Christian owners of a bed and breakfast in British Columbia have been ordered to pay around $4,500 in damages after they refused to rent a room to a homosexual couple.
Brian Thomas and Shaun Eadie had reserved a room at the Riverbend B&B in Grand Forks in June 2009, but owners Les and Susan Molnar cancelled the reservation after realizing they were homosexual.
“To allow a gay couple to share a bed in my Christian home would violate my Christian beliefs and would cause me and my wife great distress,” Lee explained in tribunal documents.
Thomas and Eadie filed a complaint with the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, which ruled in their favour on Tuesday. Tribunal member Enid Marion ordered the Molnars to “cease and desist the discriminatory conduct,” though they closed the B&B down in September 2009 as a result of the incident.
Marion agreed with the two men that the Molnars violated section 8 of the B.C. Human Rights Code, which states that it is a discriminatory practice to “deny to a person or class of persons any accommodation” because of “sexual orientation.”
99 Comments
We need to defend our faith and religious freedom.
Suppose the owners denied an interracial couple accommodation because, according to their religious beliefs, interracial relationships are forbidden by God. Should the owners be allowed to discriminate against interracial couples? Yes or no?
Before someone answers Spencer's hypothetical with the "You can't compare race to homosexuality" dodge, you actually can compare the two. Especially here, where it against the law to deny public accomodations based on either race or sexual orientation. Obviously, this happened in Canada, but many states in the US have similar laws. Religous beliefs are not a defense against the practice of illegal discimination.
All people of faith including non-believers should take notice of the overwelming evidence of how SSM/ gay identity-poitics will destroy our communities and goverment from the inside out... if we don't take heed to examples like Canada with their currupt centralized thought and behavioral control system, the US will be just another big dictatorship Country on social issues like Canada.
@ Bruce, and Spencer, please STOP with the ridiculous Apples and Oranges comparison, and the extremely insulting remarks against people of color... You add no ground to your defense for immorality, when you continue attempting to give comparison of one’s sexual behavior with the color of one’s skin, but only highlight your desperation to protect your weak position. Or, maybe it’s just that you lack intelligence, rational thinking, and a sense of what is right and what is not?
In case you’re uncertain what the word “immorality” means, from the dictionary:
Not in conformity with accepted principles of right and wrong behavior; wicked; not in conformity with the accepted standards of proper sexual behavior; unchaste; lewd.
@Spencer/Bruce,
You really need to stop basing your position on flights of fancy. Any law the violates the right of conscience and free exercise thereof as expressly provided for in the 1st Amendment of the United States constitution is not a valid .
Sexual depravity is no more of a protected class than being a smoker is.
I'm actually waiting for someone to make the "race is different than homosexuality" dodge, because that would expose a deep problem in the thinking marriage equality opponents.
Suppose a person answers 'no' to my hypothetical -- the owners could not discriminate against the interracial couple. Although religious discrimination based on sexual orientation should be tolerated, religious discrimination based on race should not be. But what is the distinction between the two? Why should religious liberty trump in one case and not the other?
Appealing to the "race is different" rationale won't help, because such a move implies that one set of religious beliefs are right and the other are wrong, and that judgment - that one set of religious beliefs are wrong - cannot be made in our courts. Courts are obligated to take a "neutral stance" towards religious beliefs. Judges in our democracy are not there to say: "Religion A is correct and religion B is incorrect." But if the "race is different" rationale applied, courts WOULD be forced to make judgments between religious beliefs.
Specifically, judges would be forced to say: "Although the discrimination in both cases violates religious beliefs, the discrimination in the interracial case is inappropriate because the religious belief that God is against interracial relationships is wrong." But as I said, in our democracy, judges cannot make these kinds of judgments. The better stance, consistent with "religious neutrality," is simply to be consistent: violations of religious beliefs should be treated the same. If religious liberty cannot trump in the interracial case, then it cannot trump in the sexual orientation case.
I think the distinction between sexual preference and sexual behavior is relevant here.
Would the hotel owner be prevented from denying a room to an unmarried hetero couple because of his religious views? I think not.
What about countries where prostitution is legal; should a hotel owner be obliged to allow his hotel to be used as a brothel?
So what's the difference between denying an unmarried hetero couple a room, a prostitute and a John a room, and a homosexual couple a room? None. It's a question of whether the hotel owner is required to provide an opportunity for people to engage in conduct that is against one's religion.
@ Leo:
"Or, maybe it’s just that you lack intelligence, rational thinking, and a sense of what is right and what is not?"
Typical - when argument becomes too difficult, resort to insults and personal attacks. Let's see how "intelligent" you are, Leo. How would you respond to my previous post, which addresses the "race is different" move?
@ OvercameSSM,
"It's a question of whether the hotel owner is required to provide an opportunity for people to engage in conduct that is against one's religion."
So how would you answer my hypothetical? Suppose the owners denied an interracial couple accommodation because, according to their religious beliefs, interracial relationships are forbidden by God. Should the owners be allowed to discriminate against interracial couples? Yes or no?
@Spencer & Bruce,
Can either of you point to a religious doctrine that specifically forbids inter-racial marriage?
Spencer, you are stuck on stupid, again! Where in the Bible does it say that blacks and whites cannot marry? Besides, religions are based on the regulation of behavior, not skin color. For the government to demand everyone to treat every single behavior and relationship type as though it were a physical racial trait and act tlike they are all the same comes dangerously close to the establishment of thought crimes and the abolition of religious liberties.
Since that what the legalization of SS"M" brings about, then no wonder it has lost every single referendum in this country - and will continue to do so.
@ Son of Adam
"Spencer, you are stuck on stupid, again!"
More personal attacks from NOM advocates -- how typical.
"Where in the Bible does it say that blacks and whites cannot marry?"
Where in my hypothetical did I reference the Bible? Do you have an intelligent response to my post #6?
@ Spencer
I already gave an intellegent response to your post. Now do you have an intelligent hypothetical scenario that doesn't equate distinguishing right from wrong with racial discrimination?
Some differences between sexual desires and race.
Skin color and ones sex, male or female, is visible for all to see. Ones sexual habits are not (even the 3 to 20 percent who where born with homosexual tenancies).
A youngster (among the 80 to 97 percent who were not born that way) can be educated to enjoy sex with someone of the same sex; easy, easy. But a youngster cannot be educated to become another skin color nor, to become the opposite sex than that which he is.
I was hoping to inject some intelligence into the comments, but... I see Spencer has it all wrapped up! Carry on.
(Unfortunately, I think we might see this whole comment section peter out without a single response to #6, though... personal attacks are far easier than rationality and logic.)
@Son of Adam
"I already gave an intellegent response to your post."
I'm pretty sure that when you -start- your response with the personal attack "you are stuck on stupid, again", you can't expect anyone to think that your response was "intelligent".
"I'm pretty sure that when you -start- your response with the personal attack "you are stuck on stupid, again", you can't expect anyone to think that your response was "intelligent"."
I call them as I see thim, Andy. Anyone who confuses the moral distinction between acting on one's own faith and racism masquerading as religion can't be all there.
@ Son of Adam,
In my post #6, I explain why the "race is different" move - which is the one you're making - doesn't work. If you have an objection to my argument, one without personal attacks, I'd like to hear it. A valid objection would force me to revise my argument
@ Good News
I don't see how the visibility/invisibility distinction you made affects my argument in post # 6. Can you explain?
