An example why Gay agenda undermines religious freedom

[Maren]

To Belk,
You are missing the point in all respects. The homosexual can have any of the rooms at the hotel that are available, the homosexual 'couple' cant. The hotel is not discriminating against the homosexual, but the homosexual couple just as it might discriminate against the unmarrired man and woman.
Nonetheless a room is a room, there isnt much variatiom, a book is a diffferent matter.

And if you read the link you quoted, this is against the law. While the hotel owner may discriminate on the basis of the couple's legal status, he may not discriminate based on the perceived sexual orientation of the couple. If he allows a married couple to have a double room with a single bed, then he must also allow a same-sex couple in a civil partnership the same room. But he can deny unmarried same-sex couples that room so long as he also denies it to opposite sex unmarried couples.

As for the OP, I showed evidence that the claims were false -- it has nothing to do with any gay agenda. Rather, I showed that the bill was written by a church-going Catholic attorney along with the Chairman for Religious studies at a Jesuit university -- what do these two have to do with any gay agenda? If you have some evidence that supports the OP, please offer it. Instead, after seeing the facts, it seems that this is people without the facts making false claims.

 

[Polycarp1]

Firstly let me just say that on reflection the issue over the retreat is valid. My apologies to all who made that point. There is a difference. Though I am not sure the UK law allows for a straight only retreat.

To Polycarp1,

Well the opposite of gay is actually straight, not Christian. What we are seeing is gay is the opposite of Christian as well.

I wasn't going for opposites; I was identifying "Christians" as a group that might be the object of targeted marketing. How about senior citizens? Or Star Trek fans?

Not quite, in the examples given the gay bookshop is unlikely to have the book a straight would want and doesn’t have to provide it, that doesn’t stop a straight buying a book from a gay bookshop. Neither however did the hotel refuse the gays a room. The fact is the straight wouldn’t be able to get the book they wanted and the gay wouldn’t be able to get the room they wanted. Simple as that.

I gather you didn't read, or give any credence to, my post about my own experience with locating books by Bp. Spong. Any commnt I could make in reply to this paragraph beyond pointing out that inference would probably be against the rules.

The actual situation is that the hotel hasn’t discriminated against the homosexual at all, but has discriminated against the homosexual couple. This is because the owner was a Christian and ‘homosexual couple’ is offensive to God.

I rather prefer to let God decide what He will find offensive. Like, for example, bearing false witness -- something I'm quite sure He commented on.

On the contrary I think all the evidence shows its obvious CreedIsChrist made a good observation.

Okay. If you say so. "There is none so blind as he who will not see."

 

[mpok1519]

this has less to do with a hotel than it has to do with human rights.

Why does the radical right think marriage is based more about the sex of two people moreso than the validity of a common, shared, and entrusted deeply sacred bond between two devoted and loving individuals?

theres no book store.

 

[Belk]

this has less to do with a hotel than it has to do with human rights.

Why does the radical right think marriage is based more about the sex of two people moreso than the validity of a common, shared, and entrusted deeply sacred bond between two devoted and loving individuals?

theres no book store.

I think because most conservative Christians tend to be traditionalists. Since Marriage has a long tradition, they are resistant to change, which is normal and necessary. Just the normal tug of war between those moving us forward and those ensuring we don't change to quickly.

 

[mpok1519]

I think because most conservative Christians tend to be traditionalists. Since Marriage has a long tradition, they are resistant to change, which is normal and necessary. Just the normal tug of war between those moving us forward and those ensuring we don't change to quickly.

Marriage has a long tradition of change. But honestly, there might be more negative consequences when it comes to those holding society back from progressing and evolving.

 

[Belk]

Marriage has a long tradition of change. But honestly, there might be more negative consequences when it comes to those holding society back from progressing and evolving.

Of course it does. And it will change now, soon homosexuals will have no problem getting married and social conservatives will move on to the next horrible occurrence that threatens to destroy the fabric of society a we know it. I think they perform a necessary function though. Not every progressive idea is a good idea. Things need to be vetted through our "National conscience" so that we may get accustomed to them. It is the normal process we have been going through for thousands of years. I don't think there is any real harm to it. True some good ideas take longer then they should and some really bad ideas do get through (Who on earth thought up the pet rock craze?) there has to be some checks on society.

