Christian Privilege: Not Being Allowed to Dominate Others Doesn't Mean You're Being Oppressed.

Christian Privilege: Not Being Allowed to Dominate Others Doesn’t Mean You’re Being Oppressed.

  260 comments

  27th Jun 11

  Mike Gillis

We get a number of comments on the blog entries, including this one in response to Beth’s piece on why we’re thrilled that New York has legalized same-sex marriage:

Here’s the thing. Even Obama says that a “Marriage” should be between a man and a woman. Why do gays have to have “Marriage”. Why can’t it be a civil union? why isn’t that good enough? I understand you are an Atheist and any religious argument is looked upon with disdain, but you are doing the exact thing that you accuse others of doing to you. You are treading roughshod over their beliefs. There was and is a solution. Don’t call it gay marriage. However, as per usual, it seems the gay community must thumb it’s collective nose at everyone else.

This comment so typifies what I feel is the Christian privilege behind a lot of the opposition to same-sex marriage equality, that I felt it deserved to be addressed as a blog post of its own. I don’t know if the author of the comment is a Christian or not, but I think it’s a safe assumption, given the way that majoritarian arrogance just drips from every sentence.

First, I’d tell the commenter that the gay community isn’t “thumbing it’s collective nose at everyone else.” For one, it’s not really “everyone else” anymore since a majority polled now support same-sex marriage rights, but also because human rights are not a popularity contest. The people with the greatest numbers can change the tax system, or affect policy changes on things like roads or healthcare, but they cannot enforce their religious beliefs on any minority.

And this is what many Christians seem to have a real problem with.

No one’s rights are being trampled if same-sex marriage is legalized. NO ONE’S.

If your religious beliefs condemn marriage between two people of the same gender, then you shouldn’t marry people of the same gender. While you have the freedom to limit your own behavior in matters of sexuality, diet or religious observance, you don’t have any power to limit the rights of other people, particularly those in other religions or with no religion.

If someone else is allowed to marry their same-sex partner, the anti-gay marriage advocate is affected in no way, oppressed in no way, their right to hold those beliefs is violated in no way.

Just as orthodox Jews aren’t victims of oppression when other people are allowed to legally watch television and use electric appliances on Saturday. Just as Muslims aren’t victims of oppression when other people are allowed to legally purchase alcohol. Just as Hindus aren’t victims of oppression when other people are legally allowed to eat beef.

You are expecting a level of cultural dominance that is completely unreasonable. You are expecting the right to to demand that your religious practices be taken as civil law and that the prohibitions of (I assume) Christianity be enforced on everybody — including non-Christians and Christians of denominations that accept equality in gay rights.

Our refusal to be dominated is not persecution of Christians. Our demand that the government be neutral and secular on matters of religious belief is not the persecution of Christians. If a man is beating us with a club, slapping that club out of his hand is not “running roughshod over his beliefs.”

As for why they should be allowed to have “marriage,” why do you care what they call their legally recognized relationships? Why do you need to put a velvet rope up around heterosexual relationships to put them in a restricted area so that you don’t have to share a word with anyone else? Why don’t you change the name of your marriage to a “civil union?” Why isn’t that good enough?

Other than the genders involved, there is no difference between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual one. Both are generally based in love, respect and a desire to spend your lives together.

Your life, again, is affected not one whit if gay folks are allowed to marry their partners. Why do you even care? How are you being harmed or oppressed if gay people are given equal rights?

And you’re right about Obama saying that. And guess what? Obama was wrong. It happens sometimes with the president.

IF YOU LIKE THIS POST: Please consider listening to our most recent episode of Ask an Atheist, “Gaytheism, where Deanna, Keight and Mike discuss the interplay between the gay rights movement and the atheist visibility movement, and why equal rights and protection for gay people tends tends to be important to atheists.

ADMIN NOTE: Poeple have been complaining about comments being paged off. That’s fixed now.

  Church/State, Current Events / News, Gay Rights, Opinion / Rant, Srsly WTF
- Comments (256)
- Trackbacks (4)
« Previous 1 … 3 4 5 6 Next »
- Amanda
  
  (#3976) July 1st, 2011 at 11:00
  
  Something I feel is often overlooked by this argument is the assumption that the discussion and its inherent divisiveness is resolved within the public sphere at the moment gay marriage is legalized. It is true that private individuals are not affected by others’ marriages, but what many fear are the litigation concerns that arise from its passage.
  