@ Son of Adam
"I call them as I see thim, Andy. Anyone who confuses the moral distinction between acting on one's own faith and racism masquerading as religion can't be all there."
Still waiting for a response to post # 6.
Spencer,
I am not aware of any religious group or organization that is against or attempting to stop interracial coupling. Or, if I was aware of any, I have no knowledge that these groups have attempted and succeeded in creating public policy for their ideology, are you? Likewise, I am not aware of any interracial coupling movement advocating for "special rights", " special legal considerations", trying to legally force others to think the way they do to make them feel go, do you? Can you say the same for SSM advocates?
I personal would not condone such practice and or behavior on both sides of the issue. I think most if not all religious groups, believe in the betterment of society in general, and their principles are not only rooted in nature but also in the laws of the land.
The bottom line to your query: what is morally right and wrong? What will hurt our Nation and what will contribute to it? Same sex sexual advocates cannot as an issue in nature and morality, defend or insinuate that, homosexual behavior in all its forms, is or has been beneficial to society in any way.
Interracial relationships do not hinder or hurt others, it is rooted in nature; whereas, the other topic is just the opposite. IT IS OK TO DISCRIMINATE FROM WHAT IS GOOD, AND BAD...DISCRIMINATION IS PART OF NATURE.
@ Spencer
I thought I had already made myslef clear, but if I have to dumb it down for your benifit, fine.
Your scenerio has nothing to do with with religion, but rathar racism masquerading as religion. Since there are laws against racial discrimination, then no, the owners do not have the right to deny services based on race, regardless on how they rationalize it with arbitrarily invented religious principles.
But that is not the case with Brian Thomas and Shaun Eadie. Their situation has nothing to do with racist beliefs but genuine moral and religious convictions that the Canadian government is now hostile to with the passing of SS"M".
This is yet another example of how SS"M" supresses civil and religious liberties - with false analogies of racism.
Hopefully, this incident, along with countless others, will help defeat SS"M" in the four coming referendums this November.
@ Leo
Whether or not there is a religious organization against interracial coupling is besides the point: the same "religious toleration" principle should apply to both race and sexual orientation. If religious discrimination on the basis of race is forbidden, then religious discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation ought to be forbidden as well. To hold otherwise would require -- and here's the *key point* -- courts to adjudicate among religious beliefs, which they cannot do. Judges are not in the business of deciding which religious beliefs are correct and which ones are false.
So what's the alternative? I see only one. Treat race and sexual orientation equally when it comes to religious discrimination: if the owners cannot discriminate against interracial couples, even though accommodation would violate their religious beliefs, then they cannot discriminate against same-sex couples, even though accommodation would violate their religious beliefs. "Religious liberty" is thus given EQUAL level of deference in both cases.
@ Spencer,
I just posted it, just now. Stay tuned.
Gee whiz, Spencer. If religious liberties can be negated based on whatever arbitrarily invented religious principle you make up, then we might as well abolish the 1st amendment altogether.
Spencer,
I think I disagree with your explanation as to how courts handle discrimination cases. I'm not saying I'm an expert, and I'm really throwing this out for discussion and clarification.
Basically, the courts treat actions that discriminate against race as "suspect" because there is rarely (if ever) a legitimate reason to discriminate between races. I would also think that these protections have something to do with racism of times past.
So, when a court says that a B&B cannot discriminate against interracial couples, it is saying that religiously-motivated race discrimination is legally impermissible--period. Yes, the court is, in effect, making a judgment about a religious belief.
In this area where the B&B is located, if sexual orientation has been put on the same pedestal as race via discrimination statutes, then for NOMers, this issue is less about what can be done for the business owners, and more of an impetus for us to fight against the enactments of such special protections elsewhere.
Although you don't believe that others here have answered your question, I'd say that, based on your reasoning about courts, Overcame brought up an interesting question that you should answer. If courts take a "neutral" stance in the way that you describe (i.e. they are "neutral" so any religious-based discrimination is impermissible) then any type of conscience considerations are out of the window. B&B owners couldn't discriminate against prostitution gambits, adulterous liaisons, etc. And since the fundamental nature of the protected category is not under consideration in your view (i.e. the difference between race and sexual orientation), then, arguably, any person who was slighted by a business owner could allege almost *any* type of discrimination.
As I said, I'm just interested in discussion. I'm actually struggling with my libertarian streak as to whether people should be allowed to refuse business to anyone for any reason, or for no reason at all. I'm weighing the pros and cons of such a position in my mind, and trying to do a little reading on the matter.
Spencer -
I believe the issue of an interracial couple should be treated under the same analysis that I previously mentioned, i.e., it should be treated based on the nature of the behavior.
If a religion would claim that sex between an interracial couple is against God's will, the prohibition is not really against the sexual behavior, it is against the combination of the races involved, (unless the religion has a death wish for itself and is against heterosexual sex).
Contrast that with the religious prohibition against same-sex behavior in which the prohibition is against the behavior itself, i.e., homosexual sodomy, which is distinctly different from heterosexual sex.
Spender ! @19,
I totally disagree with your libralism ideology, and you have failed to answer my qestions to you in my last post. Also discrimination based on sexual orientation is not just a religious issue but also a secular one, ever American regardless of race, or religion and none, should discourage others from partcipation in SSSRs, period.
Ash,
I think that the court's reasoning in cases like these, at least in the US, is actually simpler than imagines. To disciminate in employment, public accomodations, credit and some other catgories against someone based on race, religion, ethnicity and other groups is against federal law . Most states (if not all) also have similar laws. Some, but not all, of those states also include sexual orientation. So if a same sex couple is denied service at a hotel in California, that couple has a legitimate claim.
Ash,
I appreciate the fact that you actually engaged with Spencer's hypothetical, instead of taking the "You can't compare..." dodge.
Overcame:
"So what's the difference between denying an unmarried hetero couple a room, a prostitute and a John a room, and a homosexual couple a room? None."
Some states also forbid discimination based on marital status. As a practical matter, a man and a prostitute don't usually announce their relationship.
Bruce, I agree that once a statute is on the books making sexual orientation a protected class that businesses will have to comply. That’s one reason to fight against said protections. And I’m not arguing that same-sex couples don’t have a claim in places with those protections. But I don’t agree with Spencer’s characterization of judicial deliberation.
He’s saying that the reason why religious-based discrimination against sexual orientation is impermissible is because the court does not want to decide what religious beliefs are right or wrong.
I understand the argument that once a sexual orientation protection is on the books, that discrimination based on sexual orientation is akin to racial discrimination and legally viable.
But that’s not the argument Spencer is making in comment #6. He’s saying, quintessentially, that any religious objection is automatically impermissible, regardless of the nature of the class affected, and regardless of whether there is a protection on the books, because the court doesn’t want to decide what religious tenets are right and wrong. By not deciding what belief is “right or wrong,” and thus deeming *any* religious basis for discrimination as illegitimate (a logically inconsistent argument, IMO), the court is, in some weird way, actually granting deference to religious doctrines.
Bruce, my response is in the filter. It should come soon.
