California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban

[Apeman81]

Each of us is born an individual, in nature free to do whatever we wish. Free will is our birthright.

However, as we tend to be a social animal, we are willing to relinquish our freedom to act upon any desire that may come to us in order to allow ourselves to be part of a society.

Thus, each of us having an opinion of what actions are acceptable or not acceptable in our society, we come together, directly or through representation, to establish behaviors as being acceptable or unacceptable to society.

We are still capable of exhibiting behaviors that are held unacceptable, but in so doing we have the knowledge that we may face repercussions for those behaviors.

And so we do. Those who profess a faith are mocked by those who find them foolish. Those who believe that homosexual behavior is unacceptable are mocked by those who find it acceptable.

The pendulum has swung so that more people find homosexual behavior acceptable than they did just 30 years ago. Be that good or be that bad, the movement has occurred. But it must be recognized that it is a movement. As a movement, it may move in either direction. We may return to the time when it is unacceptable. We may not. Time will tell. We are not the first to deal with this.

Neither side of the argument should be denied the right to speak out. Too many do not understand or choose to ignore this.

[maximdewinter]

Quote by: Maryjane Some of us are anti religious. Big deal. If you'd read Sonart's post you'd have a better understanding of the reasons why. My advice to you is... Deal with it if you plan on hanging around Volconvo. We aren't main stream America here. (snip)............. So your solution for those that are oppressed it to be more like their oppressor? >

It is no big deal that you are anti-religious. I don't mind that at all. What I do mind is if you are anti religious freedom and would act to curtail the right to religious freedom. That would make you anti First Amendment rights in my book and then it would be a big deal to me.

I don't want to oppress anybody, the religious or the non religious. So would you clamp down on religious speech and that would somehow make us freer?

[maximdewinter]

Quote by: Sonart I'm not the one predicting a backlash against Christians, maxim. You are.

I understand you have a bone to pick with the Christians. I myself am a recovering Catholic. I didn't say Christians I said religious. But keep in mind that religion encompasses Jews, Hindus, and even Muslims. And believe me it is difficult for me to abide by many of these beliefs but remember? First Amendment?

Quote by: Sonart Given the breadth of the civil rights movement, maxim, a whole lot of people have had to learn to reconfigure their "Conventional Wisdom" and to learn to put brakes on things they once thought were perfectly acceptable to talk about. Whites had to learn that not everyone thought race jokes were funny. Men had to learn that not everyone thought that rough, sexist ribaldry was a bonding experience. And they've been learning that the guy or gal you're telling that classic homo joke to may very well turn out to be gay. So it is with Christians, maxim. They're going to have to accept that the world is not theirs to command, that what's good enough for Christians does not necessarily mean that it should be just fine for everyone, and that they too will have to learn that they can't say whatever pops into their heads simply because they're convinced of their own superiority and anyone who gets offended should simply keep it to themselves..

No doubt the social enviroment has changed and will continue. Then there is something old fashioned that you don't hear about anymore...good manners. This concerns the domain of what is social and interpersonal. Unfortunately outside of the tea and crumpet setting there are ugly demonstrations with offensive speech. If you still want to protect that ugly speech as I do then we can't rewrite the 1st Amendment to say that, Congress will enact no law curtailing the free exercise of speech as long as he speech is acceptable to most people and religious belief as long you don't blurt out whatever is on your mind without taking into account you may hurt somebody's feelings.

[maximdewinter]

You are free to believe that people should be able to say whatever they want, but that is not what the law says, nor is it what the law ever said, nor is it what the law should say. I'll quote my friend, Abe Lincoln: "...Must I shoot a simple-minded soldier boy who deserts, while I must not touch a hair of a wiley agitator who induces him to desert?" If you encourge someone to behave illegally, if you encourge someone to riot, if you encourage someone to harm or harrass an innocent individual, why should there not be sanction? If you scream "fire" in a crowded theater and many are hurt in the scramble for the exits, why should you not be punished? Public order and safety demands limits on these kinds of speech. .