 

[mpok1519]

I suppose there are pros to the cons.

 

[riw]

Well why not? If they can do something as well as heterosexual couples (and all the evidence points that way), then for what reason should you not?

So, should a girl and a dolphin have a child, because it can be done scientifically?

Men and women together tend to have babies, but this trend is growing less and less in the developed world. And there is no requirement to have children as part of marriage.

To go back to my original post (you apparently didn't read the P.S.): Such things exist, but the exception doesn't prove the rule.

Let's try to restart.

What you are arguing is that homosexual relationships should be given the same standing in a culture as heterosexual ones. It has historically been in the best interests of the culture to have children. Since it is in the best interest of the culture to have children, it is in the best interest of the culture to encourage situations where children come into existence, and are raised with values that support the culture.

Hence, the state has an interest in marriage, because the state has an interest in procreation. Now, let me put the shoe on the other foot:

There's a lot of talk here about rights and equal treatment. Let me lay down a basic premise to start: The Law does not ensure equal outcomes, or equal stature in a society. In fact, it's quite obvious the point of any Law is to encourage some things, and discourage others. Any law you look at will have the effect of encouraging some things, and discouraging others.

What argument would you use to prove the state should encourage homosexual relationships by sanctioning them as marriage?Can you name any specific benefit to the state?

Of course, the answer you've already given is: "Well, the benefit isn't all that great in the case of heterosexual marriage." This isn't a case for homosexual marriage, this is a case to get rid of state sanctioned marriage altogether. That's a fine case to make, but if that's the case you want to make, make it directly. And note well where that argument leads.

You're not going to get rid of the state's interest in childbearing. What will happen when you get rid of the state sanctioning marriage in order to produce children is you will replace it with a state sanctioned breeding system of some other sort. Have you ever read Brave New World?

Now, as for "benefits"--the problem with benefits is the tax system, not the marriage system. If you want to rail against the tax system making it almost impossible to receive benefits through any way other than through your employer, have at it. But don't blame the benefits issue on the marriage situation. Fix the tax problem, and the "cohabitating spouse" benefit problem will dissolve like a snowman on a July day in Arizona.

Don't attack marriage to solve a tax problem. And don't attack marriage so people can "feel good about their stature in society." Both of these lead places you don't really want to go, whether you realize it or not.



Russ

 

[CreedIsChrist]

Perhaps because there is NO SUCH THING as a "gay only" hotel. I can believe a resort that caters to the gay trade, guaranteeing a gay-friendly atmosphere -- just as there are "Christian" resorts that guarantee an enjoyable vacation without what they would describe as the allure of sinful temptations. As others have pointed out, that's marketing to a target audience, not discrimination in who they will rent to. Consider English newspapers (ones from London, not ones in our native language) -- the Sun is for the everyday worker and his wife, who enjoy reading about a little scandalous goings-on and a bit of scantily clas female pulchritude; the Telegraph is for the person who wants analytical coverage of the implications of what happened in Himachal Pradesh, with a slight LibDem slant to the news. But if your tradesman wants a Telegraph, they'll gladly sell him one, and if an Oxbridge don wants a Sun, they'll gladly sell to him. (Wish I had a good American example, but that was a easy-to-mind instance of same product [newspaper] with distinct targeted marketing strategies.)

The difference between targeted marketing and discrimination is this: The one is focusing on a good potential market for your product, while not being unwilling to provide it to anyone else. The other is selling the same product to one and refusing it to another based on prejudicial classifications. If the 'gay resort' refused to rent to you because you're straight or because you're a Christian, you'd have grounds to sue or protest, and I think most of us would join in. On the other hand, if they refused to rent to you specifically (and consider this as a hypothetical, not an insult) because they believed you to be likely to upbraid their other clientele for their 'sinful lifestyle', they would be within their legal bounds as having rejected someone from their clientele on the grounds of behavior. (Of course, I'm not saying that you, BMS, would do such a thing -- I'm using a hypothetical 'you' as a theoretical individual who might, to show the distinction.)