@ Ash
"So, when a court says that a B&B cannot discriminate against interracial couples, it is saying that religiously-motivated race discrimination is legally impermissible--period. Yes, the court is, in effect, making a judgment about a religious belief."
But this judgment isn't about the correctness of the religious belief that motivates the race-based discrimination; rather, it is a judgment that the discrimination is impermissible, whether or not the religious belief is correct. The problem arises when courts give deference to some religious beliefs and not others, in the context of establishments that are deemed to be places of public accommodation: that they cannot do.
" Overcame brought up an interesting question that you should answer. If courts take a "neutral" stance in the way that you describe (i.e. they are "neutral" so any religious-based discrimination is impermissible) then any type of conscience considerations are out of the window. B&B owners couldn't discriminate against prostitution gambits, adulterous liaisons, etc."
Let's be clear what we're talking about: religiously-motivated discriminations in the context of places of public accommodation. If the B&B owners have valid *secular reasons* for discriminating against certain people (e.g., drunks), then my objection wouldn't apply. But I see no reason why, in the context of places of public accommodation, certain religious beliefs ought to be given more deference than others.
" then, arguably, any person who was slighted by a business owner could allege almost *any* type of discrimination."
Of course, it's one thing to allege religiously-motivated discrimination and another thing to establish it in a court of law.
@ Overcame
"If a religion would claim that sex between an interracial couple is against God's will, the prohibition is not really against the sexual behavior, it is against the combination of the races involved, (unless the religion has a death wish for itself and is against heterosexual sex)."
I don't see the distinction between (a) being against sexual activity between same-sex couples and (b) being against sexual activity between interracial-couples. In both cases, the owners are objecting to the behavior involved.
"Contrast that with the religious prohibition against same-sex behavior in which the prohibition is against the behavior itself, i.e., homosexual sodomy, which is distinctly different from heterosexual sex."
But there really is no such distinction, because "sodomy" can be practiced by both homosexuals and heterosexuals. The act of sodomy doesn't differ: anal sex is anal sex. There is no sex act "unique" to same-sex couples -- anything they can do, opposite-sex couples can and actually do as well.
@ Leo
It appears you propose allowing any place of public accommodation to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation whether such discrimination is religiously motivated or not. In other words, for you, homosexuality is objectionable on secular grounds. I really wonder whether this view can be defended.
Ash
Excellent comment.
Fundamental rights also enjoy "strict scrutiny" like suspect classification (race, ethnicity).
Anti- discrimination laws enacted to right the wrong of segregation(a legitimate public purpose) have become a real burden on freedom of association in the current climate of victim group du jour.
Bruce said:
Overcame:
"So what's the difference between denying .............., a prostitute and a John a room, and a homosexual couple a room? None."
Glad you are able to join in and join us on the moral issues..
@ Leo
Spencer said:
It appears you propose allowing any place of public accommodation to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation whether such discrimination is religiously motivated or not. In other words, for you, homosexuality is objectionable on secular grounds. I really wonder whether this view can be defended.
Let help you, it can't!
Spencer -
Starting with the premise that no religion objects to heterosexual sex in and of itself, then a prohibition on interracial sex cannot be a prohibition on the behavior (heterosexual sex), it can only be a racial discriminatory prohibition, invalid because it discriminates purely on race not on behavior.
Homosexuals can ONLY practice sodomy; there is no sex, per se. That's a big difference, and that's why the prohibition of the act, as distinguished from sex between opposite sex partners, is valid.
Spencer, stop dodging my post @ 18....
@ Overcame
"Starting with the premise that no religion objects to heterosexual sex in and of itself, it can only be a racial discriminatory prohibition, invalid because it discriminates purely on race not on behavior."
But of course, the above starting premise isn't necessarily shared by believers who object to sexual activity between interracial couples. It's possible that, for some believers, any sexual activity between interracial couples is inherently objectionable. On such a view, I don't see how the discrimination wouldn't be based on both race and behavior.
"Homosexuals can ONLY practice sodomy; "
Homosexuals can engage in a wide range of sexual activities -- not just anal sex. In fact, same-sex couples don't have to engage in anal sex at all.
"That's a big difference, and that's why the prohibition of the act, as distinguished from sex between opposite sex partners, is valid."
I don't see the difference or why the inference follows. First, the owners are assuming that the gay couple will engage in anal sex during their stay, an assumption without justification. Second, the owners (in my interracial couple example) are assuming that the interracial couple will not engage in anal sex during their stay at the B & B, an assumption without justification.
Recall that the owners are supposed to be Christian, so presumably, they are against anal sex period. Why do they assume that: (1) the gay couple will engage in anal sex, and (2) straight couples won't engage in anal sex?
If they don't make assumption (2), but allow straight couples who engage in anal sex accommodation anyway, then it appears that the owners aren't discriminating on the basis of "behavior" at all -- for if they were, then they would prohibit all couples who plan on engaging in anal sex during their stay. I don't see how Christians could defend giving straight couples who engage in anal sex accommodation and denying it to gay couples who (a) engage in anal sex or (b) don't engage in anal sex.
I wrote a response to Overcame but it didn't go through. This is a test.
@ Overcame
"Starting with the premise that no religion objects to heterosexual sex in and of itself, then a prohibition on interracial sex cannot be a prohibition on the behavior (heterosexual sex), it can only be a racial discriminatory prohibition, invalid because it discriminates purely on race not on behavior."
But of course, your above starting premise isn't necessarily shared by believers who object to sexual activity between interracial couples. For such believers, any sexual activity between interracial couples is inherently objectionable, so I don't see how the discrimination wouldn't be on the basis of both race and behavior.
"Homosexuals can ONLY practice sodomy"
Homosexuals can engage in a wide range of sexual behavior -- not just anal sex. In fact, homosexuals don't have to engage in anal sex at all, and many do not.
"That's a big difference, and that's why the prohibition of the act, as distinguished from sex between opposite sex partners, is valid."
I don't see the difference or why the inference follows. The owners of the B & B appear to be making a number of unwarranted assumptions: (1) all gay couples who stay will engage in anal sex, and (2) all straight couples who stay will *not* engage in anal sex. Why do the owners assume that gay couples will engage in anal sex but straight couples will not?
Remember that the owners are supposed to be Christian, which means they're against anal sex whether it is practiced by homosexuals or heterosexuals. Yet, if they grant accommodation to heterosexuals who engage in anal sex (but not homosexuals), then they aren't discriminating on the basis of pure behavior, but solely on the basis of sexual orientation. The same is true if the owners deny accommodation to homosexuals who *don't* engage in anal sex.
So I'm unconvinced that the discrimination is really about prohibiting "the act," as you say. Tell me where my analysis goes wrong.
@ Overcame
"Starting with the premise that no religion objects to heterosexual sex in and of itself, then a prohibition on interracial sex cannot be a prohibition on the behavior (heterosexual sex), it can only be a racial discriminatory prohibition, invalid because it discriminates purely on race not on behavior."
But of course, your above starting premise isn't necessarily shared by believers who object to sexual activity between interracial couples. For such believers, any sexual activity between interracial couples is inherently objectionable, so I don't see how the discrimination wouldn't be on the basis of both race and behavior.