  Both businesses and churches (and occasionally, the individuals within these) have been the subject of lawsuits for refusing to perform or provide business to same sex couples. Because religious/philosophical disagreements are not admissable as a defense in the courts, defendants are left often with no recourse but to settle privately, often to the tune of a bankruptable amount. The aim, as it appears to them, is to close those churches and businesses who specifically oppose same-sex marriage by taking them through the court system once their relationships are defined by state law. There should be some recourse for these individuals to protect them from subsequent litigation following the passage of these laws, but as of now they are protected only from criminal prosecution, not civil, and thus are exposed to as many lawsuits as the large advocacy groups wish to file against them.
  
  I’d like to hear how same-sex marriage supporters would propose to resolve this issue. This should be an issue where the right of the individual to marry whom they choose is paramount, and I feel the problems of civil litigation that arise from it detract from what should fundamentally be a human rights issue. But just as there should be freedom to marry, there should also be freedom to disagree with it without fear of retribution. What do you think?
  
  [top]
- Mike Gillis
  
  (#3977) July 1st, 2011 at 11:07
  
  Amanda, it’s been widely recognized that religious institutions — unless they’re accepting tax payer funds — are immune to the usual anti-discrimination laws because of the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment.
  
  Even so, to remedy this fear which is being intentionally stoked by anti-gay rights groups, legislatures will often write this into the marriage equality laws explicitly.
  
  The New York law is a good example of this.
  
  If same-sex marriage is legalized, no church will be forced to marry same-sex couples or admit LGBT folks into their congregations.
  
  This is not about forcing churches to close. They run a greater risk of that by spending so much of their money fighting civil rights.
  
  [top]
- Scott
  
  (#3984) July 1st, 2011 at 13:29
  
  Mike,
  
  You give a good answer to Amanda’s question regarding how the law protects the right of religious institutions to believe and practice what they want in regards to homosexuality.
  
  However, as someone who leans in a libertarian direction but is also a big supporter of marriage Equality and gay rights, there is one thing that troubles me. What of the devoutly religious business owner? The company I work for is a case in point. My boss is a devout Christian, an excellent businessman and is truly devoted to the well-being of his employees. He also pays !00% of employees health insurance premiums, including for families and married couples. As a libertarian, I don’t believe he should be required by law to provide family coverage for gay and lesbian couples as his religious views would find that disagreeable. What is the general opinion regarding this among those in the gay rights and marriage equality movement?
  
  It’s in this area that I think things are fuzzy, not in the area of freedom of religious institutions themselves.
  
  What do you think?
  
  [top]
- Christi
  
  (#3985) July 1st, 2011 at 13:38
  
  Yes! Yes! Thank you!
  
  [top]
- Shlarg
  
  (#3986) July 1st, 2011 at 13:53
  
  I totally agree with the tone of the article. However, I don’t think the government has any business endorsing any religious beliefs, including marriage (homosexual, heterosexual or otherwise) and should only be involved in contractual agreements such as civil unions.
  
  [top]
- Amanda
  
  (#3987) July 1st, 2011 at 13:59
  
  I was referring more to the individuals who are affected than the churches to which they belong, although occasionally the two are in a conjoined dispute. This piece illustrates the problem best, although you can see from the other two links that the problem extends globally.
  
  http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340
  
  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1336523/Hazelmary-Peter-Bull-sued-refusing-allow-gay-couple-share-double-bed.html
  
  http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/ConservativeBlogs/Thou_Shalt_Not_Disrupt_the_System/
  
  Of course this is an issue with many sides, but it is sad to see what should be a simple right to marry being drudged through the court systems, often in the pursuit of money or censorship. You are correct that there are indeed protections in place for churches (although these vary state to state, and are constantly evolving), but currently there is little to protect individuals or smaller organizations (like family businesses) from civil lawsuits.
  
  [top]
- Mike Gillis
  
  (#3988) July 1st, 2011 at 14:08
  
  Again. Marriage is NOT a religious belief. It is a civil contract between people to share their lives, finances and responsibilities.
  
  As an institution, it predated religion and is shared in by many people with no religion whatsoever.
  
  If someone wants to bring their religion into their marriage, that’s their right and their choice.
  
  It’s amazing how none of this “religion owns marriage” nonsense ever came up until gay people wanted to share in it.
  
  I don’t see anyone objecting to atheists getting married or having completely secular ceremonies.
  
  [top]
- Mike Gillis
  
  (#3989) July 1st, 2011 at 14:09
  
  I see no reason why a libertarian would object to civil marriage. It’s a legal contract between two people. I see no reason why a libertarian would object to this.
  
  [top]
- Amanda
  
  (#3990) July 1st, 2011 at 14:16
  
  In fairness to atheists, there are few (if any) attempts to sue individuals and small business owners over an issue of religiosity. Though the issue of gay marriage is the lynchpin in the debate, the overall quandary is much larger. Where do the rights of the individual end, and the public begin? On what line should they be divided, if not religion (since for ages, that is in fact where the line has been drawn)? How do gay and lesbian couples address this issue after the achievement of marriage is realized? Is there an expectation that the larger public should be required to submit to the new legal standard, or should they as individuals have the right to abstain, as in the tradition of conscientious objectors to war-time drafts, or sit-ins to Jim Crow laws?
  
