The decline of nominal and sacral Christianity in America

[Ken]

I think we will just have to agree to disagree. In general I support a much more expansive right to conscience or conscientious objection when doing so doesn't directly conflict with the rights of others. For example, conscientious objection to serving in the military doesn't directly violate anyone else's rights. I hold a much less expansive view when conscientious objection is used as an excuse or reason to discriminate against or violate the rights of others. And I think we are treading down a perilous path if we try to distinguish between what you might think are legitimate religious objections (anti-LGBT) and illegitimate religious objections (racism).

It appears to me, though, that you are already treading that exact (perilous, if you will) path already. You are in fact distinguishing between what you think are legitimate objections and illegitimate objections when you decide that it is OK to discriminate against racists, murderers, and anti-government rebels.

And yes. Look up the dictionary definition of "bigotry." It does indeed apply here. The term is expansive and applies to all forms of intolerance, not just those that are based on race.

I am very well aware of the definition of "bigotry," thank you very much. I don't agree that the refusal to intentionally sell one's goods in support of the celebration of sin is bigotry.

Bigotry - obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction; in particular, prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group

In order for a particular form of intolerance to qualify as bigotry it has to be obstinate or unreasonable. I don't think that we have any evidence that obstinate or unreasonable accurately describe Jack Philips interaction with his would-be customers.

I'm not interested in judging the particular merits of different claims of conscience. Which are valid and which are not. Whether it is religiously valid to discriminate against LGBT people but not people of color, for example. My distinction is between claims of conscience that do not directly affect others, and claims of conscience that infringe on the rights of others. Especially when one person is in a position of power over the other.

I do not think there is or should be any universal religious right to discriminate against others in public settings and public institutions. Whether they are LGBT or Black or women or simply people of other faiths. Within private religious circles it is entirely different. For example, I don't think it is the place of the government to regulate whether the Catholic church should ordain women or married men. Or whether there should be religious tests to become an ordained priest. But I do think it is the role of the government to regulate hiring practices at Catholic hospitals that receive public funding and subsidies on the grounds that they are serving a public purpose.

[ken_sylvania]

I think we will just have to agree to disagree. In general I support a much more expansive right to conscience or conscientious objection when doing so doesn't directly conflict with the rights of others. For example, conscientious objection to serving in the military doesn't directly violate anyone else's rights. I hold a much less expansive view when conscientious objection is used as an excuse or reason to discriminate against or violate the rights of others. And I think we are treading down a perilous path if we try to distinguish between what you might think are legitimate religious objections (anti-LGBT) and illegitimate religious objections (racism).

It appears to me, though, that you are already treading that exact (perilous, if you will) path already. You are in fact distinguishing between what you think are legitimate objections and illegitimate objections when you decide that it is OK to discriminate against racists, murderers, and anti-government rebels.

And yes. Look up the dictionary definition of "bigotry." It does indeed apply here. The term is expansive and applies to all forms of intolerance, not just those that are based on race.

I am very well aware of the definition of "bigotry," thank you very much. I don't agree that the refusal to intentionally sell one's goods in support of the celebration of sin is bigotry.

Bigotry - obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction; in particular, prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group

In order for a particular form of intolerance to qualify as bigotry it has to be obstinate or unreasonable. I don't think that we have any evidence that obstinate or unreasonable accurately describe Jack Philips interaction with his would-be customers.

I'm not interested in judging the particular merits of different claims of conscience. Which are valid and which are not. Whether it is religiously valid to discriminate against LGBT people but not people of color, for example. My distinction is between claims of conscience that do not directly affect others, and claims of conscience that infringe on the rights of others. Especially when one person is in a position of power over the other.

I do not think there is or should be any universal religious right to discriminate against others in public settings and public institutions. Whether they are LGBT or Black or women or simply people of other faiths. Within private religious circles it is entirely different. For example, I don't think it is the place of the government to regulate whether the Catholic church should ordain women or married men. Or whether there should be religious tests to become an ordained priest. But I do think it is the role of the government to regulate hiring practices at Catholic hospitals that receive public funding and subsidies on the grounds that they are serving a public purpose.