"Homosexuals can ONLY practice sodomy"
Homosexuals can engage in a wide range of sexual behavior -- not just anal sex. In fact, homosexuals don't have to engage in anal sex at all, and many do not.
"That's a big difference, and that's why the prohibition of the act, as distinguished from sex between opposite sex partners, is valid."
I don't see the difference or why the inference follows. The owners of the B & B appear to be making a number of unwarranted assumptions: (1) all gay couples who stay will engage in anal sex, and (2) all straight couples who stay will *not* engage in anal sex. Why do the owners assume that gay couples will engage in anal sex but straight couples will not?
Remember that the owners are supposed to be Christian, which means they're against anal sex whether it is practiced by homosexuals or heterosexuals. Yet, if they grant accommodation to heterosexuals who engage in anal sex (but not homosexuals), then they aren't discriminating on the basis of pure behavior, but solely on the basis of sexual orientation. The same is true if the owners deny accommodation to homosexuals who *don't* engage in anal sex.
So I'm unconvinced that the discrimination is really about prohibiting "the act," as you say. Tell me where my analysis goes wrong.
For some reason, my response to Overcame isn't going through.
I'll try to break up my response to Overcame into two parts.
Part I
"Starting with the premise that no religion objects to heterosexual sex in and of itself, then a prohibition on interracial sex cannot be a prohibition on the behavior (heterosexual sex), it can only be a racial discriminatory prohibition, invalid because it discriminates purely on race not on behavior."
But of course, your above starting premise isn't necessarily shared by believers who object to sexual activity between interracial couples. For such believers, any sexual activity between interracial couples is inherently objectionable, so I don't see how the discrimination wouldn't be on the basis of both race and behavior.
"Homosexuals can ONLY practice sodomy"
Homosexuals can engage in a wide range of sexual behavior -- not just anal sex. In fact, homosexuals don't have to engage in anal sex at all, and many do not.
Part II
@ Overcame
"That's a big difference, and that's why the prohibition of the act, as distinguished from sex between opposite sex partners, is valid."
I don't see the difference or why the inference follows. The owners of the B & B appear to be making a number of unwarranted assumptions: (1) all gay couples who stay will engage in anal sex, and (2) all straight couples who stay will *not* engage in anal sex. Why do the owners assume that gay couples will engage in anal sex but straight couples will not?
Remember that the owners are supposed to be Christian, which means they're against anal sex whether it is practiced by homosexuals or heterosexuals. Yet, if they grant accommodation to heterosexuals who engage in anal sex (but not homosexuals), then they aren't discriminating on the basis of pure behavior, but solely on the basis of sexual orientation. The same is true if the owners deny accommodation to homosexuals who *don't* engage in anal sex.
So I'm unconvinced that the discrimination is really about prohibiting "the act," as you say. Tell me where my analysis goes wrong.
Part II
"That's a big difference, and that's why the prohibition of the act, as distinguished from sex between opposite sex partners, is valid."
I don't see the difference or why the inference follows. The owners of the B & B appear to be making a number of unwarranted assumptions: (1) all gay couples who stay will engage in anal sex, and (2) all straight couples who stay will *not* engage in anal sex. Why do the owners assume that gay couples will engage in anal sex but straight couples will not?
Remember that the owners are supposed to be Christian, which means they're against anal sex whether it is practiced by homosexuals or heterosexuals. Yet, if they grant accommodation to heterosexuals who engage in anal sex (but not homosexuals), then they aren't discriminating on the basis of pure behavior, but solely on the basis of sexual orientation. The same is true if the owners deny accommodation to homosexuals who *don't* engage in anal sex.
So I'm unconvinced that the discrimination is really about prohibiting "the act," as you say. Tell me where my analysis goes wrong.
"That's a big difference, and that's why the prohibition of the act, as distinguished from sex between opposite sex partners, is valid."
I don't see the difference or why the inference follows. The owners of the B & B appear to be making a number of unwarranted assumptions: (1) all gay couples who stay will engage in anal sex, and (2) all straight couples who stay will *not* engage in anal sex. Why do the owners assume that gay couples will engage in anal sex but straight couples will not?
Remember that the owners are supposed to be Christian, which means they're against anal sex whether it is practiced by homosexuals or heterosexuals. Yet, if they grant accommodation to heterosexuals who engage in anal sex (but not homosexuals), then they aren't discriminating on the basis of pure behavior, but solely on the basis of sexual orientation. The same is true if the owners deny accommodation to homosexuals who *don't* engage in anal sex.
So I'm unconvinced that the discrimination is really about prohibiting "the act," as you say. Tell me where my analysis goes wrong.
Part II
"That's a big difference, and that's why the prohibition of the act, as distinguished from sex between opposite sex partners, is valid."
I don't see the difference or why the inference follows. The owners of the B & B appear to be making a number of unwarranted assumptions: (1) all gay couples who stay will engage in anal sex, and (2) all straight couples who stay will *not* engage in anal sex. Why do the owners assume that gay couples will engage in anal sex but straight couples will not?
"That's a big difference, and that's why the prohibition of the act, as distinguished from sex between opposite sex partners, is valid."
I don't see the difference or why the inference follows. The owners of the B & B appear to be making a number of unwarranted assumptions: (1) all gay couples who stay will engage in anal sex, and (2) all straight couples who stay will *not* engage in anal sex. Why do the owners assume that gay couples will engage in anal sex but straight couples will not?
Part II
The owners of the B & B appear to be making a number of unwarranted assumptions: (1) all gay couples who stay will engage in anal sex, and (2) all straight couples who stay will *not* engage in anal sex. Why do the owners assume that gay couples will engage in anal sex but straight couples will not?
Remember that the owners are supposed to be Christian, which means they're against anal sex whether it is practiced by homosexuals or heterosexuals. Yet, if they grant accommodation to heterosexuals who engage in anal sex (but not homosexuals), then they aren't discriminating on the basis of pure behavior, but solely on the basis of sexual orientation. The same is true if the owners deny accommodation to homosexuals who *don't* engage in anal sex.
Part II
The owners of the B & B appear to be making a number of unwarranted assumptions: (1) all gay couples who stay will engage in anal sex, and (2) all straight couples who stay will *not* engage in anal sex. Why do the owners assume that gay couples will engage in anal sex but straight couples will not?
I really don't understand why my post isn't going through.
Part II
"That's a big difference, and that's why the prohibition of the act, as distinguished from sex between opposite sex partners, is valid." I don't see the difference or why the inference follows. The owners of the B & B appear to be making a number of unwarranted assumptions: (1) all gay couples who stay will engage in anal sex, and (2) all straight couples who stay will *not* engage in anal sex. Why do the owners assume that gay couples will engage in anal sex but straight couples will not?
Remember that the owners are supposed to be Christian, which means they're against anal sex whether it is practiced by homosexuals or heterosexuals. Yet, if they grant accommodation to heterosexuals who engage in anal sex (but not homosexuals), then they aren't discriminating on the basis of pure behavior, but solely on the basis of sexual orientation. The same is true if the owners deny accommodation to homosexuals who *don't* engage in anal sex.
Spencer -
Let's try clearing up the interracial couple issues this way: If I'm ok with my daughter having sex with a white guy, but I am not ok with her having sex with a black guy, my issue is not with behavior it's with race. Does that clarify?