  What do LGBT advocates think of these issues, and how would they have them addressed, in the context of same-sex marriage legalization?
  
  [top]
- Mike Gillis
  
  (#3991) July 1st, 2011 at 14:22
  
  Amanda, the sides are quite simple.
  
  You cannot deny someone equal rights for religious reasons.
  
  Churches can have an exemption from anti-discrimination laws for Free Exercise reasons. B&Bs – as a business – cannot, no more than a restaurant owned by a racist can have segregated lunch counters.
  
  Your third article is from Canada, not the United States, where to my knowledge – and I could very well be wrong — a teacher can only punished by their employer for such things they do on school grounds or with students, or at a school-run event.
  
  If I ran a bed and breakfast and refused to serve a Christian or a Muslim, I could very well be sued.
  
  A teacher has a right to a personal life and to extracurriculur activities like religious and political views. It’s only when it bleeds into school that it becomes anything the school should have any right to step in on.
  
  But then, Canada has a lot of things that I’m thankful the United States doesn’t have, like hate speech laws.
  
  [top]
- RobC
  
  (#3992) July 1st, 2011 at 14:47
  
  “I’d like to hear how same-sex marriage supporters would propose to resolve this issue. This should be an issue where the right of the individual to marry whom they choose is paramount, and I feel the problems of civil litigation that arise from it detract from what should fundamentally be a human rights issue. But just as there should be freedom to marry, there should also be freedom to disagree with it without fear of retribution. What do you think?”
  
  Amanda, you mentioned something about churches being sued for refusing to provide business to same-sex couples.
  
  The only case I’m aware of where this has happened, is where a church owned a pavilion somewhere that it rented out for wedding ceremonies. A lesbian couple wanted to rent the pavilion for this purpose, and were refused service because they were lesbians. They quite rightly sued the owners of the pavilion, who happened to be a church, for discrimination.
  
  If a church wants to operate a business and rent out its privately-owned land and facilities to people, it needs to follow the same laws that any other business does and not discriminate against people. They can’t have it both ways.
  
  Nobody is arguing that churches should be forced to perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples, just as nobody is trying to force the Catholic church to start performing marriage ceremonies for people who have previously been divorced (rather than having gone through the more spiritually sound process of paying the Catholic church lots of money to have their marriage annulled).
  
  If people want to run a business, they don’t get to discriminate. Period. If people can’t keep their personal prejudices out of their business, then they don’t get to be in business. Business should no more be permitted to discriminate against gay people than against black people, Jewish people, or anyone else.
  
  [top]
- Amanda
  
  (#3993) July 1st, 2011 at 14:54
  
  The teacher in Canada made the same succinct argument, but that didn’t prevent the legal troubles that followed, which as you say, stem from their own hate speech laws. The concern from opponents of same-sex marriage is that the same restrictions could eventually exist here, snowballing from initial conflicts about the rights of businesses and individuals to discriminate in an attempt to create a universal (federal) standard.
  
  Is it a right to be able to conduct business with someone with whom you disagree? To live peacefully, with whom and where you wish is indeed a human right, but to say I have the right to enter a religious business and require they sell to me even if it is against their principles is not the same. If a store in my town put up a sign refusing service to any demographic (say, women), then I have the right to find that abhorrent, to make public outcry, call for a boycott, etc. But I shouldn’t have the right to shut them down, either legally or by drowning them in debt through the judicial system. That is in part, what differentiates us from systems like Canada and the U.K. If the community agrees with me (that their refusal of service is atrocious), then they will soon close on their own accord due to the lack of business and public investors. To involve the government in this (through the legislature or the courts), invites us to eventually transform into a nation with hate-speech laws ourselves.
  
  What I suppose it narrows down to, does a person (or demographic) have the right to not be offended/judged, and is this act then criminal? At that point, have we not begun to swing the pendulum in the other direction, away from freedom, which must necessarily include those with whom we disagree? I believe the title of your blog sums up that argument perfectly.
  
  [top]
- RobC
  
  (#3994) July 1st, 2011 at 14:57
  
  And for the record, if the article about that teacher in Canada is telling the whole story, I believe the way he was treated was abominable. As long as he was able to keep his bigoted, backward, and scientifically disproven ideas away from his students, he should have been permitted to fully express them outside of school facilities and school hours.
  
  [top]
- RobC
  
  (#3995) July 1st, 2011 at 15:04
  
  “Is it a right to be able to conduct business with someone with whom you disagree?”
  
