Poll: Religious groups allowed to discriminate

[SL33TBL1ND]

This is why I don't like religion, most of the people who practise a religion are fine, but there is the sad minority who sully the wholethings reputation, its best if we just ignore each others religions entirely, then we won't be able to discriminate religiously.

 

[Agema]

This is one of my biggest complaints about homosexuality. The overwhelming desire by some homosexuals ( not all, mind you) to force their lifestyle on your beliefs/buisness's/ and life.

If homosexuality really was just a sexual preference, than why the need to force people to acknowledge it?

And precisely HOW are homosexuals "forcing their lifestyle on you"? I'm not aware of a homosexual movement demanding we all be gay.

Do you mean homosexuals talk about homosexuality, sex and relationships? Well, sure: so does everyone. Stop and think - just about everyone knows and has listened to heterosexuals who talk about how hot someone is, that they had sex, with whoever and how good it was, or how much they like breasts, and so on. And yet, a gay does it and suddenly some people start moaning about gays "pushing their sexuality in my face". Meanwhile not stopping to think that - as in the Hooters pic kindly supplied above - heterosexuality is shoved in the faces of everyone all the time. People with attitudes like this are homophobes. Probably only mildly so, but homophobes nonetheless. And I'm sure plenty shout like crazy about how they aren't, but then Fox News claims to be Fair and Balanced too.

* * *

I think there's a certain irony that the USA was populated heavily by religious minorities fleeing the discrimination they faced in their native European countries. Now they have power and influence, they're the ones packing out the hate, repression and discrimination, and wanting to restrict the freedoms of rights they don't approve of.

 

[Meemaimoh]

EDIT: For those of you who asked, this takes place in Victoria, Australia. It's a state that covers 237,629 km² (making it the 6th largest state in Australia) and has a population of 2 million people.

This is my favourite part. 6th largest state? Making it, what, the third smallest? Ahaha.

Seriously though, I'm surprised at how many people think religious groups shouldn't be allowed to discriminate. Next you'll be calling for racists to get locked up. I don't agree with racism or homosexuality or anything like that, and I certainly don't practice it, but dear lord. I don't think people who ask for this kind of legislation really think things through to their logical conclusions.

 

[ItsAChiaotzu]

You are depriving them of the right to marriage... why is it not as higher moral stake? You just act as if they are below human beings, you make me sick.

What you believe is that you should have rights that other HUMAN BEINGS should not. That is the only thing that's wrong here.

You are a bigot, accept it, you are trying to deny people rights based on a difference between you and them that they cannot control.

Do you really think if it was a choice anyone would choose to be gay? Wouldn't that be the stupidest thing ever?

Besides, explain how it is being forced down your throat, what is it that Gay people are doing that directly affects your life? Nothing. So what's your fucking problem. Just grow up and accept that there are people in the world who, for a reason completely out of their control, are Gay, now why would you deny them a right just to cater to a ridiculous notion of superiority?

Marriage is not a right. Just like working, driving and abortions are not rights - they are privlages. These are all life choices that may or may not be allowed in the country you choose to reside in.

The person you are responding to never said that he wished that gays be treated as less then human beings. He stated that he did not condone the idea of homosexuality but did not discriminate against those who are. Then, you being the tolerant individual you are, turned around and called him a bigot. Pretty much the pot calling the kettle black.

I also don't understand why everyone demands that a joining of two people be called marriage. This is a religious term, andd I would think that those who feel discriminated against by these very religious organizations would not want to use the term. Civil union would be more correct, but I suppose people feel left out if it's not called marriage. There are states already that support same sex civil unions, in fact I have a cousin who just entered one with her partner not to long ago. More and more the gay right's movement seems to be demanding inclusion into everything, regardless if they have a right to or not, instead of just equal rights with everyone else, which is where the original article for this thread suggests were heading. Screw everyone else's rights - they don't completely agree with us even though they're tolerant, let's demonize them some more.

BTW, I have NEVER been to a job interview where my sexual preferences have been questioned - regardless if it's a federal job or one being offered by a church. Honestly, most places seem to view it as a personal matter and as long as you are not being asked to be a role model of the religious insitution that you are working for, then fine. My mother works for a Catholic school and she has told me that they have had students who had gay parents, which suprises many people. Most religious insitutions aren't as bigoted as many people seem to think they are.