The refusal to have any parts with participating in a sinful "wedding" is not discrimination against anyone because they are LGBT. It is discrimination against sin, and a refusal to "touch the unclean thing (gay marriage), which is entirely Biblical. True Christianity does not look to society to set its moral code, but rather to God and His Word. God and His Word are quite clear about whether gay marriage is sin.

[Ken]

It appears to me, though, that you are already treading that exact (perilous, if you will) path already. You are in fact distinguishing between what you think are legitimate objections and illegitimate objections when you decide that it is OK to discriminate against racists, murderers, and anti-government rebels.


I am very well aware of the definition of "bigotry," thank you very much. I don't agree that the refusal to intentionally sell one's goods in support of the celebration of sin is bigotry.

Bigotry - obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction; in particular, prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group

In order for a particular form of intolerance to qualify as bigotry it has to be obstinate or unreasonable. I don't think that we have any evidence that obstinate or unreasonable accurately describe Jack Philips interaction with his would-be customers.

I'm not interested in judging the particular merits of different claims of conscience. Which are valid and which are not. Whether it is religiously valid to discriminate against LGBT people but not people of color, for example. My distinction is between claims of conscience that do not directly affect others, and claims of conscience that infringe on the rights of others. Especially when one person is in a position of power over the other.

I do not think there is or should be any universal religious right to discriminate against others in public settings and public institutions. Whether they are LGBT or Black or women or simply people of other faiths. Within private religious circles it is entirely different. For example, I don't think it is the place of the government to regulate whether the Catholic church should ordain women or married men. Or whether there should be religious tests to become an ordained priest. But I do think it is the role of the government to regulate hiring practices at Catholic hospitals that receive public funding and subsidies on the grounds that they are serving a public purpose.

The refusal to have any parts with participating in a sinful "wedding" is not discrimination against anyone because they are LGBT. It is discrimination against sin, and a refusal to "touch the unclean thing (gay marriage), which is entirely Biblical. True Christianity does not look to society to set its moral code, but rather to God and His Word. God and His Word are quite clear about whether gay marriage is sin.

I'm way past the wedding cake bakery topic.

I'm talking about employers who, for example, fire employees that they discover are gay. Catholic schools do this all the time and it is permissible because they are religious schools and write anti-gay provisions and conduct requirements into their employee contracts. And that is mostly an internal Catholic issue between conservative Catholic school administrators and liberal Catholic school employees because part of the duty of teachers at Catholic schools is to teach Catholic dogma.

Were a Catholic hospital to do the same, I would find it problematic. Working as a nurse or X-ray technician or clerk at a Catholic hospital that serves the entire public in a region (not just Catholic parents or patients), it is unclear what if anything, the faith or outside of work lifestyle of the employee is the business of the employer. They aren't teaching Catholic dogma to Catholic school kids. This is especially the case in the real world where hospitals often change hands and Catholic corporations have been on a giant buying spree the past decade acquiring hospitals and clinics that were formerly not Catholic. There may not be another hospital within 100 miles in any direction and both patients and employees may have no choice but to use the Catholic hospital, which in these cases usually receives massive subsidies in exchange for operating in a quasi-public manner for the benefit of the entire public in the region.

Catholic hospitals haven't been imposing religious standards on their employees or purging their ranks of gay employees because it is currently completely illegal for them to do so. The law currently distinguishes between employees who have a religious role and duty like Catholic school teachers, and those who do not like nurses and doctors at a Catholic hospital. But this thread (or the other thread actually) is talking about EXPANDING the rights of persons and employees to take discriminatory actions based on conscience.

[Josh]

I used to work at a Catholic school, and no employees were fired for being gay.

Quite to the contrary, they participated in PRIDE, had on-campus LGBT organisations for both staff and students plus allyship organisations. I used to have a rainbow ally card pinned to my cubicle wall:



Your concerns about Catholic schools or hospitals firing gay employees are entirely unfounded. Can you point to any examples of someone being fired for being gay at a Catholic hospital chain?

[Ken]

I used to work at a Catholic school, and no employees were fired for being gay.

Quite to the contrary, they participated in PRIDE, had on-campus LGBT organisations for both staff and students plus allyship organisations. I used to have a rainbow ally card pinned to my cubicle wall:

Your concerns about Catholic schools or hospitals firing gay employees are entirely unfounded. Can you point to any examples of someone being fired for being gay at a Catholic hospital chain?