  It is a right to not be discriminated against while going about your business in a peaceful manner. This right is backed up by anti-discrimination laws all over the world, including in your own country. Or do you disagree with any kind of anti-dscrimination laws? Do you think it should be legal for a diner to have blacks-only lunch counters? Or for a privately-operated bus company to force black passengers to sit up the back of the bus?
  
  “What I suppose it narrows down to, does a person (or demographic) have the right to not be offended/judged”
  
  Nobody has the right to not be offended.
  
  “and is this act then criminal?”
  
  Offending a person or judging a person is not a criminal act. Refusing a person service in your privately run business because you’re unable to swallow your bigotry and prejudice for five minutes and let a black person ride up the front of your bus, or let a same-sex couple stay in your bed-and-breakfast, is an act of discrimination, and is punishable under the laws of various countries.
  
  [top]
- Mike Gillis
  
  (#3996) July 1st, 2011 at 15:17
  
  I agree with Rob. You have a right to believe whatever you like and even express those beliefs.
  
  You don’t have a right to have those beliefs exist in a vacuum, free from criticism. No one is under any burden, legal or social to pretend to respect or agree with your beliefs or opinions.
  
  In short, no one has a right to not be offended.
  
  Seriously, do fundamentalist Christians truly think that *we’re* never offended by things they say and do?
  
  If you don’t like what someone has to say, respond to it with free speech of your own. But no one has the freedom to never have their beliefs challenged.
  
  It’s only when that bigotry turns from word to deed, like refusing to allow a minority to frequent your public place of business that it becomes illegal.
  
  [top]
- Amanda
  
  (#3998) July 1st, 2011 at 15:40
  
  That’s exactly the problem – when it becomes a deed (an ACT of discrimination, rather than a philosophical statement), it crosses from the private sphere into the public. But both sides are guilty of playing tug-of-war with the line dividing the two. It’s difficult to balance the two – should we feel more compassion for the tiny family business or the couple they turned away? It’s not so much the right to discriminate as how it’s addressed. It’s a question of enforcement. If a business does not have the right to make qualifiers on its customers (by virtue of being a public business), then what should happen when they do? Is it right to sue them individually, or criminally prosecute? How do we prevent the reasonable restrictions from escalating into unreasonable ones (i.e.- hate speech laws)?
  
  These are the things the same-sex marriage laws fail to address, in my opinion.
  
  [top]
- RobC
  
  (#4000) July 1st, 2011 at 16:01
  
  Why should the marriage laws have to specifically address these things when you already have decades of anti-discrimination case law as precedent?
  
  And I’m sorry, you don’t get me to feel sorry for discriminatory bigots by calling them a “tiny, family-owned business”.
  
  [top]
- Mike Gillis
  
  (#4002) July 1st, 2011 at 16:14
  
  Amanda,
  
  “These are the things the same-sex marriage laws fail to address, in my opinion.”
  
  And again, this is simply NOT TRUE. Often, same-sex marriage laws go out of their to accomodate this despite the fact that churches are already protected by mountains of legal precendent in anti-discrimination and First Amendment cases.
  
  Do you object to the idea of a Bed and Breakfast (even a small family-owned one) having the right to deny service to black patrons, or not?
  
  So. Yes, or No? Is it okay for a privately owned business to discriminate against black customers?
  
  Let’s even pretend that the Bed & Breakfast owners are part of an imaginary fringe Mormon splinter group that held on to the church’s pre-1978 views on race.
  
  They want to deny the black patrons service because of deeply felt religious beliefs?
  
  SHOULD THEY BE ALLOWED TO DO THIS, LEGALLY? Yes or no.
  
  [top]
- Amanda
  
  (#4005) July 1st, 2011 at 16:25
  
  You don’t have to feel sorry for them; it’s not always small businesses in these circumstances. But often it is, since as you said it is far more difficult to sue an individual who is guaranteed freedom of speech.
  
  The marriage laws should address this because it cogent to their impact on the public. There are, for example, adoption agencies that will only accept applications from married individuals (gay or straight), or children’s schools that will only educate those in their faith (some even require conversion for children not of their faith to attend). Both of these serve the public interest, but are only given freedom to operate on the condition they are directly associated with a church. Should all religious business owners have to go this route to protect themselves? It would give more power to the churches if they are placed in that position, and that could lead to much larger problems down the road.
  
  [top]
- RobC
  
  (#4006) July 1st, 2011 at 16:31
  
  Amanda, all the issues you’re raising here have already been addressed elsewhere, in the states of the US and in other countries where same-sex marriage is already legal. Just because you may not like the answers, doesn’t mean the questions haven’t been asked.
  