And IMO this is a red herring anyway. Maren adequately proved that Creed Is Christ's premise in the OP was completely invalid -- that the issue was demanding financial accountability from corrupt men hiding behind their clerical status, and had nothing to do with the supposed 'gay agenda'.

Maren did not prove anything as I posted in that other thread. All she did was post that 2 backers of the bill happened to be an ex-priest and a layman. However the argument still stands as the bill was put forward and sponsored by McDonald and Lawler. The bill was declared unconstitutional by the way and it did try to undermine the authority of the bishop to the state.

Look at what they say:

After pulling S.B. 1098, Sen. McDonald and Rep. Lawlor issued a statement saying that they believe Connecticut’s statutes treat some religions differently than others and that "many of our existing corporate laws dealing with particular religious groups appear to us to be unconstitutional under the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution."

McDonald and Lawlor say that they plan to convene a meeting of legal scholars and religious leaders to study the issue further. They also say that "we think it would be most beneficial if the proponents who requested these changes and church officials meet together privately to see if they can come to a resolution on their own."


Can it be any clearer that these 2 gay activists have an obvious motive toward the Church? Even after it was canceled they are still trying to get people to come to a resolution. They are ardently working to hurt religious freedom and what better way than to go after its financial base. If the state can get financial control they can deny funds to things in the Church that they might perceive as wrong. And with someone like McDonald in the chair we could obviously see the problem it would bring.

 

[sidhe]

Maren did not prove anything as I posted in that other thread. All she did was post that 2 backers of the bill happened to be an ex-priest and a layman. However the argument still stands as the bill was put forward and sponsored by McDonald and Lawler. The bill was declared unconstitutional by the way and it did try to undermine the authority of the bishop to the state.

Look at what they say:

After pulling S.B. 1098, Sen. McDonald and Rep. Lawlor issued a statement saying that they believe Connecticut’s statutes treat some religions differently than others and that "many of our existing corporate laws dealing with particular religious groups appear to us to be unconstitutional under the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution."

McDonald and Lawlor say that they plan to convene a meeting of legal scholars and religious leaders to study the issue further. They also say that "we think it would be most beneficial if the proponents who requested these changes and church officials meet together privately to see if they can come to a resolution on their own."


Can it be any clearer that these 2 gay activists have an obvious motive toward the Church? Even after it was canceled they are still trying to get people to come to a resolution. They are ardently working to hurt religious freedom and what better way than to go after its financial base. If the state can get financial control they can deny funds to things in the Church that they might perceive as wrong. And with someone like McDonald in the chair we could obviously see the problem it would bring.

Lying is a sin, and you're lying.

The state wouldn't have control of anything.

A council of laypeople would oversee the spending, in a reaction to embezzling by clergy. They could only do so with the permission of their bishop. It says so in the first sentence of the bill.

*headdesk*

 

[Belk]

You're not going to get rid of the state's interest in childbearing. What will happen when you get rid of the state sanctioning marriage in order to produce children is you will replace it with a state sanctioned breeding system of some other sort. Have you ever read Brave New World?

Funny, I was not aware that people had to be married in order to have children or that without a "state sanctioned breeding system" all procreation would come to a screeching halt.

 

[Garyzenuf]

And don't attack marriage so people can "feel good about their stature in society."

SS marriage is about equality under the law, your supreme court will rule that, and SS marriage in the near future will be no more a point of contention than inter-racial marriage is now.

*

 

[Wyzaard]

Association fallacy.

/thread.

 

[Maren]

Maren did not prove anything as I posted in that other thread. All she did was post that 2 backers of the bill happened to be an ex-priest and a layman. However the argument still stands as the bill was put forward and sponsored by McDonald and Lawler.

No, I proved that it was Catholics who were pushing for this bill, as well as a Catholic who proposed the bill (the link is in my response on the other thread). In fact, I showed on the other thread that this isn't the first time this has been presented before the legislature -- that last time it was even presented by a Republican non-gay Representative, Rep. Powers. As such, it merely shows that Senators McDonald and Lawler were just being responsive to their constituents.

The bill was declared unconstitutional by the way and it did try to undermine the authority of the bishop to the state.

