 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
Forum
-> Interesting Discussions
marina
|
 Sun, Jun 28 2015, 10:26 pm
| amother wrote: | 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. |
Ok, yes. I looked into this issue just now
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06......html
I see where the concern is coming from, but it's very far away. There's already legislation proposed for protecting those tax exempt statuses. And I don't know- I feel like tax exempt status is a little gift from the IRS to you. If you don't have a gift anymore, I guess it's still discrimination, but it's very different than the government shutting you down. I'll be interested in seeing how this plays out in the courts.
| |
|
| Back to top |
 1
|
MagentaYenta
|
Sun, Jun 28 2015, 10:30 pm
| amother wrote: | | ...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. |
Except that in 1638 Roger Williams was exiled from Massachusetts for his radical views on the separation of church and state.
| |
|
| Back to top |
2
|
|
amother
Pink
|
Sun, Jun 28 2015, 10:32 pm
| MagentaYenta wrote: | | Except that in 1638 Roger Williams was exiled from Massachusetts for his radical views on the separation of church and state. |
What in the world are you talking about?
Do you thin the USA came into being in 1638?
'Cause you should look up the laws at the time of the founding.
| |
|
| Back to top |
1
|
marina
|
Sun, Jun 28 2015, 10:36 pm
| amother 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. |
The question here is simple: to what extent can my religion justify my discrimination? And I don't mean that in a bad way. We all discriminate and we certainly do it based on religion when we, for example, don't hire a Catholic to be our shul rabbi. That's clearly fine because it's a religious reason for a religious activity.
But what if I give a religious reason for a non religious activity? Sorry, I can't sell you flowers or cake for your wedding? Sorry, I can't offer you health insurance that includes birth control because of my religion?
And yes: sorry I can't hire you to be a computer programmer because my religion doesn't allow it. People can be very nice and pleasant and say, hey, I'm not judging you as a person, etc, etc, but my priest just doesn't allow me to interact with Jews, so sorry I cannot hire you. Best of luck.
That's a religious reason and who are you to say that is less valid than the religious baker who doesn't want to bake a happy gay marriage cake? Maybe this is that person's sincere religious belief and why shouldn't we respect it?
| |
|
| Back to top |
7
|
|
amother
Pink
|
Sun, Jun 28 2015, 10:51 pm
[I] | marina wrote: | The question here is simple: to what extent can my religion justify my discrimination? And I don't mean that in a bad way. We all discriminate and we certainly do it based on religion when we, for example, don't hire a Catholic to be our shul rabbi. That's clearly fine because it's a religious reason for a religious activity.
But what if I give a religious reason for a non religious activity? Sorry, I can't sell you flowers or cake for your wedding? Sorry, I can't offer you health insurance that includes birth control because of my religion?
And yes: sorry I can't hire you to be a computer programmer because my religion doesn't allow it. People can be very nice and pleasant and say, hey, I'm not judging you as a person, etc, etc, but my priest just doesn't allow me to interact with Jews, so sorry I cannot hire you. Best of luck.
That's a religious reason and who are you to say that is less valid than the religious baker who doesn't want to bake a happy gay marriage cake? Maybe this is that person's sincere religious belief and why shouldn't we respect it? |
I thought I did a pretty good job of explaining that.
One's personal freedom cannot compel me to do an act that causes me to violate my religious beliefs.
I.E I cannot be compelled to offer someone else BC if that violates [[I]b]my sincerely held religious beliefs.[/b]
However I cannot limit that individuals personal freedom to seek BC elsewhere in a manner that does not compel me to actively violate my personal beliefs.
So again when hiring an individual for non-religious function that persons private beliefs are irrelevant to the task at hand, and a refusal to hire that person because of the prospective employee's personal beliefs is not an exercise of my religious freedom since that persons beliefs are irrelevant to any action of mine, rather it's an attempt to compel that person to have the same beliefs as mine.
However let's say the question is hiring a person to carry out a religious function say blow shofar, then again my refusal to hire a non-jew has nothing to do with that person's beliefs, rather it is because the prospective employee's shofar blowing would violate my freedom to exercise my religion as it would cause me to violate my religious obligations by not hearing shofar
[/I]
Again the Constitution was correctly noted by President Obama is essentially a document of negative liberties not positive one's precisely for this reason.
The USa was set up not to compel everyone to get along or even to like each other. It was set up to allow everyone to live as they so fit as long as what they do does not force others to suffer.
