Can u explain frum ppl being happy over gay marriage?

MagentaYenta

Sun, Jun 28 2015, 12:30 pm

amother wrote:

Actually not.

See if a Woman, Black, Asian or Jew is refused service because of who that individual is then it would make no difference for what they are requesting service. Service would be denied and then it would be correctly interpreted that they are being denied service because of an intrinsic hatred towards the individual in questions.
However in the case of the baker's or florist's they in fact serviced the individual's in question at other time's knowing full well what their sekual preferences were and they in fact indicated that they would happily service them at other time's as well.
What they refused was to service them in furtherance of a specific action that they were taking that was in violation of their deeply held moral principles.
In theory what would actually be similar would be an irreligious Jew suing a Orthodox Jew for refusing to rent them a hall for a event that includes Chillul Shabbos.
The reason for the refusal would have to do with real Halachic issues of helping a fellow Jew desecrate Shabbos not hatred towards said Jew and yet under the Oregon case and current "popular" liberal opinion a case could be made that said refusal is an act of bigotry.
So in fact the case of the baker and florist and inn keeper is a real danger to an Orthodox Jew's ability to practice religion openly.
( I deliberately did not use the exact same obvious parallel of what about a Jewish restaurant asked to hos a the same gender marriage party of Jewish individuals which would again involve serious halachic issues)

All the sparkling words you wrote are quite wasted. Because the law is quite clear with regards to businesses discriminating, in the case of the bakery. There will certainly be other tests in other states. Your words 'infurtherance' sound good but have nothing to do with the legal issues in the bakery suit.

As it stands Jewish religious institutions and other non Jewish religious institutions are free to discriminate. Businesses (with regards to this specific case) can not.

Rubber Ducky

Sun, Jun 28 2015, 12:49 pm

Volunteer wrote:

I understand the logic that if homosexual marriage doesn't affect me, why should I deny anyone else the ability to legally marry. I just want to point out that there is a legitimate concern that the rights of anyone religiously opposed to sanctioning same-relations marriage will be affected. If a rabbi refuses to officiate at a same-relations wedding, could he get sued
for discrimination? Could he lose his livelihood? Could his synagogue lose tax- exempt status, and possibly lose donations? These questions haven't been adjudicated yet, but I expect they will soon. We've already seen the beginning of this with the bakery case. That's how the recent ruling could affect everyone.

This is my concern also.

Amarante

Sun, Jun 28 2015, 12:59 pm

The law is pretty clear in terms of enabling those with a LEGITIMATE religious issue to practice their religion so no one is going to force an Orthodox Rabbi to perform a marriage ceremony. Substitute "black" or "Jew" for "homosexual" which is what people were doing in 1964 when the Civil Rights Act was passed and then it becomes clear why people can celebrate a moral decision which has absolutely no impact on one's own religious practices.

I am always appalled when Jews are not strongly on the side of strict separation of Church and State and against discrimination against minorities because the Constitution and Civil Rights provide so much protection for every kind of minority - and Jews continue to be a minority.

I just finished reading quite a sweet book called Sweet Like Sugar by Wayne Hoffman which is about the unlikely friendship that develops between a gay fairly secular Jewish young man and an elderly Orthodox rabbi.

http://www.amazon.com/Sweet-Li.....6562X

MagentaYenta

Sun, Jun 28 2015, 1:12 pm

amother wrote:

Yes, but. Are you comfortable requiring a mom and pop bakery to celebrate gay marriage? Are you saying, unless you are a rabbi, you must applaud it if you deal with the public?

What about renting shul social halls? You can bet the gay activists are going to push such lawsuits soon. It's a secular use of a facility owned by a religious group. Without laws line the dead indiana rfra, the shul is at risk in such a case. What about a day school whodoesn't hire a gay marriage activist math teacher? Recent cases indicate that on a federal level they may be safe from suit, but in many states I'd worry.

A mom and pop bakery is a business out to make money. They are not celebrating anyone's marriage when they bake a cake. They are selling goods for money.

A private day religious day school can discriminate about who they hire. That issue has been addressed by many lower courts already. You have good right to worry if you live in a state without anti discrimination laws. Those laws are pretty much frowned upon in some states. But factually religions are allowed to discriminate and are protected.

If it is a hall in a schul their right to discriminate is protected. Do you really think that a gay couple is going to walk into a catering hall in BP and expect to hire the hall for their marriage celebration? It's likely the community has already ostracized them. They are more likely to chose a facility that welcomes them and their hard earned money in their own community.

amother

Pink

Sun, Jun 28 2015, 1:18 pm

MagentaYenta wrote:

In which case was my words wasted?

Again pray tell.

If an Orthodox Jew who is required to follow the Torah 24/7 refuses to rent his hall to secular Jewish party for a Sabbath event which will involve serious violations of the Sabbath can he now be sued for discrimination?

If a Jewish wedding photographer refuses to photograph a same-gender wedding of secular Jews on the grounds that they cannot take part in a affair that violates the Torah, can they now be sued?
If a Jewish owned restaurant refuses to cater a secular Jewish same gender affair can they now be sued for discrimination?

The answer to all of these if a most definite yes in at least certain States which means that it is keeping the Torah 24/7 is something that can place a Jews livelihood at risk and subject them to persecution.

( Again I deliberately chose cases with secular Jews)

amother

Pink

Sun, Jun 28 2015, 1:23 pm

MagentaYenta wrote:

Again that is your opinion.

