So how is the gay marriage ruling going to impact you?
- Thread starter happyninja42
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The only thing that bothers me about this entire thing to date is that I've heard reports of people being forced to participate/work for gay marriage ceremonies due to public accommodation laws. For instance, there was a wedding chapel that closed down because the public accommodation law in their area essentially forced them to have to perform same sex wedding ceremonies.
Now, I'm not a religious person, so I have a hard time understanding their world view, but conceptually I can see how it would be deeply unnerving for people to have to choose between running their business (the wedding chapel) and being forced to perform a ceremony that they think might cause their "God" to be mad at them.
Also, it would be really nice if we could start differentiating between actual bigotry, and people who are just religious. It may not seem like there is much difference here, but I want to remind everyone that religious people can potentially believe that they could go to hell - as in eternal suffering in the after life, if they sin and if they believe that marrying two dudes/gals together is a sin, then it's not really bigotry to simply not want to endure eternal suffering in a pit of fire, or whatever their particular superstition is.
I know this concept is hard for secularists (like myself) to get their heads around. I like to think of it as they are living in an "alternate reality" where these things they believe in are actually real and have real consequences - maybe even just for them, because certainly that's how they operate. So maybe some of these people complaining are doing so less because they are evil and hate gay people, and more because they are scared of what might happen to them.
I dunno. I kind of wish I could just be happy that homosexuals are finally getting their promised "equal protection under the law", but at the same time I can't help but notice that we've seen to have done it in a way that is actually trampling on the religious rights of some denominations (not all of course, since certain groups like Unitarians have never had a problem with gay marriage).
I don't know how to make it happen, but it would be nice if that Christian couple could be able to operate their little wedding chapel without the government telling them they have to close shop or violate their religious beliefs.
Now, I'm not a religious person, so I have a hard time understanding their world view, but conceptually I can see how it would be deeply unnerving for people to have to choose between running their business (the wedding chapel) and being forced to perform a ceremony that they think might cause their "God" to be mad at them.
Also, it would be really nice if we could start differentiating between actual bigotry, and people who are just religious. It may not seem like there is much difference here, but I want to remind everyone that religious people can potentially believe that they could go to hell - as in eternal suffering in the after life, if they sin and if they believe that marrying two dudes/gals together is a sin, then it's not really bigotry to simply not want to endure eternal suffering in a pit of fire, or whatever their particular superstition is.
I know this concept is hard for secularists (like myself) to get their heads around. I like to think of it as they are living in an "alternate reality" where these things they believe in are actually real and have real consequences - maybe even just for them, because certainly that's how they operate. So maybe some of these people complaining are doing so less because they are evil and hate gay people, and more because they are scared of what might happen to them.
I dunno. I kind of wish I could just be happy that homosexuals are finally getting their promised "equal protection under the law", but at the same time I can't help but notice that we've seen to have done it in a way that is actually trampling on the religious rights of some denominations (not all of course, since certain groups like Unitarians have never had a problem with gay marriage).
I don't know how to make it happen, but it would be nice if that Christian couple could be able to operate their little wedding chapel without the government telling them they have to close shop or violate their religious beliefs.
As far as I can tell here in Alabama, it's not that bad. Our governor took down the confederate flag over the capitol like two days after the shootings? Really quick in my opinion. And I've yet to hear anyone around here start bitching about "the fags" or anything. Which is funny in a way, because I've had people in our waiting room, decide to turn it into an impromptu sermon, talking about "The Bible says Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!" But yeah, so far, even here, the response seems to be roughly *shrug* "meh". Which I'm quite happy about.kmagaro74 said:
As for how things are for you in Texas, you might try moving to Austin (if you don't already live there). It's a pretty laid back city by comparison to the rest of Texas from what I hear. It's also the home for the Atheist Coalition of Austin, who host the Atheist Experience public access show. So you might hear less of it around there.
I think part of the issue with this rationale, is that in some cases it likely doesn't hold up. I would be willing to bet, that if you asked these same people who are doing the ceremonies, if they would refuse on grounds of "You are a Jew, and the Jewish faith is significantly different from mine, and thus if I marry you, I am betraying my god's rules" or "You are a Muslim, and the Muslim faith is significantly, etc etc" or "You are a Hindu, etc etc" they probably won't say that, and are likely willing to do those ceremonies without any issues of refusal. Also, if they tried to refuse, they would probably get hit with a religious discrimination charge. I don't know the rules of the facilities in question, but if they are designed to accommodate multiple faiths, if they were really being honest to their belief, they would refuse all the others too. But hey, hypocrisy doesn't make sense, so I don't expect them to make sense either.Jake Martinez said:
The other issue, is that it's pretty easy to find passages in the bible that contradict the whole "god says gays are bad mmkay" viewpoint. As well as plenty of other things that the book says are bad, that nobody pays any attention to, and totally ignore. So it's a case of cherry picking which rules to follow, and which to ignore, and to the rest of us, it just looks like a thinly veiled excuse to be an asshole, and not actually based on any significant tenant forbidding homosexuality.
No offense, but I don't really see that you said anything other than, "I don't believe them" or "Their belief is wrong."Happyninja42 said:
To be fair, this is the general consensus of most non-religious people I know, which is very much not surprising considering they are not religious (somewhat self fulfilling, that...) Just as I have a very hard time on putting a value on how important it is to be "married" to someone who has been denied that right, I have equally as hard of a time as understanding what it's like to be afraid of sinning, since I don't believe in divine punishment.