You are avoiding my point. What I said was, "And I think that anyone should be able to say whatever they want without some sort of police coming to prevent them." The police being an agent of the government in the pursuit of enforcing a law. For reasons unclear you have chosen to edit that part of the statement. By bringing up the classic movie theater/fire argument you are confusing what has been accepted for years as limiting speech on intent as opposed to limiting speech on content. The intent to cause a riot or disturb the peace has been ruled by the courts not to be comparable to expression of offensive opinion in the abstract. This is why I wrote this sentence, "Will there ever be a time when speech content itself will be punishable?"

The argument that your are making is baseless, and makes no more sense that saying that if we make theft illegal, we are on a slippery slope towards making borrowing your friends lawn- mower illegal.

I don't do reductio ad adsurdum.

The right of the public at large to be safe from a plane exploding in mid-air supercedes your right to not be subject to that search. You may wish to be free of the collision of rights, but you can not be.

Obviously the subject of another thread. And I agree. But I didn't say that I or anyone should or could be free from the collision of rights. Or are you trying to say, "One may wish to be...?" I really can't tell since you are replying to my post and I would logically assume that the you in this case is directed at me. My point was simply that this collision can be found in other areas and used this example to illustrate that concept..the concept that rights collide and we should investigate that without calling it "worrying."

Why should it be a protected right to "incite to racial hatred" or "advocate genocide"?

It is a right under the First Amendment. Once again content not intent. You can't incite a disturbance of the peace, assault a person or group, but you can say in the abstract, "The Inuit kill whales and eat their blubber ergo we should wipe them out." So how would you like to rewrite the First Amendment to your liking?

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: maximdewinter I understand you have a bone to pick with the Christians. I myself am a recovering Catholic. I didn't say Christians I said religious. But keep in mind that religion encompasses Jews, Hindus, and even Muslims. And believe me it is difficult for me to abide by many of these beliefs but remember? First Amendment?

I'm going to guess that while a recovering Catholic, you're still a Christian.

Yes, indeed, there are all kinds of religions, and around the world we see evidence among most of them of religious intolerance, with the possible exception of non-deist Buddhism, with which I feel the closest spiritual affinity.

But here in my homeland, the U.S., the main source of that intolerance are the majority Christians. So please forgive me if I equate religious intolerance with Christians. Obviously they're not the only religion, they're simply the one I have to deal with.

Quote by: maximdewinter No doubt the social enviroment has changed and will continue. Then there is something old fashioned that you don't hear about anymore...good manners.

You may be surprised that there was a recent thread that touched on that, and even more surprised that I was one of the few posters who stood up on behalf of good manners and common courtesy. {{SIGH}} Maybe it's a generational thing.

Quote by: maximdewinter If you still want to protect that ugly speech as I do then we can't rewrite the 1st Amendment to say that, Congress will enact no law curtailing the free exercise of speech as long as he speech is acceptable to most people and religious belief as long you don't blurt out whatever is on your mind without taking into account you may hurt somebody's feelings.

Have I suggested such a thing, Maxim?

What I am suggesting is that if Christians, or anyone else, want to preach hatred and discrimination of others, even if it's based on their "beliefs"-- albeit short of inciting violence against them -- then they have a first amendment right to do so.

Agreed?

Which includes OUR right to use print and media to condemn Christians, or anyone else, who would preach what we believe to be hatred and discrimination.

Only fair, right?

So folks can either continue to act on their religious beliefs and preach hatred -- and reap the whirlwind for dong so -- or they evolve their beliefs and learn to moderate their condemnation for the sake of good manners social manners and common courtesy.

Ok?

Quote by: maximdewinter You are avoiding my point. What I said was, "And I think that anyone should be able to say whatever they want without some sort of police coming to prevent them."

I doubt the bar for "Hate Speech" and "Fighting Words" will be significantly different applied here as applied to... say... racism or feminism, or anyone else. Don't you?