  Once people are allowed to marry and otherwise be treated equally under the law, it will be against the law to discriminate against them, and too bad for anybody who wants to. And of course, we come to the real reason why so many people don’t want gay people to be allowed to marry or be treated in any way as equals under the law – it will impact their “right” to be a bigot and to discriminate against gay people. They’ll lose their position of privilege.
  
  Boo.
  
  Hoo.
  
  [top]
- beth
  
  (#4007) July 1st, 2011 at 16:31
  
  Amanda – are you going to address the yes or no question posed by Mike? I’m very interested in your response, given what you’ve said thus far.
  
  [top]
- RobC
  
  (#4008) July 1st, 2011 at 16:38
  
  It sounds a lot to me like you’re trying to get some kind of guarantee that nobody who wishes to discriminate against a same-sex couple will be prohibited by law from doing so when (not if) same-sex marriage is made legal.
  
  Ain’t gonna happen, I’m afraid. Other people’s right to be treated equally under the law should not be conditional on anybody’s “right” to be a bigot.
  
  [top]
- Nefreet
  
  (#4009) July 1st, 2011 at 16:47
  
  I think Amanda needs to read the title of the article again.
  
  Yes or No, Amanda?
  
  [top]
- RobC
  
  (#4011) July 1st, 2011 at 16:58
  
  Let’s not gang up on Amanda too much until she’s had time to answer (if she so chooses). I’ve heard that not everybody has the time to spend all day arguing on the Internet.
  
  What the hell they do instead, I have *no* idea…
  
  [top]
- beth
  
  (#4012) July 1st, 2011 at 17:34
  
  Arguing on the internets and eatin’ babies. That’s all THIS atheist does with her time.
  
  [top]
- Amanda
  
  (#4014) July 1st, 2011 at 18:52
  
  To answer Mike’s question, I personally believe it is morally and ethically repugnant to discriminate against someone who is no threat to your business, based solely on their demographic. But I am torn when it comes to laws to enforce this view. After all, my own distaste does come from a moral standpoint.
  
  So, yes, they shouldn’t discriminate, but again the question of how to enforce it is at issue. I think leaving these complex problems in the hands of lawyers can only lead to more lawyers, and the problems that endless litigation brings. There must be a better way to address it – any ideas?
  
  [top]
- RobC
  
  (#4017) July 1st, 2011 at 19:32
  
  Sure. Don’t discriminate against people.
  
  Sorted!
  
  [top]
- Amanda
  
  (#4018) July 1st, 2011 at 19:51
  
  Sounds ready to put into law there, Rob.
  
  Seriously though, you can’t stop people from being bigots or judgmental, so any attempt to legislate it is going to fall short sooner or later. I suppose I’d rather err on the side of the occasional bigot having the freedom to be so, than have the government trying to enforce an idealistic expectation that people be civil to each other at all times. It seems like a futile effort that has more potential to damage than to solve the problem.
  
  And though the question has been asked, it is rarely answered by those on the other side (the LGBT community). Isn’t it a fair thing to ask, given that discrimination can go both ways?
  
  [top]
- RobC
  
  (#4019) July 1st, 2011 at 20:03
  
  Gee, I can’t understand why the LGBT community aren’t falling all over themselves to make sure that nobody who wants to discriminate against them ends up being treated unfairly.
  
  [top]
- Karen
  
  (#4021) July 1st, 2011 at 20:59
  
  Wicky I wanted to clarify for you when I said stripped down to the basics religions are pretty much the same. Most of the basics for religions includes a higher plane of some sort, an evil place to go to if your naughty, a being(s) that created everything, and some man-made book of how to reach that higher plane. Yes I said man-made book. I feel that the Bible is a collection of stories, or fables if you like, that are intended to make you feel better in similar situations or give you guidance…not to be take literally.
  There have been many good arguments since I was last here but many of you have made valid points. Especially when it came to business discrimination. I really do feel that this is our generations black/white confrontations. I would have loved to be in the 60′s fighting for black equality…I guess I’ll have to settle for gay equality.
  
  [top]
- Patsy
  
  (#4024) July 1st, 2011 at 21:42
  
  If you or your church or business don’t wish to be dragged into court for discrimination or homophobic bigotry–then don’t be a bigot, and don’t discriminate! It’s simple!
  
  [top]
- conservative christian
  
  (#4025) July 1st, 2011 at 21:46
  
  Everyone in here seems to think that I have a viewpoint that gays shouldn’t be treated the same as everyone else.
  
  Nowhere in my comment did I remotely say anything to that affect.
  
  I don’t think Christians should oppress anyone in the same way that anyone else’s religion or beliefs should oppress anyone.
  
  The people posting on this board seem very angry with their comments, based solely on who they perceive me to be. The only preconceived notion they have of who I am is the name I specifically chose to see if I would be discriminated against.
  