False. The bill could only be declared unconstitutional if it passed and the Connecticut Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional. All you have done is shown how some people believe it is unconstitutional. And, I have to admit, it does seem to me like these Catholics are trying to undermine the financial authority of the Bishop -- they feel the Bishop has failed in his financial responsibilities, particularly with the million dollar embezzlement that occurred under his watch -- so it appears they do have cause. I can't imagine the manager of a company not having some of his authority stripped if he allowed some of the problems that are currently occurring.

Look at what they say:

After pulling S.B. 1098, Sen. McDonald and Rep. Lawlor issued a statement saying that they believe Connecticut’s statutes treat some religions differently than others and that "many of our existing corporate laws dealing with particular religious groups appear to us to be unconstitutional under the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution."

Yep, and that makes an interesting point right there. As I linked to on the other thread, Connecticut already has specific laws governing the Roman Catholic Church. While many, including Sen. McDonald, think they are unconstitutional they still have not been declared unconstitutional.

McDonald and Lawlor say that they plan to convene a meeting of legal scholars and religious leaders to study the issue further. They also say that "we think it would be most beneficial if the proponents who requested these changes and church officials meet together privately to see if they can come to a resolution on their own."

Seriously? You are going to criticize Sen. McDonald and Lawler because they want the Catholics who proposed the changes and church officials to work out their differences?

Can it be any clearer that these 2 gay activists have an obvious motive toward the Church? Even after it was canceled they are still trying to get people to come to a resolution. They are ardently working to hurt religious freedom and what better way than to go after its financial base. If the state can get financial control they can deny funds to things in the Church that they might perceive as wrong. And with someone like McDonald in the chair we could obviously see the problem it would bring.

It could be much clearer, as all you are doing is making insinuations. Again, this wasn't the first time this was proposed since a similar bill was introduced previously by a non-gay Republican Representative. They weren't trying to hurt religious freedom as the bill would merely have revised the current law that governs finances of the Catholic Church in Connecticut.

If you wish to discuss this further you should provide some actual evidence, rather than opinions and fear mongering.

 

[Beanieboy]

Well this is very interesting and speaks volumes.
All I am doing is asking for equality, if there is a gay men only hotel then there should be a hotel that refuses gay couples. I am quite happy with that. Pro-gay posters have not really made any criticism of a gay men only hotel but demand that GAY couples have double rooms elsewhere because gay people must not be discriminated against.
and people are beggining to twig what is going on hence Prop 8

From a world point of view, it makes sense. If such thing exists, then it would make sense, from a World View, to return the discrimination.

I just don't see why one would want to see an injustice, and repay it by opening a hotel to commit the same injustice, from a Christian POV.

In Minneapolis, there was a gay club that started attracting a lot of straight clientele to see the drag shows, and pick up girls who starting going, in an effort to avoid straight guys always hitting on them.

Soon, many of the gay guys reported fights, threats, name calling, and felt unsafe in one of the few gay bars Minneapolis has. Few bars are like those in Chicago where everyone gets along.

A waiter at a neighborhood bar was beaten so badly on the dance floor when his friend asked a guy to dance, that he was out of work for a month.

To deal with the problem, the management stupidly decided to ban all bachelor/bachelorette parties who went there to "see the freak show." They were sued and lost.

I thought it was wrong to ban them.
However, the complaint, "We should be able to go wherever we want!!!" was only true for the straight people complaining, who had no idea what it was like to be discriminated against, and experienced it for the first time, and THEN it mattered.

 

[Polycarp1]

Let's see: According to Creed Is Christ's theory:

1. Pastors and bishops of the Catholic Church have and should retain the power to use the contributions of the faithful in any way they choose, including buying themselves Florida condos and stock portfolios, and any attempt by the legislature to regulate that is froward interference with feedom of religion.

2. A laicized priest who is a member in good standing of a Catholic parish and a college professor should be vilified for calling for accountability from the church hierarchy.

3. Two men elected to the legislature who are gay are not carrying out their constituents' wishes, despite statements on all sides that they were, but advancing some nebulous 'gay agenda' against religion (i.e., the Catholic Church, which equals religion) if they seek to make the bishops and pastors financially accountable.