Or are you against the outlawing of ALL hate speech, which is sort of another issue?

Quote by: maximdewinter But I didn't say that I or anyone should or could be free from the collision of rights.

If you think about it, Maxim... yeah, you kind of are saying that. Specifically that, because one bias is based on religious beliefs, that bias should be excused from prosecution,

(although I'm still unclear how anyone is likely to be prosecuted for what they preach in the pulpit. If the fire & brimstone hate speech that's broadcast every week against gays and atheists hasn't qualified as hate speech yet, I don't understand how Gay Marriage is going to change that.)

.

[Maryjane]

Quote by: maximdewinter It is no big deal that you are anti-religious. I don't mind that at all. What I do mind is if you are anti religious freedom and would act to curtail the right to religious freedom. That would make you anti First Amendment rights in my book and then it would be a big deal to me. I don't want to oppress anybody, the religious or the non religious. So would you clamp down on religious speech and that would somehow make us freer?

I'll address the two bolded statements.

First...Why would I want to curtail anyone's rights when I know what it's like to have mine curtailed? I believe in equality. Spiteful vengence is a god thing. I don't know what the religious are getting so paranoid about? Maybe their eyes are finally opening to what they have been doing to others for years?

What kind of person do you think I am? My elementary age son's public school xmas function was held in a Baptist church. There was a sign in the vestibule over the doors as you exited that said in big bold letters "You are now entering the mission field!" I didn't freak out or complain, even though I had every right to when the church played "Jesus music" during the opening and closing ceremonies.

I go out and talk to the bible thumpers when they solicit my neighborhood. I engage them in conversation, offer them something to drink, and when they leave, I shake their hand. The rest of my neighbors won't open the door. If atheist and gays start showing up on your porch, soliciting their causes, be sure to let me know. That I would find amusing.

I dont hate the religious, they are human beings just like me. I have many in real life and here on Volconvo I consider friends. There are some I don't care for and that's because they lack character, same as some non religious I know.

Second... How exactly does religious speech make us freeer than any other speech? What makes them so special?

For what it's worth, I grew up in the south. Good manners are (or used to be) part of our culture. I was taught if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. Not every thing that pops in someone's head has to be spoken out loud. I don't tell the bible thumpers on my porch that their god isnt' real. I tell them their god doesn't work for me and I have a different way of life that does. Maybe next time I'll tell them when they show up I'm gay (I live with my sister..I could introduce her as my partner) and see if they go into a panic like you seem to be doing. They took it pretty well when I told them I was an atheist.

[maximdewinter]

Quote by: Maryjane I I go out and talk to the bible thumpers when they solicit my neighborhood. I engage them in conversation, offer them something to drink, and when they leave, I shake their hand. The rest of my neighbors won't open the door. If atheist and gays start showing up on your porch, soliciting their causes, be sure to let me know. That I would find amusing.

Whenever religious or political proselytizers show up at my door I listen pleasantly and then ply them with all sorts of questions as to what it is they are pushing. Most people try to give these unwanted guests the brush off. In my case, the proselytizers are usually trying to get away from me when they realize I ain't buyin' but I'm eating up the clock. This used to happen a lot more but for some reason nobody comes around anymore. Maybe there's one of those hobo marks on my front tree.

My wife and I used to have three gay men on our party list. All three died in the 80's from AIDS. I hope you don't think I'm in the least homophobic. If they were still alive I would much rather drink and sing show tunes than watch televised sports. As to what people do in private I don't give a damn. However, remember the firemen at the beginning of this thread? I were them I would have had the cops haul in the gay pride people for public lewdness. Find me a police dept. these days with those kind of political cojones to fight the political correctness.

[maximdewinter]

Quote by: Sonart . I'm going to guess that while a recovering Catholic, you're still a Christian

I'm a nothing. Yet several years ago when I was being admitted into the hospital the attendant asked me what religion I was. I told her "Buddhist." I saw her tick "none" in the religion column. (That really happened.)