So please, just quickly explain to me, why shouldn't gay people have the privelege of marriage?

Is it simply because you don't want them to?

If two people love each other why shouldn't they be allowed a formal marriage? It just doesn't make any sense.

In regards to calling me a bigot, I am not ok with him trying to deny people (and he did say he wasn't ok with gay marriage) marriage based on something they can't control.

The thing is, he can choose to believe what he likes, so he chooses to discriminate against gay people for something which isn't their fault, I'm merely arguing against something that if he wanted he could change.

 

[similar.squirrel]

Seems all right to me. We can all discriminate against religious people. See how they f*cking like it.

 

[whycantibelinus]

Just to spell it out; this is not about churches being allowed to deny membership to gays or single mothers.

This is about Religious businesses being legally allowed to not give a job to a person because they're gay or a single-parent.

People seem to be missing this point.

And religious businesses should be allowed to operate on the same basis as their churches, whether you agree with the faith or not. There is no inherent right to a job, that's ridiculous. Working is not a right, it's a privlage, pure and simple. You don't have a right to demand to work anywhere you want, you have the opportunity to apply for and compete for any job you would like to have whether you are qualified or not. You may not get it, but you are allowed to apply.

I hate to say it, but South Park had a really good episode that addressed this kind of issue several years ago in the episode "Cripple Fight". Big Gay Al was forced to leave scouts once it was discovered that he was gay. At the end of the episode he and the scouts ended up in court where it was ruled that he should be let back into scouts and that the scouts' leaders should be demoralized in stocks. Big Gay Al said no, that this was not the way he wanted things. That he believed that the scouts' leaders were doing what they believed was right and they had every right to do that because it was a private organization.

The fact of the matter is, private businesses regardless if they are faith based of not have the right to hire as they see fit.

And I'd like to tell that smug spokeswoman in the article that religious schools require all staff to share that religion because they are supposed to be examples of that religion's morals, values and beliefs. Everyone from the principal to the janitor. There is a reason for it.

Agreed.

 

[whycantibelinus]

You are depriving them of the right to marriage... why is it not as higher moral stake? You just act as if they are below human beings, you make me sick.

What you believe is that you should have rights that other HUMAN BEINGS should not. That is the only thing that's wrong here.

You are a bigot, accept it, you are trying to deny people rights based on a difference between you and them that they cannot control.

Do you really think if it was a choice anyone would choose to be gay? Wouldn't that be the stupidest thing ever?

Besides, explain how it is being forced down your throat, what is it that Gay people are doing that directly affects your life? Nothing. So what's your fucking problem. Just grow up and accept that there are people in the world who, for a reason completely out of their control, are Gay, now why would you deny them a right just to cater to a ridiculous notion of superiority?

Marriage is not a right. Just like working, driving and abortions are not rights - they are privlages. These are all life choices that may or may not be allowed in the country you choose to reside in.

The person you are responding to never said that he wished that gays be treated as less then human beings. He stated that he did not condone the idea of homosexuality but did not discriminate against those who are. Then, you being the tolerant individual you are, turned around and called him a bigot. Pretty much the pot calling the kettle black.

I also don't understand why everyone demands that a joining of two people be called marriage. This is a religious term, andd I would think that those who feel discriminated against by these very religious organizations would not want to use the term. Civil union would be more correct, but I suppose people feel left out if it's not called marriage. There are states already that support same sex civil unions, in fact I have a cousin who just entered one with her partner not to long ago. More and more the gay right's movement seems to be demanding inclusion into everything, regardless if they have a right to or not, instead of just equal rights with everyone else, which is where the original article for this thread suggests were heading. Screw everyone else's rights - they don't completely agree with us even though they're tolerant, let's demonize them some more.

BTW, I have NEVER been to a job interview where my sexual preferences have been questioned - regardless if it's a federal job or one being offered by a church. Honestly, most places seem to view it as a personal matter and as long as you are not being asked to be a role model of the religious insitution that you are working for, then fine. My mother works for a Catholic school and she has told me that they have had students who had gay parents, which suprises many people. Most religious insitutions aren't as bigoted as many people seem to think they are.