  Nowhere in my comment did I mention if I am Christian, and nowhere in my comment did I mention anything about my sexual orientation.
  
  I stated some generalities about my beliefs about politics, why I think christians view things the way they do, and my ideas about equality.
  
  Make it what you wish, but if hatred is in your thoughts, you’re the one who put it there.
  
  [top]
- Patsy
  
  (#4026) July 1st, 2011 at 21:46
  
  If you or your church or buiness don’t wish to be dragged into court or sued for discrimination–then don’t discriminate. Don’t be a homophobic bigot–it’s simple.
  
  [top]
- beth
  
  (#4031) July 2nd, 2011 at 02:04
  
  I dunno, conservative christian, why might anyone assume you are a conservative christian? I often post with the name “pinko commie” and people sometimes assume I’m a communist. I don’t react to that assumption with an indignant attitude claiming anyone is “discriminating” against me, I explain that I’m not a communist and tell the funny story about why I use that name. It’s understandable, however, that people might assume that about me and I have no problem accepting that. I suppose shame on us for assuming you were being honest about what and who you are by choosing such a specific name to post with?
  
  [top]
- beth
  
  (#4032) July 2nd, 2011 at 02:09
  
  Also, conservative christian, you claim:
  
  “Nowhere in my comment did I mention if I am Christian, and nowhere in my comment did I mention anything about my sexual orientation.”
  
  But your comment began -
  
  “As a christian, I do have a problem with gay marriage, but not gay marriage exclusively.”
  
  So…Yeah.
  
  [top]
- Brian
  
  (#4040) July 2nd, 2011 at 07:35
  
  I think Amanda’s question of what is the best way to enforce a law like this is an interesting one. But why not ask the same question about all the anti-discrimination laws? For example, several years ago a restaurant chain was discriminating against black people. The response was a boycott and a law suit. Why? Because the law didn’t create other means of enforcement. There is no anti-discrimination regulator to levy fines, no anti-discrimination police to issue tickets or arrest people who break those laws. Would that be a better solution than the current one? If so, shouldn’t we apply it to all forms of discrimination? If not, then what is the best way to handle a situation where a business discriminates against a group of people?
  
  [top]
- Mike Gillis
  
  (#4045) July 2nd, 2011 at 12:17
  
  Brian, you’ve answered your own question by mentioning that there was a lawsuit against the discriminatory restaurant.
  
  This is how the anti-discrimination laws are enforced. When they’re broken, there is a lawsuit and it’s enforced in the courts.
  
  [top]
- Mike Gillis
  
  (#4048) July 2nd, 2011 at 12:27
  
  “To answer Mike’s question, I personally believe it is morally and ethically repugnant to discriminate against someone who is no threat to your business, based solely on their demographic.”
  
  It makes me very happy to read this response. And the enforcement is already in place. Not only are there decades of anti-discrimination case law, but we have several years of states having same-marriage and none of the doomsday predictions of churches being shut down or forced to marry gay couples have ever happened.
  
  And Amanda, they can be as vocally bigoted as they like provided they obey the law.
  
  I work in retail and one of the first questions I was asked in my interview was whether there was anything in our store I’d refuse to sell someone. The answer is No.
  
  I sell things that make my stomach turn all of the time whether it’s Deepak Chopra books, hateful religious and political texts, or Twilight DVDs.
  
  It’s part of the job. I have very strong opinions, but I’d be acting like a childish dick by refusing to sell such things because they offended my feelings.
  
  Even if I owned the store, I created a public business with a public space. The only business I have throwing anyone out is if they’re disruptive or abusive to my staff or other customers.
  
  Shit, in this economy, they should be happy to be getting customers at their B&B.
  
  [top]
- Sammi Jo
  
  (#4068) July 2nd, 2011 at 18:27
  
  @Elly,
  
  Your arguments tend to to go all over the place. I’m a Christian, but I have a very hard time being friends with other Christians. If a conversation about gay people or Obama comes up, I can’t listen because of the hatred and bigotry. I can’t stand it and I’ve talked myself blue trying to change it, with no results. I apologize, that’s what you reminded me of when I read your comment. Maybe you have no problem with sexuality, but the number of right-wing christian homophobes I know, the core of their problem is sex. They cannot stand the idea of it between two members of the same sex. Granted, I live in a small Texas town; a very Republican, right-wing Christian town, so that’s my personal experience.
  
  I find it hateful and spiteful that you would deny basic military rights, like family pay increases, housing, medical, and benefits, to the men and women protecting us and our freedoms just because they happen to be gay. There are plenty of gay soldiers that have fought and died for your right to get on a forum and bitch about them.
  