However again at a minimum in cases of secular Jew's there are serious issues Halachic issues about participating and or/helping another Jew do something that is in violation or appears to be in violation of Torah Law.
As Jews we are required to follow the Torah 24/7 in everything we do.
Our business may not be a "religious institution" yet that does not permit it to be open on Shabbos. does it?
Our business may not be a religious institution, yet that does not permit it to serve non-kosher food to Jews, does it?

MagentaYenta

Sun, Jun 28 2015, 1:32 pm

amother wrote:

I know nothing about your business. If you want to be specific you'll need to give me more information. FWIW I was addressing specific civil laws and their outcomes.

There is a lot of fear being expressed on this thread and I'm still attempting to process how individuals who are members of a minority faith don't recognize the larger issues at hand. Our religion is protected, our religious institutions are protected. And now individuals of other minorities are also protected.

youngishbear

Sun, Jun 28 2015, 1:42 pm

MagentaYenta wrote:

I agree. I think extending rights to everyone is actually a good thing for religious people.

The question is whether their rights will impinge on our religious rights.

mommy3b2c

Sun, Jun 28 2015, 1:42 pm

mille wrote:

You are literally arguing semantics. You don't like that it's called "marriage". If a civil union were the same thing as a marriage, with the exact same rights, you are literally just arguing over the fact that it's called a "marriage". To that, I say everyone needs to get over it, or come up with a better argument. Somehow I feel that if we decided to call all marriages in the US "civil unions", gay or straight, everyone would still have an issue with gay 'civil union' for whatever reason.

And without the civil union or marriage, they do NOT have the same rights afforded to heterose-xual couples who are married. This whole argument over civil union also just brings to mind a 'separate but equal' mentality, which has totally went over well in the past...

Yes the word marriage bothers me. I think that all pairs of adults living to get her should be allowed civil unions that give them the same rights as married couples. A mother and daughter, two sisters, or gay lovers. This way, no one is discriminated against and I am not forced to applaud something that I consider immoral or be labeled a bigot.

amother

Puce

Sun, Jun 28 2015, 1:49 pm

MagentaYenta wrote:

I'm willing to bet that within one year we hear of a gay couple seeking to rent a shul/church/bp hall for their wedding, solely for the purpose of being denied and suing, and further that the couple will receive much media and court sympathy, even if they ultimately lose. There are many people in north Williamsburg chomping at the bit to stick it to the retrograde s in south Williamsburg.

MagentaYenta

Sun, Jun 28 2015, 1:52 pm

youngishbear wrote:

I agree. I think extending rights to everyone is actually a good thing for religious people.

The question is whether their rights will impinge on our religious rights.

There is no reason, based on case law why the rights of a minority will impinge on the rights of Jews. Substitute the word black, Jehovah's Witness or female for minority, 'The question is whether the rights of blacks,Jehovah's Witness or female will impinge on our religious rights'.

youngishbear

Sun, Jun 28 2015, 2:01 pm

MagentaYenta wrote:

I don't see it affecting me personally.

I do want to point out, however, that none of the examples you listed are comparable. There are black Jews, and female Jews, many members of both groups are even religious Smile

.

Engaging in homosexual relations is anti-religious. It's not even a specific religion like JW (whose rights I would want protected, too).

I do see the point of those worrying about Hobby Lobby-type stories, and the infamous bakery fiasco, becoming more commonplace.

Other posters have mentioned how venues owned by religious people may be sued for discrimination for refusing to accomodate gay marriage ceremonies. (I'm not even sure what the halacha is for the Jewish owner in this hypothetical situation. Assuming it's assur.)

I still think we can figure it all out, and the benefits of extending rights to all far outweigh the potential risks/inconveniences/shailos.

MagentaYenta

Sun, Jun 28 2015, 2:14 pm

youngishbear wrote:

Good catch!! I think in the long run it will all work out for everyone. Like I said it's likely some crazy is gonna fight to have Westboro marry two gay folks. Insular Orthodox communities will feel little impact, except if they have gay children who will be marrying.

To the first bold. There are many xtian and nonxtian religions willing to marry SS couples and accepting of their relationships. GLBT individuals have lots of choices if they choose a religious ceremony.

PinkFridge

Sun, Jun 28 2015, 3:22 pm

amother wrote:

Ok, so if I as a religious individual who owns a private bakery am happy to make a birthday or graduation cake for a gay couple, but it is against my religious principals to provide a cake that helps celebrate something my religion says is wrong, I'm kind of stuck now, right? Do I also have to make a cake for an atheist convention? There's a difference between not serving a person and not supporting a cause.

I believe private companies can make these decisions on religious grounds, and the populace is welcome to protest them in public, and if that makes the private business go under because they lose business, so be it. I'm thinking about Hobby Lobby and the like.

Imagine being forced to decorate a sheetcake with "G-d is dead" (ch'v!!) or something equally blasphemous.

PinkFridge

Sun, Jun 28 2015, 3:25 pm

MagentaYenta wrote:

Hate speech is a different issue.

?? I'm talking about, Congratulations Bill and Steve on the cake, complete with 2 grooms.

ETA: I just read pinkamother under the post I'm quoting. Surely you don't mean, "You're lovely people and I value your patronage but catering your gay wedding is against my values" is hate speech.
Is that where things are heading?

PinkFridge

Sun, Jun 28 2015, 3:33 pm

MagentaYenta wrote:

A mom and pop bakery is a business out to make money. They are not celebrating anyone's marriage when they bake a cake. They are selling goods for money.

Sorry, most people couldn't do business this way. At least I couldn't. I would like to think this is so.
Do you agree that a notions company has a right not to make key chains for a (hypothetical, I have no idea if there is one) NAMBLA convention? Granted, that's really odious. But no one would doubt that a vendor who refused to do such business is principled. The mom and pop bakery is as principled.