Sodomy is oral or anal sex, but you're missing the point. The point is that homosexuals cannot have reproductive sex; only heterosexuals can do that.
Part II
"That's a big difference, and that's why the prohibition of the act, as distinguished from sex between opposite sex partners, is valid."
"Treat race and sexual orientation equally when it comes to religious discrimination: if the owners cannot discriminate against interracial couples, even though accommodation would violate their religious beliefs, then they cannot discriminate against same-sex couples, even though accommodation would violate their religious beliefs. "Religious liberty" is thus given EQUAL level of deference in both cases."
In other words, all religious liberties are equally supressed based on made up religious convictions that don't even exist. Yeah, good luck convincing a court of that! ROTFLMAO!
Like I said: Stuck on stupid!
Part III
I don't see the difference or why the inference follows. The owners of the B & B appear to be making a number of unwarranted assumptions: (1) all gay couples who stay will engage in anal sex, and (2) all straight couples who stay will *not* engage in anal sex. Why do the owners assume that gay couples will engage in anal sex but straight couples will not?
Spencer -
This site has a way of holding up posts for no apparent reason; I've had posts sit for 24 hours then appear in the middle of the comment thread. I've never received a good explanation why.
Part III
The owners of the B & B appear to be making a number of unwarranted assumptions: (1) all gay couples who stay will engage in anal sex, and (2) all straight couples who stay will *not* engage in anal sex. Why do the owners assume that gay couples will engage in anal sex but straight couples will not?
@ Overcame,
I've tried about a dozen times to get the rest of my post through -- maybe it will appear later.
" If I'm ok with my daughter having sex with a white guy, but I am not ok with her having sex with a black guy, my issue is not with behavior it's with race. Does that clarify?"
No, because your objection has both a behavioral component and a racial component. Her having sex (behavior) with a black guy (racial).
"Sodomy is oral or anal sex, but you're missing the point. The point is that homosexuals cannot have reproductive sex; only heterosexuals can do that."
Remember, we're talking about places of public accommodation. The distinction between reproductive and non-reproductive sex may matter for purposes of religion, but it's unclear why that distinction should hold in the public sphere. In other words, I'm unclear as to why you think that distinction has any non-religious significance.
@ Leo
"Spencer, stop dodging my post @ 18...."
I believe my post 19 adequately responds to your post 18.
@ Son of Adam
"Like I said: Stuck on stupid!"
When I don't respond to your posts, you'll know why.
I'm going to try again. Part II
@ Overcame
"That's a big difference, and that's why the prohibition of the act, as distinguished from sex between opposite sex partners, is valid."
I don't see the difference or why the inference follows. The owners of the B & B appear to be making a number of unwarranted assumptions: (1) all gay couples who stay will engage in anal sex, and (2) all straight couples who stay will *not* engage in anal sex. Why do the owners assume that gay couples will engage in anal sex but straight couples will not?
Remember that the owners are supposed to be Christian, which means they're against anal sex whether it is practiced by homosexuals or heterosexuals. Yet, if they grant accommodation to heterosexuals who engage in anal sex (but not homosexuals), then they aren't discriminating on the basis of pure behavior, but solely on the basis of sexual orientation. The same is true if the owners deny accommodation to homosexuals who *don't* engage in anal sex.
@Son of Adam
"In other words, all religious liberties are equally supressed based on made up religious convictions that don't even exist."
Religious objection to interracial marriage / relationships, while apparently being used by Spencer mainly as a "placeholder" for a religious objection that is clearly irrational and, more importantly, illegal in a court of law, is not "made up".
Loving vs. Virginia, the court case that overturned Virginia's "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", and made legal interracial marriage across the United States. The Lovings original trial judge declared miscegenation legally and Biblically sound in the following proclamation:
"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
This is not a "made-up religious conviction", and in fact, there are still groups that hold this belief today. It doesn't made it right or legal.
@ Overcame,
Remember that the owners of the B & B are Christian, so presumably they're against anal sex whether practiced by homosexuals or heterosexuals. If so, it's puzzling why they would provide accommodation to heterosexuals who practice anal sex but not homosexuals.
I don't think the distinction between reproductive and non-reproductive sex helps justify the differential treatment. In both cases, the owners are against anal sex, but that behavior is tolerated when practiced by certain couples but not when practiced by others.
"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
"This is not a "made-up religious conviction", and in fact, there are still groups that hold this belief today. It doesn't made it right or legal."
Of course it's made up, Andy - unless you can point out to me where in the Bible the above quote can be found.
Marriage is about putting men and women together. - Not keeping the races apart. It is apples and oranges. And not all the false analogies you cling to will ever erase that obvious distinction.
"Remember that the owners of the B & B are Christian, so presumably they're against anal sex whether practiced by homosexuals or heterosexuals. If so, it's puzzling why they would provide accommodation to heterosexuals who practice anal sex but not homosexuals. "
How are they supposed to know, Spencer? LOL!
@ Son of Adam
"Of course it's made up, Andy - unless you can point out to me where in the Bible the above quote can be found."
You confuse a person's religious beliefs with whether or not those beliefs are correct or rational. Courts don't care about the latter.
"How are they supposed to know, Spencer? LOL!"
Indeed, how are they supposed to know? How are the owners supposed to know that the gay couple will engage in anal sex? If the owners object to accommodation because the gay couple will engage in anal sex, I would put that very question to them. Obviously they don't know, which suggests that the discrimination is based solely on sexual orientation rather than on behavior.
"You confuse a person's religious beliefs with whether or not those beliefs are correct or rational. Courts don't care about the latter."
Then they don't care about the 1st amendment either. Besides, most courts have ruled that marriage between a man and a woman is correct and rational as it coincides with biological laws.
"Indeed, how are they supposed to know? How are the owners supposed to know that the gay couple will engage in anal sex?"
Um...because it is biologically impossible for them to engage in coiuts. That combined with the fact that God had not designed the anus for sexual intercourse.
@ Son of Adam,
"Then they don't care about the 1st amendment either."
Actually, it's because courts refrain from deciding among religious beliefs that they are able to uphold the First Amendment.
"Besides, most courts have ruled that marriage between a man and a woman is correct and rational as it coincides with biological laws."
You seem to forget that we're not talking about marriage at all -- but about places of public accommodation being allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
"Um...because it is biologically impossible for them to engage in coiuts. That combined with the fact that God had not designed the anus for sexual intercourse."
You didn't read my question, which was: How are the owners supposed to know that the GAY COUPLE will engage in anal sex? If the owners object to accommodation because the gay couple will engage in anal sex, I would put that very question to them. Obviously they don't know, which suggests that the discrimination is based solely on sexual orientation rather than on behavior.
Spencer said:
@ Leo
"Spencer, stop dodging my post @ 18...."
I believe my post 19 adequately responds to your post 18.
I said @ 18:
Spencer,
1. I am not aware of any religious group or organization that is against or attempting to stop interracial coupling. Or, if I was aware of any, I have no knowledge that these groups have attempted and succeeded in creating public policy for their ideology, are you?
2. Likewise, I am not aware of any interracial coupling movement advocating for "special rights", " special legal considerations", trying to legally force others to think the way they do to make them feel go, do you? Can you say the same for SSM advocates?
Spencer, as part of my post @ 18, above, try again...