  As for you having to ask permission from your local government to get married, well, now you’re just being silly. And you aren’t required by law to have a pastor authorize your marriage. My husband and I got a marriage license also, but what are the odds we would have been denied, given that I’m a woman and he’s a man and we weren’t already related? Although, in certain states, we could have been 1st cousins and gotten married, but heaven forbid we were of the same sex! Give me a break, you know exactly what I meant.
  
  Respectfully,
  Sam
  
  [top]
- epe
  
  (#4069) July 2nd, 2011 at 19:01
  
  Just to note: sexual orientation was already a protected class in New York state before the gay marriage bill went through, under the New York Human Rights Act. Summary: http://equalitymatters.org/blog/201106170008
  
  [top]
- God
  
  (#4085) July 3rd, 2011 at 19:22
  
  Marriage is a sacrament. A sacrament is a sacred rite recognized as of particular importance and significance. You are injecting your secular political views into my religion, trampling MY RIGHTS in doing so. So go to hell you pompous self-righteous jackass.
  
  [top]
- RobC
  
  (#4088) July 3rd, 2011 at 21:11
  
  You’re not the boss of me!
  
  [top]
- RobC
  
  (#4089) July 3rd, 2011 at 21:13
  
  But to be serious for a minute, religion doesn’t own marriage. Otherwise there would be no such thing as a civil marriage. But there is. Quod erat demonstrandum, cogito ergo sum, and caveat emptor.
  
  So piss off, ‘God’.
  
  [top]
- Mike Gillis
  
  (#4090) July 3rd, 2011 at 21:15
  
  Marriage is a civil contract between two people. The only religion in a marriage is what the folks involved bring into it.
  
  Your rights are in no way trampled by a gay couple being married legally.
  
  Exactly rights are you being denied because people are allowed to get hitched?
  
  Please be specific.
  
  [top]
- RobC
  
  (#4091) July 3rd, 2011 at 21:43
  
  Hrm. No answer from God? Guess he must be busy helipng some high school kids win a football game, or making sure poor Americans can’t get health care, or something.
  
  [top]
- Jeff
  
  (#4093) July 3rd, 2011 at 23:27
  
  Mike, FWIW… the essentials of Christian doctrine are much narrower than you think. The only essentials of Christian doctrine are the divinity of the Bible, the divinity of Jesus, the sinful nature of humans, the need for salvation, Jesus atoning for humans’ sin, and salvation by grace through faith. That’s it. The rest is just details, and they are disputable. (There’s even a New Testament passage titled “Disputable Matters” covering that.)
  
  So when you say that Christian doctrine is what fuels anti-gay marriage sentiment and thinking otherwise is living under a rock, then I guess I’ve even under a rock while I was doing the reading so I could understand what is essential to Christian doctrine and what isn’t.
  
  If a person is pro-gay marriage, they do not cease to be a Christian, and they are not disobeying God or the Bible.
  If a person is anti-gay marriage, it is not because they are Christians following orders from god or the Bible.
  
  Are there Christians who are anti-gay marriage? Absolutely, and in big numbers. Are there churches who have taken public anti-gay marriage stances? Absolutely, and in big numbers. But all actions of Christians aren’t necessarily Biblical actions. You seem so eager to claim when Christians take actions you don’t like that they are just following orders from their invisible man in the sky.
  
  I’ve studying the Bible for a long time. I can’t say I understand it fully, but I can say with a high level of confidence that the anti-gay-rights rhetoric and actions taken by Christians are motivated by something other than the divinity of God, the Bible, or Jesus Christ.
  
  By now I’m sure your eyes have glazed over this faster than you can type “no true Scotsman”. Please do not misunderstand the above paragraph as “no true Scotsman.” Pretty please. With sugar on it. Whether a person is a Christian or not has everything to do with their relationship with God, and nothing to do with the political beliefs or civil rights actions. Supporting gay rights doesn’t make a person cease to be a Christian any more than opposing gay rights makes them one.
  
  By now in our discussion, I think it’s safe to assume there are no passages in the New Testament that support denying gay marriage rights through government intervention. If there were, you would have posted them by now instead of a passage about slavery. (If you believe gay marriage rights and slavery are the same thing, I apologize for the confusion. My understanding is the two are different issues, but I can just agree to disagree on that point and move on.)
  
  Bigotry and organized religion certainly have some overlap, but they are not one and the same. Yet you consistently conflate those two, and all who disagree with you, into one big Other that you try to fight all at once.
  
  If gay marriage is legalized in all 50 states (and hopefully it will soon), bigotry against homosexuals will still exist.
  If your dream of all churches disappearing from the USA comes true and there are no Christians left, bigotry against homosexuals will still exist.
  
