Can u explain frum ppl being happy over gay marriage?

marina

Sun, Jun 28 2015, 6:51 pm

Laiya wrote:

Can religious institutions now lose their tax-exempt status for refusing to officiate at gay weddings? Using the logic that gay marriage is now afforded the same constitutional protections as inter-racial marriage?

Justice Alito asked this question during oral argument and the answer given by the gov't was--it depends how any such theoretical litigation plays out. But the answer is NOT a definitive "No way!" And that's why religious people should be concerned.

Churches can refuse to marry interracial couples. So no, there is ZERO chance of a priest or rabbi or minister being forced to marry a gay couple or any couple.

Religious organizations are afforded a very high level of exceptions from all these laws. Courts generally avoid these lawsuits like the plague and dismiss them at their first available opportunity. There are cases where religious organizations refused to hire based on skin color and the court said, eh, that's a religious thing, we're not getting involved.

Dolly Welsh

Sun, Jun 28 2015, 6:52 pm

Sequoia, have you read the thread? You said before you hadn't. That's not discussing, that's just insisting.

We all know the party lines.

What I say sounds crazy because it's not the party line.

Defeat my arguments if you can; don't just splutter and say "bbbut everybody knows ...." which just means I have departed from what you are endlessly being told. Perhaps falsely.

Well, at least read the thread.

fmt4

Sun, Jun 28 2015, 6:56 pm

Dolly Welsh wrote:

No, what you say sounds crazy because it contradicts statistics and history and everything else factual and is just literally made up.

marina

Sun, Jun 28 2015, 6:57 pm

amother wrote:

Actually this is not theoretical at all,
http://www.outsidethebeltway.c.....ples/
http://abcnews.go.com/Business.....22065
http://www.christianpost.com/n.....7574/
http://articles.baltimoresun.c.....owner

Those are just some real cases here in the USA and yet somehow MY and YB seem to feel that this ruling does not affect frum Jews?
Again I ask if a frum Jew owns a Florist, a Bakery, a Restaurant, Photography Shop, Bridal Boutique, or any of a host of other business's and a secular Jewish couple come in and wish said business to provide service for their wedding. A real Halachic issue is then present, what happens?

First, I'm curious if this case here is similar in your eyes to the ones above: http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/st.....-baby

Are you as upset about it?

Second, yes, your point is well taken- the bakery situation is very different than the rabbi/priest/shul/school situation and it is actually a complex issue. The bakery question has not been looked at constitutionally yet, only from some state and federal laws.

It's a very very difficult question morally as well, because it literally pits two fundamental rights against each other and those cases are fascinating and very tough to decide. For another twist, let's say there are no gay people. Just a frum person and a Catholic photographer, who says Sorry, my religion doesn't allow me to take photos of your wedding because I believe you will both burn in hell for not accepting the savior, have a nice day. Or a florist who says, sorry I cannot serve Jewish weddings because your union is an abomination to my deity. Is that okay? Are you good with that? Or is that discrimination against you? Or is that just them standing up for their rights? It's not simple.

amother

Pink

Sun, Jun 28 2015, 7:00 pm

imasinger wrote:

The studies seem to say that between 1-2% of both males and females identify as gay, and another similar percentage of both genders identify as bi. See here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik.....ation

Other studies list higher numbers. People tend to live where they are accepted, so some areas report higher percentages than others. But male vs female are pretty similar.

Khaki, I'd like to learn more of the gemara you mentioned. Can you tell me where to find it?

I am pretty sure that what Khaki quoted is a Medrash and not a Gemorah, It is quoted and explained by the Ramban in Parshas Noach it's a pretty famous one.
( FYI, There are plenty of places that discuss the fact that open same gender relations is a cause for discussion ex. are found by Sodom and again by Ninveh)
The Gemorah in Meseches Chullin that states one of the things the non-Jew's keep to is that even though they practice same gender relations they do not go so far as to write marriage contracts is on page 92.

Dolly Welsh

Sun, Jun 28 2015, 7:06 pm

You are getting that from Wikipedia. It is not a good source for something controversial. It can be edited by anybody. On controversial topics, people with strong opinions are always fiddling with Wikipedia pages to make them support their views.

I like Wikipedia but I trust it only for non-controversial things.

Even your figure only adds up to 3.7 percent of the population.

Ancient cultures illustrate human potentials. What they did, others can do too.

Gay leadership contains females. Yes. Maybe lots. I don't know or care, because it doesn't affect this: the number of gay females is smaller, meaningfully smaller, than the number of gay males. That will always be true. People say "well if the men depart, the women can just turn to each other for love, so it's not a loss for them" don't realize that women don't want to be gay in anywhere near the numbers that men do.

Men are stronger, and tend to be richer, than women. They weigh more, are taller, and have longer arms. That's the way it is. Sometimes you have to state the obvious.

Even female soldiers don't seem to be half the US Army. They are only one-tenth. For a long time now.

Anything that separates men from women isn't going to be good for women, long term. This does.

The usual notion is that "it will stay small" and "it's not near me". But it may not stay small and it is in every public school.

marina

Sun, Jun 28 2015, 7:07 pm

happybeingamom wrote:

We are just so very sad and certainly not celebrating. It is to painful to discuss really.

Toeva is also used for idolatry, women wearing pants, unethical business practices and marrying your wife after she's been with someone else. And breaking shabbos is also a capital crime.

If the highest court in the land decided that Buddhists can practice their religion and worship whomever they want and that women wearing pants should be treated as women wearing dresses and that people who break shabbat would still be treated as anyone else in this country, would you be as upset?