Again in the case of the baker, the bakeshop in question in fact pointed out other shops that would more then willingly accommodate the couple in question. They did not seek to prohibit the couple in question from doing what they wanted all they requested was the personal option to follow their deeply held religious beliefs which did not allow them tp participate in any way in such a ceremony.
| |
|
| Back to top |
7
|
happybeingamom
|
Sun, Jun 28 2015, 11:05 pm
| marina wrote: | 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. |
You know I was reading a debate about this argument and an atheist said I don't want a civil union I want a marriage, so not everyone likes that idea.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
|
heidi
|
Sun, Jun 28 2015, 11:07 pm
Full disclosure-- I only read the first and last pages.
I am for gay marriage bcz. I don't think it affects my everyday life.
I have never once, not once, walked into work, or the grocery or the pediatrician's office and been asked if I had relations the night before.
Why shouldn't a gay person have that same right. Why should I care what a gay person does or doesn't do in the privacy of his own home?
In other words, why is it my right to know who is or isn't gay?
Let people marry who they want, as long as no one tells me who I can or can't marry.
And for those of you all in a huff about being happy about something against the Torah, you are right! I also don't discriminate against people who speak lashon hara, whose levels of tzinyus leave much to be desired, or those whose kashrus is questionable at best. Those are things that effect me (and my children's exposure level) much more than who some guy is going to bed with at night, and once again, it's really none of my d++n business.
| |
|
| Back to top |
11
|
MagentaYenta
|
Sun, Jun 28 2015, 11:07 pm
| amother wrote: | ...
Again in the case of the baker, the bakeshop in question in fact pointed out other shops that would more then willingly accommodate the couple in question. They did not seek to prohibit the couple in question from doing what they wanted all they requested was the personal option to follow their deeply held religious beliefs which did not allow them tp participate in any way in such a ceremony. |
Except in the case of the baker discrimination against GBLTs is illegal in the state where she had her business.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
|
Laiya
|
Sun, Jun 28 2015, 11:08 pm
| marina wrote: | 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. |
Interesting thought. So....would this be one partner per lifetime? Or as many as you want consecutively, just one at a time? Because I'm thinking....this may be a neat little way around the estate tax (for those in that bracket) 
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
|
marina
|
Sun, Jun 28 2015, 11:10 pm
| Quote: | | So again when hiring an individual for non-religious function that persons private beliefs are irrelevant to the task at hand, and a refusal to hire that person because of the prospective employee's personal beliefs is not an exercise of my religious freedom since that persons beliefs are irrelevant to any action of mine, rather it's an attempt to compel that person to have the same beliefs as mine. |
This is a blanket statement you are making and not always true. Say my rav excommunicated Joe. Joe is in cherem. Joe wants to come work for me as a computer programmer. Can I hire Joe? Maybe not. Maybe I cannot hire Joe for religious reasons. Or say you have a choice between two computer programmers and one is a frum Jew. And your rav tells you that you must hire the frum Jew and may not hire the other guy. Now you must discriminate in hiring for religious reasons, all because of someone's beliefs. Right? That's just Judaism. I haven't even started on the other religions, say untouchables being hired by upper caste groups, etc.
| |
|
| Back to top |
4
|
marina
|
Sun, Jun 28 2015, 11:11 pm
| happybeingamom wrote: | | You know I was reading a debate about this argument and an atheist said I don't want a civil union I want a marriage, so not everyone likes that idea. |
Sorry. You can't get a marriage from the state. You can get one from your religious leader, which for atheists would be the FSM church.
| |
|
| Back to top |
5
|
|
amother
Pink
|
Sun, Jun 28 2015, 11:13 pm
| heidi wrote: | Full disclosure-- I only read the first and last pages.
I am for gay marriage bcz. I don't think it affects my everyday life.
I have never once, not once, walked into work, or the grocery or the pediatrician's office and been asked if I had relations the night before.
Why shouldn't a gay person have that same right. Why should I care what a gay person does or doesn't do in the privacy of his own home?
In other words, why is it my right to know who is or isn't gay?
Let people marry who they want, as long as no one tells me who I can or can't marry.
And for those of you all in a huff about being happy about something against the Torah, you are right! I also don't discriminate against people who speak lashon hara, whose levels of tzinyus leave much to be desired, or those whose kashrus is questionable at best. Those are things that effect me (and my children's exposure level) much more than who some guy is going to bed with at night, and once again, it's really none of my d++n business. |
Actually there is a huge org. dedicated towards improving people's habits regarding LH, there is constant shiurim and awareness regarding Tznius, and regarding Kashrus there is also shiurim galore all over the place as well as tons of resources to enable people to be more careful.
