McCulloch wrote:
Always one to get us thinking, [url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=537955#537955]dianaiad[/url] wrote:
Churches should be allowed to 'discriminate' on their own property and according to their own doctrines. You and I might not agree with those doctrines, but (and I keep repeating this but nobody is paying attention) the first amendment was not written to protect those with whom we agree. It was written to protect those with whose opinions and beliefs we do NOT agree.
For instance: what's the difference between forcing the Methodists to allow gay weddings to occur on their property....and, say, forcing a Catholic priest to allow a divorced Baptist to get married in his chapel? Or forcing the Mormons to allow a couple of atheists to marry in one of their Temples? Or forcing an atheist to allow his neighbors to pray to Mecca on his front lawn?
For that matter... what's the difference between forcing the Methodists to allow a gay wedding on their property, and forcing a kosher deli to sell ham sandwiches, I mean, they sell every OTHER sort of sandwich, right, and isn't the reason they refuse to have ham on the premises religious discrimination?
The first amendment...the FIRST TWO PROVISIONS of the first amendment, provide that the government can't establish a state religion and that it cannot interfere with the right to practice that religion. There isn't anything there about "unless that religion is politically incorrect." Third on the list is 'freedom of speech.'
Forcing a church, or a business, or a person, to violate his or her religious doctrine in order to cater to someone ELSE'S religious opinion is doing exactly that: establishing a state religion AND interfering with the right to practice one's own.
It doesn't matter whether you think the religion involved is nutty.
It doesn't matter whether you are ethically or morally appalled by it's practices and beliefs.
YOUR ability to believe (or not) and practice those beliefs (or not) depends utterly upon THEIR being able to do so, with theirs.
This got me wondering. Can freedom of religion be absolute? What limits (if any) should be placed on the freedom of religion? Who gets to decide what is or is not a religious practice?
If my religion involved temple prostitutes, hallucinogenic drugs, carrying concealed weapons or spitting on the sidewalk, should I be allowed to practice it? Should churches be exempt from human rights legislation and property taxes, but not exempt from the criminal code and building regulations? Why the distinction?
Well, since I'm the gal whose post prompted this discussion, I suppose it's OK for me to respond here.
It's about...consent, I think. Religious freedom should be limited only by consent. For instance, if someone freely consents to abide by the doctrine and provisions of any religion, it's nobody else's business WHAT they do. If there is a chance that one's beliefs can cause physical (and note that...PHYSICAL...as in 'danger to life and limb) to someone who has not given consent, then that's where the line needs to be drawn. That would include Temple prostitutes and halacunogenic drugs (as long as everybody involved knows the dangers and the 'druggie' isn't allowed to go free among non-members, where their diminished capacity can cause harm). I don't like either one, but then it's not my religion, is it?
As for concealed weapons...sure. As long as those concealed weapons are not used in an unlawful way to take someone else's consent away.
Spitting on the sidewalk? Gross...but what the heck; I'll just wear shoes. The line is drawn when they spit on my shoes, though: and that's the point.
The reason the USA does not tax churches is pretty simple; control. The ability to tax IS the ability to control. Taxes are used, not simply to gain revenue, but to control behavior. We see this when w look at cigarette and gasoline taxes; raising taxes discourages the behavior, giving tax breaks encourage it; choosing what things to tax--or not--indicates the behavior the government is interested in controling/changing. ANY taxation of churches would, then, mean 'establishing a religion,' or 'abridging the free exercise thereof." Please excuse my US-centric view here, but hey. I am concerned about freedom in the USA. I don't have any say, or any business, in the freedoms given by any other nation.
True separation of church and state doesn't
only mean that churches cannot, as institutions, interfere with the government. It also means that the state cannot have any say in what churches believe, teach or do. Right now it seems most clear to me that those who claim to want separation of church and state are forgetting that part; they are all for getting religion out of the government, but they have no problems at all with allowing the government to dictate to religion.
This means that religion...and religious people...MUST be allowed to be as nutty, discriminatory and idiotic as they want to be, as long as it doesn't force others to be nutty, discriminatory and idiotic right along with them.
It means that the Orthodox Jew who wants to sell kosher meat in his shop can refuse to sell pork products....even if there is no other butcher shop in town. It means that if the Methodists own a seaside retreat that they allow heterosexual wedding receptions in, that they can refuse homosexual wedding receptions. It means that the gay photographer in San Francisco who blatantly states on his website that he shoots only gay weddings
because of his religious beliefs can tell Steve and Molly to hire someone else--even if there isn't anybody else.
It means that Martha cannot force Mary to sell something, or provide a service for Martha that violates Mary's religious beliefs simply because Martha disagrees with them. Even if Martha has to go somewhere far away to get that product or service, or go without 'em altogether.
The only caveat to that is that if Martha sues, Mary has to show that this discrimination really IS about religion. That is, it is the service or product that is the problem, not that Mary simply doesn't like Martha.
the line stops at the nose BOTH ways. I should not be able to force you to abide by my beliefs, and you should not be able to force me to abide by yours.
As for 'criminal code and building violations..." When a government makes a religious doctrine that harms no-one but the believer a criminal offence, then there is something very wrong with the law.
Building code violations are a bit different here. If the church can guarantee that nobody will enter a building that violates those codes who doesn't know that the building violates them, and the violations are religious (candles in the chapel, for instance?) and there is danger to nobody but those who are well aware of the violation AND the purpose...
Then the government should keep its nose out.
Mind you, no insurance company should be compelled to provide coverage for such a structure.
As well, that 'allow nobody in who is not aware of the violation, the risks and agrees with it" would eliminate children and non-member construction/repair people, so that might be a problem.
Recently the Mormons had a problem with Boston; they wanted to build a Temple there...and the outcry was astounding. Building regulations were used as a deliberate method of discrimination, and it took several lawsuits to get the Temple built. Of course, as has happened with pretty much every Temple, the neighborhood took a huge swing UP, becoming safer, prettier, and the property values went up.
When building and safety regulations are about SAFETY...fine. When they are about something else?
That's a problem.
Sorry about the ramble, but the upshot is this:
A person's belief about deity (or lack of same) is sacrosanct. Word use deliberate.
In other words: you can picket the Salt Lake City Temple and use the most insulting and irritating signs and messages you want. You can't block the entrance.
You can tell a religion that whatever they build has to be as physically safe for visitors as any other building in the city. You can't tell a religion that it can't build 'there' because the neighbors object.
You can issue all the legal and civil rights ; that's government. You must not force anyone to sell products that violate their doctrines, provide services that violate their doctrines, or do anything ELSE that violates their doctrines simply because you don't like those doctrines.
Personally, I am utterly against anti-discrimination laws applied to private businesses. In fact, I'm becoming more and more libertarian every day. If a photographer refuses to photograph blue-eyed red heads, then she should have the right to refuse to photograph blue eyed red heads. If she will only photograph weddings between virgins, she should have the right to do so. She won't get much work, but that's beside the point.
