First Amendment or State Antidiscrimination Laws

Discussion in 'Off-topic' started by Malum Prohibitum, Jun 29, 2007.

  1. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,067
    241
    63
    You can't have both.

    What if Neo-Nazis wanted to have a day camp on land owned by a Jewish synagogue?

    Is it any different if homosexuals want to get "married" on land owned by a church?

    http://www.nbc10.com/news/13539323/detail.html

     
  2. foshizzle

    foshizzle New Member

    1,283
    0
    0
    Isn't that just standard private property stuff? They can do what they want, it's their property.
     

  3. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,067
    241
    63
    Public accomodations laws. Come on, you don't think they could refuse to allow its use by people of only certain races, do you?
     
  4. wsweeks2

    wsweeks2 New Member

    6,306
    0
    0
    If it's my property I'll do what I please. May not be right, but that's the way it is. Someone wants to sue, then so be it.

    That's the problem with this country anymore - it's not about right or wrong, it's about popular and unpopular. Can't hurt anyones feelings anymore either.
     
  5. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
    Were they hot lesbians?




    I know...I know......now some of you are mad......


    But seriously, they don't have to get <strike>married</strike> unionized(?) at that beach. They don't like it, they can waddle on down the coastline.
     
  6. Tinkerhell

    Tinkerhell Active Member

    2,417
    1
    38
    :rotfl:
     
  7. Mobster989

    Mobster989 New Member

    252
    0
    0
    I agree with weeks. If it is private property they should be allowed to refuse service to anyone they please. That's the one part that disturbs me about the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I don't think anyone should discriminate against other people based on race, religion, or nationality, but I also don't think the government has any business telling private owners what they have to do with their property/business. If Joe Blow doesn't want blacks in his bar then why can't he refuse to serve them if it is his bar? He's the one hurting his own business. If every bar in the South closed their doors to blacks I guarantee there would be one bar that would open up to them and they'd make bank.

    To me it is a big no-no to try and force the gay issue in a church. You're going to have the government go into a church and tell people they have to allow gays to be married? Well when will it stop? Soon the government will be telling the church they can't preach about spanking kids or husbands leading their wives. Seperation of church and state should work both ways.

     
  8. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,067
    241
    63
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/nyreg ... ref=slogin
     
  9. budder

    budder Moderator Staff Member

  10. wsweeks2

    wsweeks2 New Member

    6,306
    0
    0
    Please elaborate on this. Good that they lost tax exempt status for doing what they want on private property because it isn't popular?
     
  11. budder

    budder Moderator Staff Member

    Good that they weren't legally considered open to the public when they weren't open to the public.


    EDIT: MP, could you fix your link so that we don't have to scroll?
     
  12. oxfat

    oxfat New Member

    726
    0
    0
    Taken to its logical conclusion, all (well amost all) churches in the U.S. will lose their tax emempt status.

    This has large ramifications.
     
  13. Thorsen

    Thorsen New Member

    4,226
    0
    0
    I have no problem with gay marriage at all. As far as I am concerned, if a gay couple wants to be married that is their business.

    As well, religious organizations should be free to exercise their beliefs without being held hostage by state sanction. Therefore, if a church, synagogue, mosque, etc decides that homosexuality is a sin and not to be sanctioned by their belief, they should be free to exclude homosexuals.

    Just as I don't believe the state has any function in prohibiting personal choice, especially one as private as marriage, so do I think about state interference with religious beliefs. The state has no legitimate function in either.
     
  14. ls1ssdavid

    ls1ssdavid New Member

    1,103
    0
    0
    +1 To the words in bold.
     
  15. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    24,120
    71
    48
    Freedom of Association

    The way I see it, not with any legal analysis or anything, is that the 1 Am. protects freedom of religion only up to the point of hurting other people and also protects freedom of association, so like-minded people can get together among "their kind" and exclude others from their little private club if they wish.

    If a church opens its property to anybody to rent for weddings, birthday and graduation parties, etc, and those other people can be of any race or religion, then it's wrong to discriminate based on sexual orientation. Why? Because discrimination is generally a bad thing and on these facts that church can't say that it would be seen as approving or sanctioning that the participants are doing right by God. The renters of the property would be customers, not parishoners, not members of "the flock." Of course they would have to supply their own minister or other official to perform the ceremony.

    Now when it comes to churches discriminating who can be members of the congregation, attend services, worship during their normal religious services, THEN I think they can ban homos, if being gay or having gay sex is totally contrary to their religion. (Of course I'd wonder how many such churches ban sexually-active unmarried heteros, or married people who are notoriously unfaithful to their spouses? Does the bible assign more weight to some sins than others?)

    If the KKK were to have a car wash fundraiser in a public place and advertised to the general public, I think they should have to wash EVERYBODY and ANYBODY's car who shows up with money. It should be illegal discrimination to do otherwise. But if a black guy wants to attend a cross lighting on KKK-owned land which is wholly private, and the KKK decides that this little ritual will be for members wearing the robes only... (NEVERMIND THIS LAST ONE IS A BAD EXAMPLE) ;-)
     
  16. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    24,120
    71
    48
    Make it Personal

    Suppose you lived in a state where church carry (and carry at church-sponsored functions whereever they may be held) was perfectly legal. But your church decided to "take a stand" against gun violence and declare their church and all it's parking lots and any event that they organize to be off limits for weapons. Can they ban you from attending services while armed? Can they tell you you're not welcome at the picnic at the local city park they've scheduled for Sunday afternoon, unless you promise to leave all guns at home?

    I think they can, because they have the freedom to associate only with pacifists of that's a core belief of their group's morals and values. And their decision doesn't hurt you. You are free to do your worship elsewhere, and other churches will let you in.
     
  17. Mobster989

    Mobster989 New Member

    252
    0
    0
    Re: Freedom of Association

    Not to get too far off-topic but I agree that there is a HUGE bias towards certain sins by the "Christian" churches. According to the bible the only sin that is really placed above other sins is blasphemy against the holy spirit. While some sins are generally considered worse than others. For example, murder is considered worse than burglary. I also think that it is hypocritical of any church that rejects members based on their past sins. A hospital doesn't turn people away based on the extent of their injuries. Likewise a church shouldn't turn someone away because they have committed a sin that is perceived to be worse than others. They should try to help them as best they can.
     
  18. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,067
    241
    63
    Re: Freedom of Association

    Help them get "married"? :lol: :roll:
     
  19. SigP229

    SigP229 New Member

    2,535
    0
    0
    Why not just hang out the sign "whites only"...."blacks not allowed"...not much different than "straights only"..."no gays" Haven't we matured past this yet?