: How will this affect society/civilization; Future generations; Thought processes of children; etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
pureinheart
If a pastor runs a business, he can refuse to be the one who marries two gay people in his church.

 

But he can not refuse service to people at his place of business. You have the freedom to practice your religion, but you don't have the freedom to use your religion to discriminate against gay people in the private sector. Especially when the states constitution has anti-discrimination legislation.

 

What happened to the deal where a business reserves the right not to serve anyone at will? I see those signs all of the time in secular businesses. As people reserve the right not to do business with an establishment, the reverse should be true also.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
What happened to the deal where a business reserves the right not to serve anyone at will? I see those signs all of the time in secular businesses. As people reserve the right not to do business with an establishment, the reverse should be true also.

 

 

This is a sign that business like to put up as a reminder not to be a disruption or to cause any damage or anything like that.

 

Business do not actually have the right to refuse service to "anyone." For example, a white man in the south can't refuse service to all black customers. That would be discrimination, and is a direct linear analogy to an attempt to use the "anyone" in that slogan (because its not actually some kind of law) to discriminate against some one who is gay.

 

I can't open a hardware store that only caters to left handed people, and I kick right handed people out at the door. That is discrimination.

 

It stops being discrimination when you would kick anyone out for it. Example: no shoes, no shirt, no service.

 

The black guy, the asian, the gay guy, the brazillian guy, and the guy from the middle east all get thrown out if they are not wearing shoes or a shirt.

 

The gay guy just gets kicked out because he is gay. Discriminated based on his sexual orientation, which in most states is illegal.

 

But if we are being perfectly honest here, the power of the American Citizen's wallet + the fast moving information of the internet is that anyone who tried to pull this kind of anti-gay discrimination would lose so much business so fast that they would not be able to stay in business.

 

So, if they would really like to play that game of chicken, I'm quite sure that the business owner has more to lose than the gay people of the United States. .

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
pureinheart
I think there is a difference between a person who has approached their past with repentance and humility and a person who flat out ignores their own sin.

 

On a different note, I got into a war of words with a very old acquaintance yesterday because of something he posted on FB that I thought was way over the top - it was way past quoting the Bible and into..."we should be free to call THEM the same name as the Bible does blah blah"...just really hateful. I thought I could make him think by asking him if a gay couple walked into his church service on Sunday, how would they be treated (he is a pastor). That you don;t have to agree with someone to be kind to them.

 

He actually said:

 

They would be welcome as long as they agreed to sit separately. If they did not agree, they would be asked to leave.

 

I was floored. What???????

 

THAT is why so many people hate Christians. That right there.

 

IMO Pastors have an incredible responsibility. I am by no means condoning his anger nor communication, or the desired communication, although I can't imagine the stress he is under. The church took a big hit concerning this decision, it is stressful.

 

Many church leaders and Prophets have been trying to figure out where the US is in Bible Prophecy. This question was answered in a very big way a few days ago. We already knew we were experiencing the last, last days. If there is any question just read the newspaper on any given day.

 

I'm angry also and must monitor myself ALL of the time. With everything that has gone on I am very traumatized, I would imagine your Pastor friend is operating in that manor also.

 

People hate Christians because there is a spiritual battle taking place. A Christian has to do little to continually be judged and hated, we are held to very different standards, and on some levels, I say rightly so.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

People hate Christians because there is a spiritual battle taking place. A Christian has to do little to continually be judged and hated, we are held to very different standards, and on some levels, I say rightly so.

 

 

You know, if you change "Christian" to "Gay" in this part right here, it still remains a valid statement.

 

No one is attacking your faith. Asserting rights doesn't take away others.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
pureinheart
You know, if you change "Christian" to "Gay" in this part right here, it still remains a valid statement.

 

I don't agree with you here.

 

 

No one is attacking your faith. Asserting rights doesn't take away others.

 

Talk to most on LS and they will tell you how confining Christianity is and how we've held the world down blah, blah, blah... how cruel we are, judgmental, hypocritical, again, blah, blah, blah.

 

I have never heard this apply or anything close to it where gays are concerned. No, there are different standards.