4. Anyone who believes that they were right in doing so must be against religion and themselves pushing the gay agenda -- and probably gay themselves, since nobody would support fair and equal treatment of gay people on moral gorunds.

That's what I've got out of this so far. Creed, you want to refute those points with actual evidence, rather than innuendo and character assassination?

 

[Braunwyn]

No, I proved that it was Catholics who were pushing for this bill, as well as a Catholic who proposed the bill (the link is in my response on the other thread). In fact, I showed on the other thread that this isn't the first time this has been presented before the legislature -- that last time it was even presented by a Republican non-gay Representative, Rep. Powers. As such, it merely shows that Senators McDonald and Lawler were just being responsive to their constituents.



False. The bill could only be declared unconstitutional if it passed and the Connecticut Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional. All you have done is shown how some people believe it is unconstitutional. And, I have to admit, it does seem to me like these Catholics are trying to undermine the financial authority of the Bishop -- they feel the Bishop has failed in his financial responsibilities, particularly with the million dollar embezzlement that occurred under his watch -- so it appears they do have cause. I can't imagine the manager of a company not having some of his authority stripped if he allowed some of the problems that are currently occurring.



Yep, and that makes an interesting point right there. As I linked to on the other thread, Connecticut already has specific laws governing the Roman Catholic Church. While many, including Sen. McDonald, think they are unconstitutional they still have not been declared unconstitutional.



Seriously? You are going to criticize Sen. McDonald and Lawler because they want the Catholics who proposed the changes and church officials to work out their differences?



It could be much clearer, as all you are doing is making insinuations. Again, this wasn't the first time this was proposed since a similar bill was introduced previously by a non-gay Republican Representative. They weren't trying to hurt religious freedom as the bill would merely have revised the current law that governs finances of the Catholic Church in Connecticut.

If you wish to discuss this further you should provide some actual evidence, rather than opinions and fear mongering.

Excellent post...as usual, Maren.

 

[BigBadWlf]

What you are arguing is that homosexual relationships should be given the same standing in a culture as heterosexual ones. It has historically been in the best interests of the culture to have children. Since it is in the best interest of the culture to have children, it is in the best interest of the culture to encourage situations where children come into existence, and are raised with values that support the culture.

Hence, the state has an interest in marriage, because the state has an interest in procreation.

So you will agree that heterosexuals who are infertile should be denied the right to legally marry…or is that somehow different?

What argument would you use to prove the state should encourage homosexual relationships by sanctioning them as marriage?Can you name any specific benefit to the state?

The exact same benefits society gets from the legal recognition of interracial marriages

Can you name any specific benefit the states gets for endorsing and legalizing discrimination against a minority?

And don't attack marriage so people can "feel good about their stature in society." Both of these lead places you don't really want to go, whether you realize it or not.

Aren’t the anti-gay forces attacking equal rights for just that purpose?

 

[BigBadWlf]

Lying is a sin, and you're lying.

The state wouldn't have control of anything.

A council of laypeople would oversee the spending, in a reaction to embezzling by clergy. They could only do so with the permission of their bishop. It says so in the first sentence of the bill.

*headdesk*

Multiple posters on these boards have assured me time and again false witness isn’t a sin when one is lying about homosexuals

 

[SallyNow]

To SallyNow,
The gay men only hotel isnt in Scotland, I am sorry I really dont feel I can post the link on a Christian forum

I don't need your link, obviously, since the site I mentioned on my post lists gay-friendly hotels, motels, and B&Bs around the developed world. It only took typing in "gay-friendly travel" in Google. Anyways, I looked up various cities around the world and most only had gay-friendly, not gay-only, establishments. San Fransico had a handful of tiny B&B's that catered specifically to homosexuals. The one I clicked on was a child-free B&B that seemed to cater to those who prefered privacy. It didn't seem disgusting or so horrible as you've made them out to be. It looked like a nice private B&B. I didn't bother clicking on many others because while I don't doubt there are a few over-the-top resorts in the world that cater to homosexuals, there are also a few over-the-top resorts that cater to nudists, artists, writers around the world... but most aren't over the top at all.