So please, just quickly explain to me, why shouldn't gay people have the privelege of marriage?

Is it simply because you don't want them to?

If two people love each other why shouldn't they be allowed a formal marriage? It just doesn't make any sense.

In regards to calling me a bigot, I am not ok with him trying to deny people (and he did say he wasn't ok with gay marriage) marriage based on something they can't control.

The thing is, he can choose to believe what he likes, so he chooses to discriminate against gay people for something which isn't their fault, I'm merely arguing against something that if he wanted he could change.

I'm not saying that I know every single gay person in the world, but I do have a good amount of gay friends and acquaintences and every single one of them have said that it is completely and utterly a sexual preference, something that they themselves chose, not the way they were born. This may just be the case with them, but from my personal experiences with gays, this has been the case every single time.

 

[Cakes]

No, religious people who disagree with the homosexual lifestyle should not be forced to cater to them.

This pretty much sums it up. Some religious folk don't care much for gays. Unless they actually commit some sort of hate crime, they can have their opinion. Truest thing in your post, but then we get to the shit parts.

If homosexuality really was just a sexual preference, than why the need to force people to acknowledge it?

Because of the ridiculous stigma attached to it, and their lack of rights in comparison to others. It's still an executable offense in some countries, which is sickening.

There are many kinds of sexual preferences and lifestyles, i.e. shoe fetish, bondage, S & M, food fetish, and others, why is it that homosexuality is the only group that blatantly advertises their preference?

What? Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, not a "preference" in the sense that you're using the word. You can't equate it to S & M or the like.

If you are a homosexual, fine. But, I don't want to hear about it. I don't want to hear about anyone else's preferences either. I don't want to hear a heterosexual person tell me about their sex life. If a heterosexual person walked up to me and said " I love to lick shoes while having sex" or wore a T-shirt that said something along those lines, or had a bumper sticker that announced to the world that they had a shoe fetish, I wouldn't want to know about it. It would infringe on my rights to have this sexual behavior shoved in my face.

I can sort of see what you're getting at, but still...open homosexuals aren't going in-depth about the weird shit they like to do in bed, they're just saying "this is who I am, and despite the stigma surrounding it, I'm proud of it." It is no different that myself going up to you and saying "Hey, women? Those are just dandy." Now, if you're against all sexual discussion, then you might have some kind of legitimate argument.

It is amazing to me how many people complain about religious people spreading their views on life, which generally does not amount to anything more than an opinion on the world, but when a homosexual openly flaunts their sex life, it's no problem.

I'm into women.
HOLY FUCK NO I'M FLAUNTING MY SEXUALITY.
^ If you also have a problem with that, then I can see where you're coming from. If you only arbitrarily apply to gays, then no.

 

[Shaoken]

I'm not saying that I know every single gay person in the world, but I do have a good amount of gay friends and acquaintences and every single one of them have said that it is completely and utterly a sexual preference, something that they themselves chose, not the way they were born. This may just be the case with them, but from my personal experiences with gays, this has been the case every single time.

There would be plenty of others who would disagree with you and your friends. Alternatively they could just be lying to you about it. I mean come on, unless they also have a sexual attraction to women then they can't have "chosen" to be gay, that's like saying you and I chose to be hetrosexual.

What? Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, not a "preference" in the sense that you're using the word. You can't equate it to S & M or the like.

Oh he can, you see, he ignores logic. It's amazing what you can do when you blissfully disregard the facts.

 

[Seanchaidh]

I am not telling them they cannot get together, I am not demanding they halt their actions whatever they might be, I am not demanding that they believe in what I believe in, I am not taking away their right to be happy, I am not obstructing anything than a title that should be reserved for the basic levels of human biology.

That is simply false. Marriage entails various benefits and rights that would not otherwise apply.

Then that is simply on the law. It has nothing to do with marriage, since it falls outside the definition of it.

The legal definition of marriage is simply on the law as well. It has nothing to do with whatever religious meaning you give to marriage or whatever other significance you give to it, since it falls outside that sphere.