Also, your responses to SOA's, and Overcame's responses seems intelligent but neither one of them make any sense. You are dodging the essential points in their argument as you did in my post above.
"But this judgment isn't about the correctness of the religious belief that motivates the race-based discrimination; rather, it is a judgment that the discrimination is impermissible, whether or not the religious belief is correct."
A judgment of correctness is involved. By offering protected status, the state is essentially saying that this type of discrimination is wrong, and if your religion dictates that you do this, then your religion is wrong. The law makes moral judgements.
I hope I'm not misunderstanding your argument, but it sounds as if you changed a bit. At first (in comment #6) it seems that you were making the case that the type of discrimination is irrelevant (it doesn't matter why race and sexual orientation are different); what matters is that discrimination can't be religious based. You said that "all" violations of religious beliefs should be treated the same. Now it seems that you're saying the type of discrimination is important--i.e. if it's impermissible, it's impermissible.
"The problem arises when courts give deference to some religious beliefs and not others, in the context of establishments that are deemed to be places of public accommodation: that they cannot do."
Here's where I think our disagreement lies: When you see a court prohibit race discrimination and permit sexual orientation/behavior discrimination, you see it as giving deference to one religious belief over another, while I see it as giving deference to one category over another (race over sexual orientation).
So, the problem is not giving one religious belief privileges over another; the issue is giving one category special protections over another, which is what special protections are designed to do.
I would argue that the real problem arises when you elevate sexual orientation/behavior to the status of race--not when you allow religious objections to certain activities.
"If the B&B owners have valid *secular reasons* for discriminating against certain people (e.g., drunks), then my objection wouldn't apply."
So you are admitting that B&B owners couldn't reject customers for prostitution, etc., unless they had a valid secular reason. Forget drunks. A business owner couldn't ban someone carrying alcohol from their premises without a valid, secular reason. Religious objections would be prohibited in all cases.
It took a lot of arm twisting, but you finally answered that question!
"But I see no reason why, in the context of places of public accommodation, certain religious beliefs ought to be given more deference than others."
The idea is to let people run their businesses the way they want, but only interfere when they offend a protected category like race. Certain categories should be granted deference over others, and *that's* what determines which religious objections are permissible.
I know I put the word "all" in quotes, but here's Spencer's actual statement from comment #6:
"The better stance, consistent with "religious neutrality," is simply to be consistent: violations of religious beliefs should be treated the same."
Same thing, but I thought I should be clear and not put words in his mouth.
@ Leo,
I already addressed your two points in my post# 19.
Regarding your first point, it is irrelevant to the issue at hand. If the owners of the B & B cannot, *in principle,* religiously discriminate on the basis of race, then they shouldn't be able to religiously discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. I already explained why I think this symmetry holds. Are there people who are against interracial relationships for religious reasons? I'm sure there are.
Regarding your second point, it is also totally irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is the issue of places of public accommodation being allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. SSM (of which I'm an ardent supporter) has nothing to do this.
"Also, your responses to SOA's, and Overcame's responses seems intelligent but neither one of them make any sense"
So my responses "seem intelligent" to you but they don't "make any sense," which means they're not intelligent at all. Perhaps you could try supporting your opinion with something more than mere assertions.
@ Leo,
I posted a response but it's not showing up -- maybe it will later. In brief, your two points are irrelevant to the issue at hand.
"Actually, it's because courts refrain from deciding among religious beliefs that they are able to uphold the First Amendment."
Then how do you explain Snyder v. Phelps?
"You seem to forget that we're not talking about marriage at all -- but about places of public accommodation being allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. "
A situation made possible by the legalization of SS"M" which creates a legal atmosphere in which religious convictions concerning sexual relationships between men and women are equated with racism.
"Obviously they don't know, which suggests that the discrimination is based solely on sexual orientation rather than on behavior."
Sexual orientation guides behavior. They are closely associated with each other. And those B&B owners shouldn't be coerced by the government to support or accomodate either of them.
Ash don't take this badly, but you are misunderstanding the argument so far... As part of a public debate, the debate is not about what some judge did but what a judge should have done.. and what the laws should be. Goverment make stupid laws all the time against the well of the people, and that are illogical. Legalization of SSM in NY was do to currupt politians, big money and bribery tatics, not because lawmakers felt it was morally right, which should have been the motivation. You say how do I know this? Well if it matters to you, I have been a NOM supporter for 3 1/2 years know, and I can read; as a source of reference, checkout NOM's archives on the subject.
Spencer
Posted July 23, 2012 at 7:26 pm | Permalink
@ Leo,
I posted a response but it's not showing up -- maybe it will later. In brief, your two points are irrelevant to the issue at hand.
I responded to your post when you bagged me to, but you can't response to mine because you thank it is irrelevant. I'm not a bit surprise, typical response from your side.
Leo, I do think several debates are going on at once. And I should note that I don't think laws granting special protections for sexual orientation are good.
But I wasn't involved in a debate on that matter. I was discussing with Spencer his argument about religious-based reasons for discrimination. The nature of that discussion didn't really revolve around whether sexual orientation protections are a good thing.
@ Ash,
"A judgment of correctness is involved. By offering protected status, the state is essentially saying that this type of discrimination is wrong, and if your religion dictates that you do this, then your religion is wrong. The law makes moral judgements."
No, the law is saying that this type of discrimination is illegal -- regardless of whether it's wrong from a religious pov. And it's not that religious beliefs are wrong, but that judgments about the truth or falsity of those beliefs cannot factor into a court's reasoning (either implicitly or explicitly).
"You said that "all" violations of religious beliefs should be treated the same."
Regarding places of public accommodation, yes.
"Now it seems that you're saying the type of discrimination is important--i.e. if it's impermissible, it's impermissible."
No. In places of public accommodation, the permissibility of the discrimination depends whether there is a valid secular justification for it.
"When you see a court prohibit race discrimination and permit sexual orientation/behavior discrimination, you see it as giving deference to one religious belief over another, while I see it as giving deference to one category over another (race over sexual orientation).
"
I don't see much of a distinction between the two. If religiously motivated discrimination is impermissible when we're dealing with the category of race and not sexual orientation, then religious beliefs that discriminate on the basis of race are given *less* deference than religious beliefs that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
"So, the problem is not giving one religious belief privileges over another; the issue is giving one category special protections over another, which is what special protections are designed to do. "
Giving one category special protections necessarily means that some religious beliefs will be more privileged than others - namely, the ones that discriminate in other categories.
"So you are admitting that B&B owners couldn't reject customers for prostitution, etc., unless they had a valid secular reason. "
Yes, in places of public accommodation.
"Certain categories should be granted deference over others, and *that's* what determines which religious objections are permissible."
Determining that certain categories are granted deference over others necessarily involves determining that certain religious beliefs are entitled to more deference than others.
"No, the law is saying that this type of discrimination is illegal --regardless of whether it's wrong from a religious pov."
Exactly. The law sees this certain type as so egregious that it can't permit conscience based discrimination. The law surely didn't single out this type of discrimination for special prohibition because it is a good and right discrimination. The law views it as wrong. That's a morality judgement.
"And it's not that religious beliefs are wrong, but that judgments about the truth or falsity of those beliefs cannot factor into a court's reasoning (either implicitly or explicitly)."