Last edited by marina on Sun, Jun 28 2015, 7:08 pm; edited 1 time in total

amother

Pink

Sun, Jun 28 2015, 7:08 pm

marina wrote:

I am sorry I am on my home computer now and don't have access to youre link, I wil B"h try and look at it tomorrow.

Regarding your question.

Yes, I would be OK with it for precisely the reason that others have stated we must be OK with the Supreme Court ruling. The separation of Church and State was designed to allow each person the free exercise of religion. if I were to force the Christian photographer to photograph my wedding then the Christian photographer would in turn be able to force my to photograph her wedding in a Church.

My allowing her to observe her religious convictions allows me to observe mine.

And from a historical perspective that was actually the roots behind the founding of this country, not to force other's to treat all religions, equally, anyone with a modicum of historical knowledge knows that all religions were not treated equally at the time of the Founding. The point was to allow everyone to practice religion freely as they saw fit, something that was not allowed in England.

marina

Sun, Jun 28 2015, 7:10 pm

amother wrote:

Do you see how this can lead to blatant and sometimes pretextual anti-Semitism? Oh, sorry, my religion doesn't allow me to hire Jews. Oh, sorry, my religion doesn't allow me to accept Jews into our university. Oh, sorry, my religion doesn't allow me to sell my home to Jews.

Sometimes it will be sincere and other times it won't, but the courts will never examine the sincerity of religious belief, so that can't be a deciding factor.

amother

Pink

Sun, Jun 28 2015, 7:10 pm

marina wrote:

Dolly, I don't understand your tax exempt point. Can you bring some examples? Citations? Links? Churches rarely lose their tax exempt status and only for engaging in political activity. And it's rarely enforced. So I'm unclear how this is related.

Wasn't she referring to the fact that Solicitor General Donald Verilly admitted during oral arguments that from a legal point of view the Supreme Court decision could very well put the tax exempt status of religious institutions in jeopardy?
Again this was a point that Justice Roberts emphasized in his dissent.

marina

Sun, Jun 28 2015, 7:14 pm

Personally I think the term marriage should be exclusively a religious one and the state can only issue a civil union document.

Further, and this is a little radical, lol, I think civil union documents should not depend on intimacy. You should be able to have a civil union with your elderly aunt if you want, no sexs needed. You apply for a civil union with one person and get tax benefits and health care etc. And you only get one.

If you want a marriage, then you go to your priest or rabbi or whatever.

fmt4

Sun, Jun 28 2015, 7:14 pm

Dolly Welsh wrote:

OMG. You literally just don't listen. Is this better for you? http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....ual/.
So again, NO the amount of gay females is NOT meaningfully smaller than gay males. It's just not. Just because you keep saying it, just because you believe it, does not make it true.

MagentaYenta

Sun, Jun 28 2015, 7:18 pm

Dolly Welsh wrote:

What is your complaint about the data sources and methodology in the Wiki article? Are you saying that the surveys quoted are in valid? The proportions and analysis off?

It's easy to brush off data without a reading or consideration, it's a bit more difficult to read the data, it's analysis and sources and formulate a well considered opinion.

Dolly Welsh

Sun, Jun 28 2015, 7:20 pm

marina wrote:

I wrote a long post upthread about that. Some other poster quoted arguments from this recent case which sounded very much as if what you describe was about to change drastically.

You are a lawyer and clever about these things.

The concerns are about what may happen going forward.

Although destroying a family business is not nothing, and that has happened already. Some other poster posted links to such cases.

The whole blessed issue is a distraction from warfare abroad and all. Let's hope it stays abroad.

Marina, if you can only be a frum Jew at home and in shul, but you can't have a for-profit frum business, it's not good. No, you can't have a frum business if you can't run it in a frum way. Not every shul is big enough for weddings, for instance, so there are wedding halls. If they must obtain tax-exempt status as religious institutions to operate, that's not good. Of course they aren't charitable institutions.

People who think gay activists will be too psychologically frightened to go into neighborhoods where they aren't liked are silly.

amother

Pink

Sun, Jun 28 2015, 7:22 pm

marina wrote:

Actually I don't.

Hiring Jews, Christian's Muslim's for a non-religious affair has nothing to do with a religious ceremony.
Providing the support services for a marriage is participating on a certain level in a ceremony which is theologically repugnant.
So yes if a person would enter the bakery and the Baker, knowing the person was gay, would say " I refuse to serve you because of who you are as a person, then yes I could understand and would in fact support prosecuting that person for discrimination.
What that person is or isn't does not give you the right to refuse service.
However if a customer who has always been served graciously comes in and says "Can you bake a cake and cater my gay wedding ceremony". Then the baker should have the right to state that I cannot take part in a ceremony that is completely at odds with my religious beliefs.
And the biggest proof of the distinctions is the fact that from a real Jewish legal perspective there is actually no Halachic reason to refuse service in the first case while in the second case it is at least a question if it is permitted and in all likelihood if the customers are Jewish it would forbidden.
There are tons of cases like this.
We sell stuff online, at one point my DH was selling mens razor blades and he discussed it with prominent Rabbonim and the unanimous conclusion was that in cases where he knew for a fact that the person ordering the razor blade was Jewish and the only use for this blade was the biblically prohibited act of shaving and it was a male blade he had to cancel the order. It was prohibited for him to take part in another Jew violating a Biblical prohibition.

amother

Pink

Sun, Jun 28 2015, 7:25 pm

marina wrote:

You are full of suprises.

I don't think that we agree on much, however I actually think that from a legal and theological perspective that your radical idea has a lot of merit, for a ton of reasons.