I said that Catholic schools were doing it not hospitals. You can google up dozens of cases if you cared to. For example:

https://www.ncronline.org/news/people/w ... one-refuse

There is discussion here on this thread (and the other one about conscience objection) about the need for an EXPANDED ability for individuals and employers to make these sorts of decisions based on "religious conscience". What I am objecting to is an expansion of the law that would allow institutions like Catholic hospitals to fire employees for being gay (or for any other religious reason) when the sexuality or religious faith of the employee is of no business to the employer.

Here is an example of a Catholic nursing home director who was fired for a gay marriage: https://www.newwaysministry.org/2015/10 ... y-married/

And here is a very long list of people who have been fired from various Catholic schools and universities for being gay, or even for the crime (or sin) of simply supporting LGBT rights: https://www.newwaysministry.org/issues/ ... -disputes/

[Josh]

There is discussion here on this thread (and the other one about conscience objection) about the need for an EXPANDED ability for individuals and employers to make these sorts of decisions based on "religious conscience". What I am objecting to is an expansion of the law that would allow institutions like Catholic hospitals to fire employees for being gay (or for any other religious reason) when the sexuality or religious faith of the employee is of no business to the employer.

Where do you get your idea that the "sexuality" of an employee is of no business to the employer?

Over in the CAM thread, it's become quite apparent that, actually, the sexuality of one's employees is very important to understand and monitor.

[Ken]

There is discussion here on this thread (and the other one about conscience objection) about the need for an EXPANDED ability for individuals and employers to make these sorts of decisions based on "religious conscience". What I am objecting to is an expansion of the law that would allow institutions like Catholic hospitals to fire employees for being gay (or for any other religious reason) when the sexuality or religious faith of the employee is of no business to the employer.

Where do you get your idea that the "sexuality" of an employee is of no business to the employer?

Over in the CAM thread, it's become quite apparent that, actually, the sexuality of one's employees is very important to understand and monitor.

Gay folks are no more likely to commit abuse than straight folks: https://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/ ... ation.html

Most of the child molesters in the CA churches are, in fact, straight and many are married. So in terms of percentages, it is probably the married straight men who merit the most monitoring.

[Soloist]

Gay folks are no more likely to commit abuse than straight folks: https://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/ ... ation.html

Most of the child molesters in the CA churches are, in fact, straight and many are married.

Claim to be straight would be more accurate with many of these male on male predator's.
Much of the evil of the LBGT was brought on by abuse at some point... its not a "I was born this way"

[Josh]

There is discussion here on this thread (and the other one about conscience objection) about the need for an EXPANDED ability for individuals and employers to make these sorts of decisions based on "religious conscience". What I am objecting to is an expansion of the law that would allow institutions like Catholic hospitals to fire employees for being gay (or for any other religious reason) when the sexuality or religious faith of the employee is of no business to the employer.

Where do you get your idea that the "sexuality" of an employee is of no business to the employer?

Over in the CAM thread, it's become quite apparent that, actually, the sexuality of one's employees is very important to understand and monitor.

Gay folks are no more likely to commit abuse than straight folks: https://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/ ... ation.html

Biased, fake research. Nobody's gonna publish any research nowadays showing the truth (sexual abuse goes along with deviant sexuality).

Most of the child molesters in the CA churches are, in fact, straight and many are married. So in terms of percentages, it is probably the married straight men who merit the most monitoring.

I don't think we need to talk about "gay" and "straight", but rather draw this distinction:

- Proper sexuality is between a man and a woman, in marriage, or leading up to marriage.
- Anything else is perverse.

I'm not sure if one can even figure if H. Herr is gay or straight (animals were involved), but that was a pretty perverse situation. His sexuality was most certainly his employer's business.

Likewise, J. Mast, I'm not sure if "gay" or "straight" are useful terms, although his victims were young males - but his sexuality there was also absolutely something his employer should have been aware of and looking into.

[ohio jones]

- Proper sexuality is between a man and a woman, in marriage, or leading up to marriage.

I hope there aren't any engaged couples reading this.