Quote by: Sonart . Yes, indeed, there are all kinds of religions, and around the world we see evidence among most of them of religious intolerance, with the possible exception of non-deist Buddhism, with which I feel the closest spiritual affinity. But here in my homeland, the U.S., the main source of that intolerance are the majority Christians. So please forgive me if I equate religious intolerance with Christians. Obviously they're not the only religion, they're simply the one I have to deal with.

In the movie Arthur (1979?) Sir John Gielgud's haughty character says to Liza Minelli's trashy character, "After all, it is tolerance that makes it possible for people like us to stand people like you." Dealing with unreasoning zealots can be trying I admit. But there you are.

Quote by: Sonart . You may be surprised that there was a recent thread that touched on that, and even more surprised that I was one of the few posters who stood up on behalf of good manners and common courtesy. {{SIGH}} Maybe it's a generational thing.

Doesn't surprise me at all. You've been a perfect gentleman. I realize the word gentleman has become archaic.

Quote by: Sonart . Have I suggested such a thing, Maxim? What I am suggesting is that if Christians, or anyone else, want to preach hatred and discrimination of others, even if it's based on their "beliefs"-- albeit short of inciting violence against them -- then they have a first amendment right to do so. Agreed? Which includes OUR right to use print and media to condemn Christians, or anyone else, who would preach what we believe to be hatred and discrimination. Only fair, right? So folks can either continue to act on their religious beliefs and preach hatred -- and reap the whirlwind for dong so -- or they evolve their beliefs and learn to moderate their condemnation for the sake of good manners social manners and common courtesy. Ok? I doubt the bar for "Hate Speech" and "Fighting Words" will be significantly different applied here as applied to... say... racism or feminism, or anyone else. Don't you? Or are you against the outlawing of ALL hate speech, which is sort of another issue?

I'd say we were pretty much agreed. Except I am for outlawing all hate speech and I guessing that you aren't?

Quote by: Sonart If you think about it, Maxim... yeah, you kind of are saying that. Specifically that, because one bias is based on religious beliefs, that bias should be excused from prosecution, (although I'm still unclear how anyone is likely to be prosecuted for what they preach in the pulpit. If the fire & brimstone hate speech that's broadcast every week against gays and atheists hasn't qualified as hate speech yet, I don't understand how Gay Marriage is going to change that.)

You're right. That's one reason I'm against the concept of hate speech.

And I don't blame you for being unclear about the potential fallout from gay marriage vs. religious freedom. It is difficult to see the shape of it. One legal commentator said you will know what is going on in the future by the lawsuits. One reason it isn't on the radar screen I think is because it is complicated to follow. Here's two excerpts from that Mary Gallagher article which shows how difficult this subject is:

"The impact will be severe and pervasive," Picarello says flatly. "This is going to affect every aspect of church-state relations." Recent years, he predicts, will be looked back on as a time of relative peace between church and state, one where people had the luxury of litigating cases about things like the Ten Commandments in courthouses. In times of relative peace, says Picarello, people don't even notice that "the church is surrounded on all sides by the state; that church and state butt up against each other. The boundaries are usually peaceful, so it's easy sometimes to forget they are there. But because marriage affects just about every area of the law, gay marriage is going to create a point of conflict at every point around the perimeter."