The court's reasoning is to allow people to choose who they so business with unless a denial of service crosses a protected category. If it does not, a person can do what they want, and yes, even if it's based on their religious beliefs.
"Regarding places of public accommodation, yes."
I'm not sure why protected classes are necessary if all religious violations are treated the same. If prostitutes and interracial couples are treated the same because they both (might) violate a religious belief in a place of public accommodation, then there is no reason to grant protected status to certain groups.
"No. In places of public accommodation, the permissibility of the discrimination depends whether there is a valid secular justification for it."
Actually, it depends on whether a protected category is victimized.
"I don't see much of a distinction between the two. If religiously motivated discrimination is impermissible when we're dealing with the category of race and not sexual orientation, then religious beliefs that discriminate on the basis of race are given *less* deference than religious beliefs that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation."
Those beliefs are given less deference only because the race category is privileged and given special protection. There are many religious beliefs, but limited and fixed protected categories. So I think it's a little awkward to hinge the entire rationale on whether each and every religious belief is being treated fairly and given equal deference. The emphasis should be what categories merit special protection over all others.
"Giving one category special protections necessarily means that some religious beliefs will be more privileged than others -namely, the ones that discriminate in other categories."
It sounds like you're arguing against the establishment of protected categories for the sake of treating all religious beliefs equally. Or, you could just be making an observation. The former sounds more likely since your position is that it is a problem for religious beliefs to be treated differently.
"Yes, in places of public accommodation." [In reference to prostitution question]
Highly unlikely. Public accomodation requirements apply to specific categories, and prostitutes are not one of them.
"Determining that certain categories are granted deference over others necessarily involves determining that certain religious beliefs are entitled to more deference than others."
Yep. That's the idea: some discrimination is so morally repugnant and impermissible, that religious beliefs that lead to discrimination against certain categories are wrong, and the discrimination is unjustifiable.
Spencer, my response is in the filter. It should be posted soon. But then again, I said that about the last filtered comment. Maybe tomorrow is my lucky day for both.
"Determining that certain categories are granted deference over others necessarily involves determining that certain religious beliefs are entitled to more deference than others."
No, it doesn't. The courts use "strict scrutiny" in judicial review when fundamental rights or suspect classification is involved.
Race and ethnicity meet the qualifications for strict scrutiny. Sexual orientation does not.
@ Ash & Spencer
I think you may be talking past each other, let's see if this helps:
1. When a state prohibits something (eg. a certain type of discrimination), it says nothing about the truth or falsity of any religious beliefs. But it does declare the discrimination to be against public norms. By extension, it implies that any religion that would dictate the discrimination is incompatible with public norms. In this sense, it does say that the discrimination is "wrong" (improper - not "false") and I agree with Ash if that's what s/he meant.
2. Deference to category vs. deference to religious beliefs: that depends on the hypothetical laws you're discussing. If the law says, "You cannot discriminate against A. You can discriminate against B," then I agree with Ash: the law simply protects A more it protects B. On the other hand, if the law said, "You cannot discriminate against A for any reason. You cannot discriminate against B unless your religion says you should," then I agree with Spencer: the law would be making distinctions both among categories and among religious beliefs.
I should add that I don't see any difference between the category of race and the category of sexual orientation when it comes to discrimination: discrimination on either basis is equally invidious, in my view.
A real shame they lost their case. Truth was clearly on their side, but we live in a fallen world. However, when someone says, "How will 'gay' marriage affect you?" We can point this case out and say, "And thus we see...."
Spencer said:
Posted July 23, 2012 at 10:03 pm | Permalink
I should add that I don't see any difference between the category of race and the category of sexual orientation when it comes to discrimination: discrimination on either basis is equally invidious, in my view.
Spencer I think you are showing your true colors every time you post here...call me crazy, but I am under the impression that you may be a racist due to comments like the one above and others you've made.. a wolf in sheep clothing making subtle gesture. In an odd way, I'm not trying to be insulting, just keeping it real... Or are you truly ignorant to your own outrageous statements..? I also think you are ashamed and angry about something; you are either the victim of something that happen in your past, or present. Or, you are playing the victim. And despite what may seem obvious, I feel you are of two minds when it comes to homosexuality. I'm going all out on this one without even knowing who you are, but I have full confidence in my intuition. In any event, if I am right, you should seek help, to get you to release what is disturbing you inside.
@ Leo
"I am under the impression that you may be a racist due to comments like the one above"
Guess there's no fooling you, is there? I thought I was being subtle too when I indicated that I thought raced-based discrimination and sexual orientation-based discrimination are equally wrong.
And please don't take the following as an insult (just trying to keep it real): I am under the impression that you may be an idiot due to comments like the one above.
@ Daughter of Eve
"However, when someone says, "How will 'gay' marriage affect you?" We can point this case out"
But this case has nothing whatsoever to do with gay marriage.
Spencer -
I want to get back to your hypothetical on the interracial couple, whom I believe should not be denied a room because the denial could only be based on race not behavior....
Although there is ostensibly both a behavioral and race component, the behavioral component as a decisive factor is nullified by the fact that the couple is heterosexual and likely to engage in coitus.
You asked: "Why do the owners assume that gay couples will engage in anal sex but straight couples will not?"
And the answer is, that the owner should be permitted to draw his own conclusions as to what kind of conduct is going to take place in his facility in order to protect his religious practice. A gay couple is definitely not going to engage in coitus; a heterosexual couple is likely going to engage in coitus. A man who walks in with a sleezy-dressed woman whom the owner has seen on a street corner can be assumed by the owner to have the intention of engaging in illicit activity, and the owner can rightly deny a room to them.
The kind of sex that might take place in the room is relevant to the religious beliefs of the owner and is therefore relevant to whether the owner must rent a room or not.
"Remember that the owners of the B & B are Christian, so presumably they're against anal sex whether practiced by homosexuals or heterosexuals. If so, it's puzzling why they would provide accommodation to heterosexuals who practice anal sex but not homosexuals."
Dear God.... I can't imagine why they closed their business down....
Spencer said :
Posted July 23, 2012 at 7:23 pm | Permalink
@ Leo,
"I already addressed your two points in my post# 19.
Regarding your first point, it is irrelevant to the issue at hand. If the owners of the B & B cannot, *in principle,* religiously discriminate on the basis of race, then they shouldn't be able to religiously discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. I already explained why I think this symmetry holds. Are there people who are against interracial relationships for religious reasons? I'm sure there are.
Regarding your second point, it is also totally irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is the issue of places of public accommodation being allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. SSM (of which I'm an ardent supporter) has nothing to do this.
"Also, your responses to SOA's, and Overcame's responses seems intelligent but neither one of them make any sense"
So my responses "seem intelligent" to you but they don't "make any sense," which means they're not intelligent at all. Perhaps you could try supporting your opinion with something more than mere assertions."
I know don't thank my question to you is relevant to the discussion hear, allow me be the judge of that. Are that disperate you need to try this hard to defend your positon, or are you open to reasoning and common sense? Why don't you try answer my questions to you with a YES or NO, or with an explanation response. Stating my questions are not relevant dodges an answer for lack but the want of an argument against...