Because of this, rather than trying to minimize the beliefs of either group, I've decided to accept both at face value. I'm a firm believer that this is how you go about having a "free and open society" as they say. Also, I dislike the modern trend of treating people who "lose" against whatever the cultural hegemony is as if they simply don't count any more. It wasn't fair to homosexuals when the cultural hegemony was against them, nor is it necessarily fair to Christians now if they are being forced to choose between running businesses and violating their religious beliefs.
Ultimately, if we are indeed in a situation where two groups rights are at odds with each other, then I think we should probably spend more time trying to reconcile them rather than pointing at either faction and trying to demonize them.
This may be exactly what they have to do. However, I would say that there is a distinct difference between someone being racist and someone being religious and it really bothers me that people refuse to recognize the difference between making a choice to discriminate against someone and being forced to discriminate against them due to punishment.Dynast Brass said:
Like I said before - please try to remember that these people believe that these actions have consequences for them that are frankly, quite terrible. Would you call someone a racist if they refused to serve a black person because someone was pointing a gun to their head?
The can of worms that is opened by this train of thought is that the "gun" in this case can only be seen by the believer and the believer can make up any gun they wish. Freedom to practice ones religion stops where it contradicts the law of the land. This stipulation is agreed upon by all until they chafe under it. I've spoken to literally hundreds of different religious people on these topics and the strongest trend is to try and exempt ones own religion from the law while expecting everyone of a different religion with different objections to abide.Jake Martinez said:
Ask a Christian if they think Christian business owners should have to serve gay customers and you may well likely say that their religious belief and practice should exempt them from having to do so. Now ask them if they think Pagans should be able to ignore the parts of the law they think contradicts their religious practice/belief and see what they say. Good chance you'll get a myriad of answers that all end up saying "no." It's not about freedom of religion, its about freedom for one religion. I cannot accept the excuse that religious belief/practice should exempt one from following the law because no law would be safe from transgression in this way.
Well, congratulations. You learn one new thing every day. -throws grey and purple confetti in your face-kmagaro74 said:
You've probably never heard of it because we're not really the types to go around proclaiming that sort of thing like other sexualities are. Makes MY life hella easier, I know that much.
Well for one I think it's usually a bit more than being forced to discriminate. It's more like they agree with their religion. It's not as if they're usually apologetic about it.Jake Martinez said:
Even if they were I would call them bigoted. It's not an actual gun being pointed at them. It's their own irrational fear. I do not think society should be ruled by people's personal irrational fears.
Of course they "agree" with their religion, after all it's the truth (from their perspective). Religious people accept the truth regardless of their own personal feelings, in fact when their feelings run counter to the "truth" they know that they are the ones who are wrong. Hence things like, "Sinful thoughts."Secondhand Revenant said:
You think their fear is irrational because you're not a believer. What I'm saying is that to really understand the conflict, you need to exercise your empathy and put yourself in someone elses shoes. I'm certainly not saying you need to acknowledge religion as being true - I for instance, do not. I am a "devout" (heh) atheist. But I am capable of imagining what it would be like to live in a reality where religion is true and how that would influence people's behaviors.
Just look at some of the people responding to me. Rather than acknowledge that people have these beliefs, they attempt to undermine the beliefs themselves, like that's somehow going to make the problem go away. You can't "prove" someones religious belief as being "wrong" - otherwise they don't actually have any faith in their belief system. You can argue semantics about religious texts all you like, but the popular interpretation is the one that holds sway. You can't logic your way out of the problem, so in many ways attempts to do so are just attempts to justify abusing or attacking people who hold religious beliefs and minimizing the problems that they are facing.
Honestly, there is a difference between understanding someone and endorsing their actions.
To be very clear about this, my concern is that I don't believe that a free and open society can remain free or open if when we pick winners and losers in regards to "rights" (Freedom of Religion vs. Equal Representation) that we then beat the shit out of the losers and suppress them. I know, it's crazy, but I am pretty Liberal this way - I care about the rights of people I don't agree with and I'm not willing to demonize them in order to sooth my conscience over how they are being treated.
This doesn't mean I have a solution to this conflict, it just means that I'm not willing to join in on the frankly "illiberal" pile-on of people who hold unpopular opinions. In a Liberal Democracy the "ideal" state should be to balance the rights of all groups against each other so that there is minimal conflict. It doesn't seem to me that we've done a really fantastic job in this regard on this particular issue, otherwise it would have never come down to a Supreme Court decision in the first place. If our political leaders were doing their jobs, it should have been solved long before this.
Well if someone legitimately had a gun to their head I'd be a lot more forgiving for whatever they did, thus my distinction between rational and irrational fears.Dynast Brass said:
The reason I talk about agreement is because of the gun to their head comparison. It's the difference between following an order because you'll die versus following an order because you agree with it.Jake Martinez said:
The thing is people have many irrational fears. We shouldn't let those rule society or have undue influence. It's not a matter of empathy so much as it is I think that the irrational fears of Christianity get undue weight here over any other given irrational fear. Think no one in the KKK legitimately believes that other races will bring down the nation?
I don't think we are picking winners and losers. I don't think their right to religious freedom comes into it because I do not believe it extends that far. Nor do I believe it should. I do not think the source of the belief should be an excuse short of mental illness. And I don't need to soothe my conscious. I don't think anything bad is happening to them except in their heads. And I see it the same as with race. I do not see some further justification for them because of their religion so I don't need an excuse to feel better. And I do not see their rights being infringed at all. I believe in a secular society.
People who hold unpopular opinions? Oh come on. It isn't being attacked for its unpopularity. The problem with it is not it's unpopularity.
And the fact it came down to a Supreme Court decision certainly is a failure. Of those legislatures that tried to ban it or failed to pass it. Or the populace of the states that tried to ban it.