  I’m all for equal rights regardless of sexual orientation. I’m against bigotry and denial of rights based on sexual orientation. I’m here to tell you your enemy here is bigotry, not the essentials of Christian doctrine.
  
  The shift of focus on rights and away from religion is the main reason why the pro-gay-marriage battles have been winners recently where previous efforts have failed. The language in the NY law protecting churches who refuse to perform gay marriage ceremonies is probably the most tangible evidence of this. It’s critical and creative thinking like that NY law that will make that legislation a watershed moment in the pro-gay-marriage movement, far more fruitful action than the stuff you do like appealing to the ignorance of religious folk to make the atheist side look better.
  
  Thank you for your time.
  And shout-out to Beth for making sure you didn’t leave my most recent follow-up questions to you unanswered; it was refreshing to see she makes sure everyone’s questions get answered, not just yours.
  
  [top]
- Elly
  
  (#4123) July 5th, 2011 at 17:33
  
  Sammi Jo,
  I don’t really understand how my responses were all over the place…
  However, I would deny a gay military person the right to be married if I had that power. Our bible tells us that people of the same sex should not lay together as a man lays with a woman.
  Does that make me a bigot?
  The definition of bigot : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.
  I cannot think of a single person I have treated with hate or intolerance in my lifetime. I honestly believe that name calling is being used, on this forum, as a way of others making themselves feel better.
  I have belief’s and I stand up for them. Other than that I have tried to be respectful and state my OPINION.
  The saddest part is that some people are so sure that I am the bigot that they fail to realise they are reacting in such a way that it makes them exactly the names they are calling me.
  It makes me think of my Grandma’s favorite thing to say to people when I was young. “Before you judge someone else’s actions, be sure to look in the mirror first and make sure you aren’t guilty of what you are accusing them of.” That quote is pretty close to what she said anyhow.
  
  [top]
- Mike Gillis
  
  (#4125) July 5th, 2011 at 23:40
  
  “However, I would deny a gay military person the right to be married if I had that power. Our bible tells us that people of the same sex should not lay together as a man lays with a woman.
  Does that make me a bigot?”
  
  Elly,
  
  Yes. It does. Your devotion to your particular brand of Christianity is compelling you not only to limit your behavior, but also to move to limit the rights of others to make different choices.
  
  Choices that do not affect you in the least.
  
  You are being intolerant of LGBT folks by denying them as a entire group because they’re gay, a right that you enjoy yourself.
  
  This is bigotry. And your behavior and the statements you’ve made make you a bigot.
  
  And please, don’t play the “you’re being intolerant of my intolerance” game. I’m denying you nothing, but the unreasonable demand you’re making to be able to legislate your religious beliefs on other people and have the law back them up.
  
  What I’m doing is presenting MY opinion of YOUR opinion. I also have this right. And while I respect our right to free speech, I’m under no pressure to respect your opinions, especially when you’re taking them beyond words and trying to force them on others through law.
  
  You’re well within your rights to not approve of homosexuality or even voice that bigoted opinion. But your rights end where someone else’s begins.
  
  We get that your religion preaches against homosexuality. Take that into consideration when it comes to YOUR ACTIONS.
  
  I’ve looked in the mirror and I’m not trying to deny equal rights to Christians. I’m not trying to deny them the right to marry or raise families.
  
  If you want to stand up for your opinions, do it with words alone. Don’t presume to think you can force them on others through an application of law.
  
  [top]
- Palaverer
  
  (#4141) July 6th, 2011 at 17:32
  
  Here from Shakesville. Well said!
  
  [top]
- JerseyJ9
  
  (#4154) July 7th, 2011 at 06:56
  
  It’s pretty simple. If you take state money, like an adoption agency, christian or not, you are subject to the state’s anti-discrimination laws and thus, cannot discriminate. The problem with the ‘christian’ perspective is that they want their cake and eat it too. They should close their doors. They are providing a STATE service with state money, there are plenty of secular adoption agencies.
  
  and to the libertarian. It does not matter if your boss is christian or not, he is of public accommodation and thus cannot discriminate in employment or benefits. If the owner was mormon would it be ok if he didnt recognize black people or their marriages?? (and yes, it is a proper comparison!!!).
  
  These arguments are insane and i cane believe someone took the time to type them out!! They are legalized discrimination!! The churches can do the exact same thing they did in the first place, discriminate within the walls of the church. but now they want to stretch their ‘feelers’ out into the corporate and public sector and those are the places where public discrimination laws are needed most.
  
  We are talking about human beings living day to day lives, you’re making like harder for them!!! I will open a business and discriminate against christians, lets see how that goes.
  
  [top]
« Previous 1 … 3 4 5 6 Next »

Write a comment

Click here to cancel reply.

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website