Here here! However, forcing someone who doesn't want to be a part of your wedding to be a part of your wedding is equally wrong as saying that the wedding is wrong.
Uh, sure. But I was thinking more along the lines of a gay couple who wants to get married in a particular church, but the priest, believing that being gay is an abomination, doesn't want to marry them. They then contact the government to try and force the priest to marry them. While I do believe that gay people should be allowed to marry, that priest is just as entitled to his right to not marry that gay couple, as the gay couple is to get married. Although, he might not be anymore.
Well, I don't see why that's homophobic, but whatever, you're entitled to your christianphobic views. I'm saying that forcing someone to go against their religious beliefs is wrong, unless they are using those beliefs as an excuse to hurt others. The homophobic priest isn't infringing on their right to be wed, they could just as easily take their wedding to a different locale, and I'm sure there a churches that would happily wed them. However, by forcing him to take part in their wedding, they are infringing on his religious freedoms. I'm not ranting, simply explaining how freedom in a capitalist society works.
I've been searching quite a lot for this "priest" who was sentenced for his "belief" and all I found was commercial wedding chapels refusing a commercial service to gays, where that was unlawful. Anything to back up your sad story?
It was a hypothetical. However, remember the cake shop in... Arizona, I believe, where they were forced to provide a cake to a gay wedding, despite not believing in gay marriage? Instead of just going to a different cake shop, they decided to make an example of this shop.
My hypothetical religion forbids me from giving service to Jews. It doesn't mean I can do that. Why should people have to go out of their way to get a service because of an irrelevant quality of theirs? What if every cake shop within 100 miles refused service? The same argument can be used to justify segregation.
Well, if you own a private business, it actually does mean you can refuse service to jews. It isn't smart business practice, but you would be within your rights.
Dude, what the hell you're on? You make up the "hypothetical" priest and that grandiose scenario of the Gay Grooms of Babylon coming for him, and I'M the bigot?
Yo guys I agree with chakun on this one. However much I dislike religion and homophobia, you shouldn't be forced to do anything that goes against your beliefs. It's called freedom of religion. The hypothetical couple can go to any other church, or just not have a wedding at a church.
Although I think there are some gray areas here, because the Church is funded by the government and therefore should probably abide by whatever the government says, when the government is called upon to solve the problem. Private businesses, that's a different matter. The can refuse service to whomever they want.
Having said that, I think both of your argumentation skills need a lot of work. Using "pulled out of my ass" and "bigot" does NOT make for a solid argument, unless you want to be seen as "that guy who can't handle losing so he starts throwing insults around".
It could happen. It's not hard to imagine this happening in the US, and it's not much harder to imagine it turning into a religious bigots vs liberal pussies shitstorm. And if "well it hasn't happened yet so that means it can't happen" is the best argument you could come up with, well, my condolences.
Aaaand: another straw man here. I never said anything remotely like "well it hasn't happened yet so that means it can't happen". And the "hypothetical" idea of "the government" (" " because you know there are laws and judges and shit, right?) trying to force a priest (NOT the "minister" in a commercial wedding shack) to wed a gay couple is pretty hard to imagine actually once you get informed on the subject.
Ironically enough a judge refused to wed an atheist couple recently. With that crazy stuff happening, I would not be surprised if the situation chakun was trying to describe happened.
What is there to get informed about? Please, enlighten me.
Hm.. it does'nt say anywhere this judge needs to be afraid of actual consequences, even though is is paid by the "government" and is clearly breaking federal law, even the constitution. That makes it even less likely that a priest will have to be afraid of legal consequences for refusing a gay wedding. Which is what this is about. You could've informed yourself on the subject a little better, and not just take some pub talk for granted. and start arguing from that.
What are you on about, honestly? At first you react to chakun's "I think you should be able to refuse something that goes against your religion" with calling him a homophobe, and now you turn 180° and say that if a priest did it, he wouldn't have to be afraid of legal consequences because those are the matters of Church? So are you for or against freedom of religion?
You keep saying I'm not informed but so far you've only been stating the obvious, contradicting yourself and assuming my sources are from a pub.
This has nothing to do with me being for or against freedom of religion, I think religion is for suckers, and priests are scammers, and I believe churches should not have any government subsidization at all. But I respect most laws, and I don't want priests to be punished for publicly stating they're imbeciles. Having said that: Chakun made up the plot of the priest who'd have to suffer consequences for not wedding a gay couple. I called him a homophobe for inventing this scenario and implying the priest might not have the choice to follow his belief anymore, that's maybe a bit fiery. I have the informed opinion though, that a priest, being part of a registered church, won't have to be afraid of any consequences here, given the legal position of religious belief in america. And then I backed this very opinion up by stating that not even the judge who refused to wed an atheist couple would have to expect legal consequences. How is that a 180° turn?
That's reasonable enough, I just don't see how inventing a moderately probable scenario is homophobic. I wouldn't be surprised if this fictional priest got sued, you know how sue-happy Americans often are. That being said, I agree with you on the religion thing. You should look up the Satanic Temple, they're an atheist organization who fights against the enormous government support that Christianity gets in the US, and using the image of Satan because it's a controversy for most Christians. They also go against WBC which is a noble goal in itself.
At least it smells of homophobia because there are like a _lot_ of scenarios he could have picked, but 1. he chose this and 2. he avowedly made the entire scenario up, based on the idea that gay people would totally do that to push a gay agenda. The way things are, americans mainly sue for (insane amounts of) money, and it's not at all likely they'd get it from the church.
TST is ok, but too edgy for my taste. I see myself better represented by openlysecular.org - I enjoy Marilyn Mansons POV here, but I prefer the Richard Dawkins approach.
Yeah, the whole "gays making out on WBC founder's mother's grave" was kinda edgy, but they can usually get the point across. Dawkins is a great man indeed, I also like the YT channel SecularTalk - the presenter (Kyle) speaks mostly about politics but also about ridiculous situations involving religion all around the world, and 99% of the time he's spot on imho.
Although I think there are some gray areas here, because the Church is funded by the government and therefore should probably abide by whatever the government says, when the government is called upon to solve the problem. Private businesses, that's a different matter. The can refuse service to whomever they want.
Having said that, I think both of your argumentation skills need a lot of work. Using "pulled out of my ass" and "bigot" does NOT make for a solid argument, unless you want to be seen as "that guy who can't handle losing so he starts throwing insults around".
What is there to get informed about? Please, enlighten me.
You keep saying I'm not informed but so far you've only been stating the obvious, contradicting yourself and assuming my sources are from a pub.
TST is ok, but too edgy for my taste. I see myself better represented by openlysecular.org - I enjoy Marilyn Mansons POV here, but I prefer the Richard Dawkins approach.
I agree with the rest, though.