Point is in no case is the going against the Torah accepted as correct, celebrated, or viewed as acceptable.
What is recognized is that we are human beings who do wrong things and have bad habits and we must work on ourselves.
Recognizing GM from a Torah perspective is precisely the opposite it is giving an open stamp of approval to something that is roundly condemned and viewed as immoral from the Torah perspective.
| |
|
| Back to top |
4
|
marina
|
Sun, Jun 28 2015, 11:13 pm
| Laiya wrote: | | Interesting thought. So....would this be one partner per lifetime? Or as many as you want consecutively, just one at a time? Because I'm thinking....this may be a neat little way around the estate tax (for those in that bracket) | Yeah, I'm sure there would be many loopholes to close, but it's just an idea...
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
|
marina
|
Sun, Jun 28 2015, 11:17 pm
| amother wrote: | Actually there is a huge org. dedicated towards improving people's habits regarding LH, there is constant shiurim and awareness regarding Tznius, and regarding Kashrus there is also shiurim galore all over the place as well as tons of resources to enable people to be more careful.
Point is in no case is the going against the Torah accepted as correct, celebrated, or viewed as acceptable.
What is recognized is that we are human beings who do wrong things and have bad habits and we must work on ourselves.
Recognizing GM from a Torah perspective is precisely the opposite it is giving an open stamp of approval to something that is roundly condemned and viewed as immoral from the Torah perspective. |
Ok, just very simply. The First Amendment gives everyone the right to bow down to idols. And idolatry must be treated like any other religion. Isn't that an open stamp of approval to something that is roundly condemned and viewed as immoral from the Torah perspective?
| |
|
| Back to top |
5
|
youngishbear
|
Sun, Jun 28 2015, 11:20 pm
| marina wrote: | | Ok, just very simply. The First Amendment gives everyone the right to bow down to idols. And idolatry must be treated like any other religion. Isn't that an open stamp of approval to something that is roundly condemned and viewed as immoral from the Torah perspective? |
That's not a fair example. The constitutional freedom to worship idols is a fact older than all of us.
If it wouldn't be, and the SCOTUS would now rule that the first amendment does apply to idolaters, would frum Jews be changing their avatars to Christian religious icons in celebration? I think not.
My example isn't fair either, but I don't think it's comparable.
| |
|
| Back to top |
1
|
MagentaYenta
|
Sun, Jun 28 2015, 11:21 pm
| marina wrote: | | Sorry. You can't get a marriage from the state. You can get one from your religious leader, which for atheists would be the FSM church. |
Or a clerk at the marriage license bureau in some states. No ceremony, pay your money get your papers and have them signed during the clerks office hours.
| |
|
| Back to top |
3
|
heidi
|
Sun, Jun 28 2015, 11:26 pm
| amother wrote: | Actually there is a huge org. dedicated towards improving people's habits regarding LH, there is constant shiurim and awareness regarding Tznius, and regarding Kashrus there is also shiurim galore all over the place as well as tons of resources to enable people to be more careful.
Point is in no case is the going against the Torah accepted as correct, celebrated, or viewed as acceptable.
What is recognized is that we are human beings who do wrong things and have bad habits and we must work on ourselves.
Recognizing GM from a Torah perspective is precisely the opposite it is giving an open stamp of approval to something that is roundly condemned and viewed as immoral from the Torah perspective. |
Obviously we run in different circles amother. The people I am talking about are perfectly happy eating so so kosher food, in short sleeves and low necklines and speaking lashon hara. No one has any desire to go to these shiurim galore of which you speak.
| |
|
| Back to top |
2
|
marina
|
Sun, Jun 28 2015, 11:32 pm
| youngishbear wrote: | That's not a fair example. The constitutional freedom to worship idols is a fact older than all of us.
If it wouldn't be, and the SCOTUS would now rule that the first amendment does apply to idolaters, would frum Jews be changing their avatars to Christian religious icons in celebration? I think not.