...........................
CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF BOSTON made the announcement on March 10: It was getting out of the adoption business. "We have encountered a dilemma we cannot resolve. . . . The issue is adoption to same-sex couples."
It was shocking news. Catholic Charities of Boston, one of the nation's oldest adoption agencies, had long specialized in finding good homes for hard to place kids. "Catholic Charities was always at the top of the list," Paula Wisnewski, director of adoption for the Home for Little Wanderers, told the Boston Globe. "It's a shame because it is certainly going to mean that fewer children from foster care are going to find permanent homes." Marylou Sudders, president of the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, said simply, "This is a tragedy for kids."
How did this tragedy happen?
It's a complicated story. Massachusetts law prohibited "orientation discrimination" over a decade ago. Then in November 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ordered gay marriage. The majority ruled that only animus against gay people could explain why anyone would want to treat opposite-sex and same-sex couples differently. That same year, partly in response to growing pressure for gay marriage and adoption both here and in Europe, a Vatican statement made clear that placing children with same-sex couples violates Catholic teaching.
Then in October 2005, the Boston Globe broke the news: Boston Catholic Charities had placed a small number of children with same-sex couples. Sean Cardinal O'Malley, who has authority over Catholic Charities of Boston, responded by stating that
the agency would no longer do so.
Seven members of the Boston Catholic Charities board (about one-sixth of the membership) resigned in protest. Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, which lobbies for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender equal rights, issued a thundering denunciation of the Catholic hierarchy: "These bishops are putting an ugly political agenda before the needs of very vulnerable children. Every one of the nation's leading children's welfare groups agrees that a parent's sexual orientation is irrelevant to his or her ability to raise a child. What these bishops are doing is shameful, wrong, and has nothing to do whatsoever with faith."
But getting square with the church didn't end Catholic Charities' woes. To operate in Massachusetts, an adoption agency must be licensed by the state. And to get a license, an agency must pledge to obey state laws barring discrimination--including the decade-old ban on orientation discrimination. With the legalization of gay marriage in the state, discrimination against same-sex couples would be outlawed, too.
Cardinal O'Malley asked Governor Mitt Romney for a religious exemption from the ban on orientation discrimination. Governor Romney reluctantly responded that he lacked legal authority to grant one unilaterally, by executive order. So the governor and archbishop turned to the state legislature, requesting a conscience exemption that would allow Catholic Charities to continue to help kids in a manner consistent with Catholic teaching.
To date, not a single other Massachusetts political leader appears willing to consider even the narrowest religious exemption. Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey, the Republican candidate for governor in this fall's election, refused to budge: "I believe that any institution that wants to provide services that are regulated by the state has to abide by the laws of the state," Healey told the Boston Globe on March 2, "and our antidiscrimination laws are some of our most important."

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: maximdewinter In the movie Arthur (1979?) Sir John Gielgud's haughty character says to Liza Minelli's trashy character, "After all, it is tolerance that makes it possible for people like us to stand people like you." Dealing with unreasoning zealots can be trying I admit. But there you are.

LOL!! Yes! I knew there was a reason I liked you. I thought I was the only person on any of the boards I've been on who enjoyed pulling pearls of wisdom out of popular culture. Bravo!

Will Turner: "This is either madness... or brilliance."
Jack Sparrow: "It's remarkable how often those two traits coincide."

Quote by: maximdewinter I'm a nothing. Yet several years ago when I was being admitted into the hospital the attendant asked me what religion I was. I told her "Buddhist." I saw her tick "none" in the religion column. (That really happened.)

Instructive, wasn't it.

And considering which, it surprises me that you're so concerned with the delicate sensibilities of the religious.

Quote by: maximdewinter I'd say we were pretty much agreed. Except I am for outlawing all hate speech and I guessing that you aren't?

Hmmm... well that's a whole other discussion. I'm very much for free speech. As the old saying goes, "Your rights end exactly where your knuckles touch my nose." I generally grant folks the freedom to say whatever they like, particularly in the security of their own property, which includes a community church.

And I know that folks like Louis Farrakahn, Macolm X, Eldridge Cleaver and many others have publicly preached highly inflamatory stuff, without ever getting hauled in for hate speech...

...at least that I'm aware of.

That changes, of course, if what they're saying is, "I want all of you to go out and beat the crap out of the first (fill in here) you come across!" As far as I'm concerned, inciting people to cross the knuckle/nose line is the same as actually doing it. (For instance, the Hutu radio announcers in Rwanda who incited genocide.)

I do, however, realize that some speech can be classified as "fighting words" that simply go too far, with the intention of provoking even a reasonable person, and sometimes this can be culturally defined.