 

*note* I am communicating my disdain for the attitudes of the public at large (not where I live thank God!), but it in no way affects me. I get a little tired of seeing the BS and feel the need to call it out sometimes (meaning the constant digs at Christianity), but that's it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
pureinheart
This is a sign that business like to put up as a reminder not to be a disruption or to cause any damage or anything like that.

 

I take the sign to mean what it says. They reserve the right ...

 

Business do not actually have the right to refuse service to "anyone." For example, a white man in the south can't refuse service to all black customers. That would be discrimination, and is a direct linear analogy to an attempt to use the "anyone" in that slogan (because its not actually some kind of law) to discriminate against some one who is gay.

 

This wouldn't happen now, people like to make money lol. I do think this is controlling though. I should, as a business owner, be able to loose money if I so choose.

 

I can't open a hardware store that only caters to left handed people, and I kick right handed people out at the door. That is discrimination.

 

I see a lot of things on the other side of this fence that are discriminatory, but we don't live in a world where all is equal. People sure use that crap a lot to get what they want.

 

It stops being discrimination when you would kick anyone out for it. Example: no shoes, no shirt, no service.

 

The black guy, the asian, the gay guy, the brazillian guy, and the guy from the middle east all get thrown out if they are not wearing shoes or a shirt.

 

The gay guy just gets kicked out because he is gay. Discriminated based on his sexual orientation, which in most states is illegal.

 

My question would be- why do people feel the need to infringe on another's 'rights'. If an establishment does not like heterosexual white females, I would not want to be there. It's like people have to make this stupid point to cause drama.

 

But if we are being perfectly honest here, the power of the American Citizen's wallet + the fast moving information of the internet is that anyone who tried to pull this kind of anti-gay discrimination would lose so much business so fast that they would not be able to stay in business.

 

This has been tried already... the business owner came up with more business and grew faster than ever... yes the power of the purse is strong.

 

So, if they would really like to play that game of chicken, I'm quite sure that the business owner has more to lose than the gay people of the United States. .

 

When a business owner stands for righteousness and his God is not money...he flourishes.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Can it really be a legitimate part of a religion in the US, to demand that third parties refrain from behavior that violates one's religion's tenets?

 

Should the majority be able to forbid to the minority, any of the following:

 

* Eating meat?

* Going outdoors with uncovered hair?

* Shaving of facial hair?

* Dancing?

* Mingled of unmarried members of the opposite sex?

* Having sex before marriage?

* Sacrificing doves and rams on an Abrahamic altar?

* Oral/genital contact?

* No fault divorce and abandonment of innocent spouses?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
People hate Christians because there is a spiritual battle taking place. A Christian has to do little to continually be judged and hated, we are held to very different standards, and on some levels, I say rightly so.

 

It's interesting. I live in the South, and I get judged and disliked for expressing views that go against the Christian mainstream. I think a lot of people have, sadly, been very damaged by the church, and I say this as someone raised in the church and who still identifies as a Christian. The LGBT community has been so marginalized by the church, yet we should be the ones who open our arms to this community. They really have it so bad with regards to discrimination, especially in the South.

 

I just find it appalling that we live in a country where people go hungry, have no access to basic health care, are greatly discriminated against for mental illness, we exalt consumerism/greed, ect. yet the church seems to think that discrimination and further marginalization the LGBT community is important. I think that is why people who are not Christians simply cannot understand why anyone would even want to be a part of the church. And I don't blame them one bit.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Talk to most on LS and they will tell you how confining Christianity is and how we've held the world down blah, blah, blah... how cruel we are, judgmental, hypocritical, again, blah, blah, blah.

 

I have never heard this apply or anything close to it where gays are concerned. No, there are different standards.

 

The church has well earned its reputation. I'm not happy to say that, but there it is. Judgement abounds and always has. The church has a long history of discriminating against and subordinating women. It has marginalized the LGBT community. The list goes on.

 

What have gays done to hurt anyone? Can you imagine being discriminated against simply for who you are? For being born a certain way, probably not wanting to be gay, but having no control over that? What in the world have gays done to hurt anyone in history? They are human beings who simply want to be treated like other human beings. Yet they are heckled, disowned by their own families, not welcome in the church, and, until now, have been denied the basic right to marry.

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...