My example isn't fair either, but I don't think it's comparable. |
See, I don't think people would give two rats' asses if scotus issued some kind of decision about idolaters tomorrow. They wouldn't even notice. Because WHAT PEOPLE DO IN THEIR BEDROOM is where it's at. That's what everyone wants to talk about.
| |
|
| Back to top |
6
|
|
amother
Pink
|
Sun, Jun 28 2015, 11:36 pm
| marina wrote: | | Quote: | | So again when hiring an individual for non-religious function that persons private beliefs are irrelevant to the task at hand, and a refusal to hire that person because of the prospective employee's personal beliefs is not an exercise of my religious freedom since that persons beliefs are irrelevant to any action of mine, rather it's an attempt to compel that person to have the same beliefs as mine. |
This is a blanket statement you are making and not always true. Say my rav excommunicated Joe. Joe is in cherem. Joe wants to come work for me as a computer programmer. Can I hire Joe? Maybe not. Maybe I cannot hire Joe for religious reasons. Or say you have a choice between two computer programmers and one is a frum Jew. And your rav tells you that you must hire the frum Jew and may not hire the other guy. Now you must discriminate in hiring for religious reasons, all because of someone's beliefs. Right? That's just Judaism. I haven't even started on the other religions, say untouchables being hired by upper caste groups, etc. |
Actually from a Judaic pov the reason to hire a fellow Jew is the same reason I would hire a close relative in need of work before someone else. My familial obligations from a moral standpoint obligate as much and we are enjoined to view all Jews as siblings. And IRL this is the basis for the vast chesed network that is found in the Jewish community.
Again this "moral code" is something which crosses lines and is generally understood, if unspoken. Which is why in black places of work you will generally find more black, in Chinese places of work you'll find more Chinese.
And while yes I am aware of efforts to legally curtail it I really am against them, and I feel they are the result of many who have no community and cannot deal with the fact that other's have.
However I really don't think that the argument is religious in nature.
However before you ask. Yes if I would apply for a job in the "hood" and Tony would hire his brother from the hood before me simply because of the community connection I would have no problem with that, just as I have no problem with Satmar business's hiring Satmar and Lubavitch Lubavitch first.
I do expect quid pro qou that they not have a problem with my community hiring from within first.
however if all things being equal and there was not some one first in line from the Christian's community and they refused to hire me simply because of my religion then you bet I would have a problem.
You see hiring me does not compel the employer to violate a specific precept of Christianity, rather it is an attempt by the employer to demonstrate that they do not approve of my privately held beleifs, a classic case of discrimination.
The case of Cherem probably would not get to court since if I am correct there is no discrimination against a "class" of people it is simply an unwillingness to hire a specific individual because of a religious commandment, and even if it would get to trial, few Judges would compel someone to violate a reasonably imposed cherem.
I have no idea how the Indian caste system works, nor what it's basis is so I can't address it.
Again as I have stated again and again we have been able to live so long with such success in this country not because we have imposed a version of right and wrong on others and forced them to abide by it. Rather it is a mutual recognition of "live and let live' that allows each side to live quietly.
In fact I think if their is one point that threatens to be the undoing of the rather impressive political achievements of the Gay Lobby, it is this simple recognition.
America is a very tolerant society and it is that very tolerance that allowed such a quick and decisive victory, however it is also a society that is liberty oriented at it's core. If Gay activists continue to attempt to force the extremely religious heartland of America to not just allow and tolerate their marital ceremonies, but actively participate in them then the intrinsic "tolerance" will come back to bite them.
There are tens of millions of deeply religious people in the USA and the Gay victory at the Supreme Court will turn out similar to Roe vs. Wade a Pyrrhic victory for in many parts of the country it is harder then ever to get an abortion.
| |
|
| Back to top |
5
|
youngishbear
|
Sun, Jun 28 2015, 11:36 pm
| marina wrote: | | See, I don't think people would give two rats' asses if scotus issued some kind of decision about idolaters tomorrow. They wouldn't even notice. Because WHAT PEOPLE DO IN THEIR BEDROOM is where it's at. That's what everyone wants to talk about. |
That explains it!!
8 pages of other peoples' bedroom lives!!
That's probably longer than the standard intimacy threads, so no... I don't think that's what this actually is about. Some people really do feel strongly about religion, and the Torah, and the Constitution, and freedom, etc etc.
But thanks for the laugh.
| |
|
| Back to top |
3
|
| Related Topics |
Replies |
Last Post |
|
|
Monsey Fittings-Not Frum Stores
|
1 |
Sun, Apr 21 2024, 10:19 am  |
|
|
Why are frum products missing expiry dates?!
|
4 |
Thu, Apr 18 2024, 6:25 pm |
|
|
Frum layouts/house plans - 3000-3600 square footage?
|
18 |
Tue, Apr 16 2024, 11:45 pm |
|
|
ISO name of singer/cd (frum female)
|
6 |
Tue, Apr 16 2024, 9:17 am |
|
|
Any frum trips?
|
0 |
Fri, Apr 12 2024, 12:56 pm |
|
|
Imamother may earn commission when you use our links to make a purchase.
© 2024 Imamother.com - All rights reserved
|  |
 |
|
 |
|
|