My questions to Spencer:
I said @ 18:
Spencer,
1. I am not aware of any religious group or organization that is against or attempting to stop interracial coupling. Or, if I was aware of any, I have no knowledge that these groups have attempted and succeeded in creating public policy for their ideology, are you?
2. Likewise, I am not aware of any interracial coupling movement advocating for "special rights", " special legal considerations", trying to legally force others to think the way they do to make them feel go, do you?
3.Can you say the same for SSM advocates?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
These posts below by Spencer and myself lead to the above posts:
My response to Spence @ 7:
LEO
Posted July 23, 2012 at 2:45 pm | Permalink
Spencer,
I am not aware of any religious group or organization that is against or attempting to stop interracial coupling. Or, if I was aware of any, I have no knowledge that these groups have attempted and succeeded in creating public policy for their ideology, are you? Likewise, I am not aware of any interracial coupling movement advocating for "special rights", " special legal considerations", trying to legally force others to think the way they do to make them feel go, do you? Can you say the same for SSM advocates?
I personally would not condone such practice and or behavior on both sides of the issue. I think most if not all religious groups, believe in the betterment of society in general, and their principles are not only rooted in nature but also in the laws of the land.
The bottom line to your query: what is morally right and wrong? What will hurt our Nation and what will contribute to it? Same sex sexual advocates cannot as an issue in nature and morality, defend or insinuate that, homosexual behavior in all its forms, is or has been beneficial to society in any way.
Interracial relationships do not hinder or hurt others, it is rooted in nature; whereas, the other topic is just the opposite. IT IS OK TO DISCRIMINATE FROM WHAT IS GOOD, AND BAD...DISCRIMINATION IS PART OF NATURE.
________________________________________
Spencer said @ 7:
I'm actually waiting for someone to make the "race is different than homosexuality" dodge, because that would expose a deep problem in the thinking marriage equality opponents.
Suppose a person answers 'no' to my hypothetical -- the owners could not discriminate against the interracial couple. Although religious discrimination based on sexual orientation should be tolerated, religious discrimination based on race should not be. But what is the distinction between the two? Why should religious liberty trump in one case and not the other?
@Stew, thanks. Your comment #83 was helpful in clarifying the discussion, and you did a good job representing my thoughts.
leehawk did you said this? Whomever said this, how do they know that heterosexuals practice sodomy and at what rate? Is there a study out there establishing a " statistic"? If so, could that person provide a link to this information? Good Luck! Or has this person experience first hand several cases to make it an issue for a blog conversattion?
"Remember that the owners of the B & B are Christian, so presumably they're against anal sex whether practiced by homosexuals or heterosexuals. If so, it's puzzling why they would provide accommodation to heterosexuals who practice anal sex but not homosexuals."
Ash
I thought Stew's comment was helpful as well, although I would change his "Deference to category vs. deference to religious beliefs." to deference to catagory vs deference to fundemental rights.
Fundamental rights receive the same level of judicial scrutiny as suspect classification.
For example: if a woman sues Augusta National for discrimination the counter claim would be that, as a private organization, Augusta National has a 1st amendment right to freedom of association and can set the rules of membership.
If a court determines Augusta National has that right, then it has affirmed the importance of a fundamental right, not whether all male membership is a good thing.
Spencer,
The supremacy of identity politics is immoral and has been repudiated with the dismantling of the system that entrenched such supremacy.
Why would gay identity politics differ from white identity politics when it comes to declaring its supremacy over freedom of conscience?
___
By the way, please explain the difference, in your view, of noting that a fellow commenter's remarks are stuck on stupid (to which you objected) and telling fellow commenters that their responses were unintelligent (as you did in the same breath).
Thanks.
Spencer said:
"If religious discrimination on the basis of race is forbidden, then religious discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation ought to be forbidden as well."
What is the basis for the prohibition on discrimination on the basis of race? Please state your own understanding of lawmaking on this part of your proposal.
What is the basis for the prohibition on discrimination on the basis of sexual orientationi? Please state your understanding on this part of your proposal.
Note that same-sex sexual behavior is at issue. If you would associate, in the law, same-sex sexual behavior with same-sex sexual attraction, please explain.
If, on the other hand, you are relying on gay identity rather than feelings or behavior, then, please return to the basis for your hypothetical.
Readers will note the absurd twist presented in Spencer's comments.
The complaint is not from a lone individual who had perceived discrimination based on sexual orientation. A lone individual did not demand a bed in the the house. A twosome did.
The complaint is from a twosome who now seeks to force the proprietor of a B & B to treat the twosome as a sexualized twosome of the same sex. And to force the proprietor to do so in his own home against his conscience.
The same-sex twosome provoked the conflict; not the proprietor of the B & B. They want the government to make an example for all others to learn from. It is a lesson in coercion, not freedom.
Consider the absurdity raised by Spencer's remarks -- the absurdity of a same-sex twosome seeking to resolve an obvious conscience conflict by drawing on the government to punish the proprietor (perhaps even having the license revoked) based on the sexualized assumptions that they themselves have made about themselves in their own complaint.
The twosome, based on their own same-sex sexual emphasis, have complained. The government, if it acted in agreement with their complaint, would act on that basis. Is the sexualized emphasis asexual, according to Spencer's own view?
Perhaps the twosome assumed too much about themselves, as Spencer's remarks upthread would have it by direct implication. And, thus, perhaps their complaint is merely a nuissance complaint afterall.
Yet Spencer's remarks depend on treating as valid the sexualized basis of the twosome's own complaint.
Indeed, that is Spencer's own reading of the notion of discrimination in this instance.
If that is the way the government would respond to the complaint, then, the absurd twist is not a product of Spencer, per se, but of the sexualized emphasis that is embedded (no pun intended) in the law that is supposedly supreme over freedom of conscience.
I responded to what you said here:
Spencer said:
Posted July 23, 2012 at 10:03 pm | Permalink
I should add that I don't see any difference between the category of race and the category of sexual orientation when it comes to discrimination: discrimination on either basis is equally invidious, in my view.
This is now your response to the statement you made above:
@ Leo
((("I am under the impression that you may be a racist due to comments like the one above"
Guess there's no fooling you, is there? I thought I was being subtle too when I indicated that I thought raced-based discrimination and sexual orientation-based discrimination are equally wrong.
And please don't take the following as an insult (just trying to keep it real): I am under the impression that you may be an idiot due to comments like the one above.)))
IMPLYING, interracial relationships is just as degrading as homosexuality, which would be a belief based on race. Finding me a post where someone agreed or know of a regilious group which discriminated against race or interracial couples? YOU CAN"T! To my knowledge you are the only blogger who brought up race and interracial relationship topic. Insinuating ones pleasure and behvior in SSRs holds equal grounds as interacial relations which is a non-issue in regards to the article blog, is a concept based in bigotry. Moreover, you failed to mention any religious organization you know to discriminate on the basis of race. Your hypothesis on the subject is immaterial since it is a non-issue, yet you wanted it to be based on most of your messages on this feed, in the attempt to defend a disease (SSSRS) that is not worthy of a defense. Interracial relationships have never be labeled as a mental disorder in comparison with same sex sexual orientation... Stop with the Apples and Oranges comparisons, it doesn't boost or sell your argument on the issue.
I've a comment in the que.