For example, I've had discussions with white folks who didn't understand why using the 'N' word was so awful. After all, they reasoned, blacks used it among themselves, and blacks certainly never hesitate to call white folks racial names.

My response was that you can call me a honky, a cracker, an ofay, or whatever you want, it won't mean a thing... other than my guessing you don't like me for some reason. That's because those names are meaningless... they have no context for me. They don't carry the massive weight of generations of enforced poverty and brutal subjugation that the word "N****r" does. Big difference.

So anyway, say whatever you like, it's your right. Just don't get all whiny if I decide to say something back. It's my right too.

Quote by: maximdewinter CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF BOSTON

Yep, sounds like it's going to be a bumpy night. The Catholic Church in particular seems intent on having to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century. Alas, when church and state cross paths legally, the Church can either obey the law or get out of the way. Too bad, I'm sure they did good work in adoptions.

Question: how would you feel about a Catholic hospital refusing service to a homosexual?

.

[SoylentGreen]

CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF BOSTON

Considering the amount of money they payed out to hide their pedophilia tendencies , perhaps that might be the real reason they are getting out of the adoption industry. All in all it would probably be a better thing for the children if they did.

[maximdewinter]

Quote by: Sonart . Question: how would you feel about a Catholic hospital refusing service to a homosexual? .

I wouldn't stand for it. But I don't think that's likely. As I recall from my Catholic days the Church would want to get their hands on the homosexual and "cure" them.

[GloriousCause]

Quote by: Sonart . Will Turner: "This is either madness... or brilliance." Jack Sparrow: "It's remarkable how often those two traits coincide."

I've always loved a similar quote: The distance between genius and insanity can be measured in success.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: maximdewinter I wouldn't stand for it. But I don't think that's likely. As I recall from my Catholic days the Church would want to get their hands on the homosexual and "cure" them.

Yet, you not only do stand for, you seem to support the idea that the same Catholic Church can tell me that I can't be married by a court/state official in a civil ceremony because it is the only way to prevent the police from kicking in your door. Can you unpack that for me? How is it you feel justified "not standing" for them denying service within the confines of their own institutional setting, yet find it to be an attack on the institution and you personally when someone attempts to be able to marry outside of that institution's acceptance, even when they are not asking that institution to carry out or recognize the marriage? I just do not get it.

[maximdewinter]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Yet, you not only do stand for, you seem to support the idea that the same Catholic Church can tell me that I can't be married by a court/state official in a civil ceremony because it is the only way to prevent the police from kicking in your door. Can you unpack that for me? How is it you feel justified "not standing" for them denying service within the confines of their own institutional setting, yet find it to be an attack on the institution and you personally when someone attempts to be able to marry outside of that institution's acceptance, even when they are not asking that institution to carry out or recognize the marriage? I just do not get it.

No you don't get it. One of the reasons you don't may have to do with fact that you have grossly misconstrued what I have written over and over again in this thread. When did I even intimate, or for that matter even mention, the subject of whether the Catholic church has a say (or should have a say) in whether civil ceremonies can be performed in court/state settings?

Also of note: It is not a sin to be a homosexual in the RC Church. It is homosexual activity that is the sin. Pope John Paul II denounced homosexuality for two reasons: because the Church believes the only viable reason for having sex is procreation, and because specific biblical passages embraced by the Church condemn homosexual activity as deviant and immoral. The Church condemns the sin, not the sinner. My part of the thread from the very beginning concerns whether religious believers will be able to utter that last sentence in the future. And that makes, by my reckoning, the sixth time I've uttered that previous sentence.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: maximdewinter No you don't get it. One of the reasons you don't may have to do with fact that you have grossly misconstrued what I have written over and over again in this thread. When did I even intimate, or for that matter even mention, the subject of whether the Catholic church has a say (or should have a say) in whether civil ceremonies can be performed in court/state settings? Also of note: It is not a sin to be a homosexual in the RC Church. It is homosexual activity that is the sin. Pope John Paul II denounced homosexuality for two reasons: because the Church believes the only viable reason for having sex is procreation, and because specific biblical passages embraced by the Church condemn homosexual activity as deviant and immoral. The Church condemns the sin, not the sinner. My part of the thread from the very beginning concerns whether religious believers will be able to utter that last sentence in the future. And that makes, by my reckoning, the sixth time I've uttered that previous sentence.

