Well, I am for Gay Marriage, but I have heard only one argument that makes sense:
Churches.
If gay marriage is legalized, then many churches would refuse to perform the services. This could, [i]could[/i] mind you, lead to many in the gay community to sue them for discrimination. Now, these cases would likely be tossed, but the churches would have to hire attorneys to defend them, which still costs money.
So, legalizing gay marriage has the potential to open a season on religious institutions that disagree with gay marriage.
English
-
Separation of church and state, they cannot sue a religious organization for discrimination.
-
You can sue whomever and whatever you want. Doesn't mean that the judge is gonna care.
-
I really want to say that if its a religious practice, there is no case for discrimination, unless its infringing on someones rights.
-
Sure they can. Gays aren't the state. You can sue whomever you want. the very easy fix? Make it so Churches can't be sued for this issue. Then leave it at that.
-
Edited by Capiton Render: 5/1/2013 4:49:21 PMCurrently, i dont think federal law applies to churches regarding discrimination, correct me if im wrong, but taking federal policy, and trying to enforce it on a religion, is something government cannot do. IE: federal laws regarding marijuana cannot be used if the use of the drug s for religious purposes, same with sacrifice, regarding voodoo. Now, the federal government can intervene if the church is attempting to violate a persons rights, that don't want them to be violated, or are using religion, to do harmful practices mentally or physically, IE Christian gay camps.
-
Its not the enforcement of a law like that. Its about Title 7 or whatever. If a church refused to marry a back man to a white woman, they would likely be sued. I'm not sure how the case would do, but very likely they would try. Its not the government forcing the churches, its the gay people suing the churches. Very different.
-
Give the right to churches to stop someone from marrying in their church no questions asked. lets them gay people and annoying people at the same time.
-
You don't have to marry through the church. An I don't see how suing would be a new problem, people sue for anything these days anyway.
-
It already happens now on a small capacity but when it gets legalized at a federal level the flood gates will open.
-
You know the article you just posted stated the exact opposite happening. The church was suing the government for doing a marriage on their grounds. They would have been better off suing for trespassing.
-
However, the 1st Amendment would likely cover them. Thus far, I am not aware of any crisis about forcing to perform gay marriage in any state where it is legalized.
-
That's just it, how would the 1st Amendment protect the churches? Its private parties suing them.
-
If Bush can give Pope Benedict immunity from anybody suing him over church sex crimes, I'm sure the government can make the churches immune from lawsuits over this.
-
^This. So much this. The churches around where I live fear such a thing and it is often brought up by their members. Smaller churches don't have a lot of money, and may even be in a bit of debt that will bite them in the arse at the end of the year, so hiring attorneys would be a huge financial burden.
-
If they're being discriminatory, then what's the problem with getting sued for being discriminatory?
-
Conflicts with religious freedom.
-
The same thing goes for sexism in the work place. People from strict Iranian or Pakistani backgrounds may be sexist towards females as part of their religion, but they aren't given a special pass.
-
Because you don't have to go to church. Those suits will be filed mostly by gays who think they deserve free money from those who they deem 'inferior' to them.
-
[quote]And again, if you do not make an intelligent argument void of hate or null logic, you will be notified that you are dumd.[/quote]This is a key part of the thread. I'd advice reading that comment over, and rewriting it to fit our standards of intelligence.
-
Edited by TheBrandingIron: 4/29/2013 9:32:44 PMIf you tell a person that they might be notified that they are dumb, shouldn't your spelling be flawless?
-
lrn2joke "dumd" is purposely spelled that way. Again, why don't you try rewriting your post to match our standards?
-
Because I do not care if people are intelligent and logical. I will not notify them.
-
What are you talking about?
-
Its an easy fix, either the attorney's charges be subsidized by the federal government (in just those cases) or they could allow the courts to reverse sue automatically for attorney's fees.
-
But wouldn't this also allow for the possibility of the church being sued and losing, probably paying money to a gay couple, even if the attorney's fees are already taken care of?