This is all "dicta". The church can consider whatever behavior it wants to consider sinful, sinful. It has no bearing on the issue at hand. What matters is when and where they express these opinions. It is protected speech from the pulpit, it is protected if you want to write a book, it is protected if you want to utter it at a political rally. It is not protected in the workplace, now or before the ruling.

Quote by: maximdewinter The California court declared that laws against same sex marriage are the same as laws against interracial marriage. So what is there to prevent the California government from declaring that opposition to same sex marriage is equal to racial discrimination?

This is the court overturning the ban on GAY MARRIAGE. You do not just imply, you say it. Where do you think opposition to same sex marriage is coming from? The Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Penacostal and various other churches are the ones claiming that marriage is a "sacrement" and that allowing same sex marriage will "devalue the institution". So, you are saying in practice, even if you want to avoid appearing as if it is the case, that the Catholic and other churches have the right to dictate who's marriage THE STATE can recognize. You support allowing them to dictate that. If you oppose the court decision, your de facto position is that they have that right.

Quote by: maximdewinter Of course there would be no problem (or change in the law) if a human resources employee refused to hire a person based on their sexual orientation or the fact that they were in a same-sex marriage. That HR employee would be fired for discrimination.

We are fine here.

Quote by: maximdewinter However, what has changed with this law is that it could soon be considered "harassment in the workplace" should any employee express their religious belief that gay marriage is against the laws of God. An employee could be sued or fired for the "free exercise of religion" and unfortunately it would be Congress (the government passing anti-discrimination laws) doing the prohibiting.

That would be because most companies have their own policies that govern this type of behavior. This is not protected behavior. It is well established law that companies have every right to regulate this kind of speech on company property and especially during company time.

So, I will ask you again. What is your beef? If you do not believe that the church has the right to dictate to citizens or the state who can be wed in a civil ceremony and you understand that the speech discussed above is not protected in that place and time, what is the issue?

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Isbskins It is protected speech from the pulpit, it is protected if you want to write a book, it is protected if you want to utter it at a political rally. It is not protected in the workplace, now or before the ruling.

Quote by: Isbskins That would be because most companies have their own policies that govern this type of behavior. This is not protected behavior. It is well established law that companies have every right to regulate this kind of speech on company property and especially during company time.

Just so. As skins points out, you are free to say whatever you like from the pulpit, in print, in media, whatever.

And you have the right to speak in public. But in doing so, you run smack into my right to SPEAK BACK! So if I want to tell you, "You're a liar, so shut the hell up!" I'm free to. I can't physically force you, but I can say it.

No employer wants that in his workplace, where a diverse collection of employees, that the company is compelled to hire, are compelled to come together. So your employer can tell BOTH of you to 'shut the hell up!' And they can force you.

.

[maximdewinter]

Quote by: lsbskins1 You seem to support the idea that the same Catholic Church can tell me that I can't be married by a court/state official in a civil ceremony because it is the only way to prevent the police from kicking in your door.

Quote by: maximdewinter The California court declared that laws against same sex marriage are the same as laws against interracial marriage. So what is there to prevent the California government from declaring that opposition to same sex marriage is equal to racial discrimination? ................................... When did I even intimate, or for that matter even mention, the subject of whether the Catholic church has a say (or should have a say) in whether civil ceremonies can be performed in court/state settings?

Quote by: lsbskins1 This is the court overturning the ban on GAY MARRIAGE. You do not just imply, you say it.

You and anybody who isn't completely bored by this contretemps by now simply read what I said. Nowhere did I even imply that the Catholic Church should have a say in the running of civil government or the issuance of marriage licenses or whatever.