Franklin Graham and "Religious Freedom"

[Valjean]

I don't know how them being part of "protected classes" stops a religious organisation from not accepting them into their organisation or putting them outside of it etc.?

If it really does, then I entirely agree.

It isn't discrimination, however, it's what the Americans like to call freedom.

Freedom to discriminate?

That's a fair concern. I can only imagine quite a few employees of the church have had to find a new palce to work recently because someone did away with the Bible in their current church. It is a like a disease spreading from one place to the next.

"Did away with the Bible? You'll have to explain that.
Don't the churchgoers already cherry-pick the rules they like and quietly ignore those they find inconvenient?

I am not referring to something directly forcing churches to wed same sex couples, but to the attitude and the ideas that spread that have made their way to several churches. It is unreasonable to expect it won't spread further. Therefore it is unreasonable to assume employees of the church shouldn't be worried about something that could, for all they know, be just around the corner.

It seems to me this sort of 'intolerable imposition' is just the sort of thing to unite the church community in high dudgeon. It'll probably strengthen many of them.

 

[BilliardsBall]

On his Facebook page, Franklin Graham has the following to say about the Supreme Court's ruling that sexual orientation and gender identity are covered under the 1964 Civil RIghts Act as "protected classes."

I would like to point out that precisely the same argument can be made for religions that would like to sacrifice human children to their God! People who have sincere faith that their God requires such sacrifices should never be forced by government to compromise their religious belief! Those are Graham's words, and he should be willing to stand by them.

Of course, in standing by them, he would have to admit that there are people who have faiths other than his, who are just as sincere as he is.

I say, "rubbish!" You can do whatever the heck you like with your faith -- except involve people other than yourself, in any way, shape or form. Your right to exercise your faith, like your fist, stops BEFORE it reaches me.

Okay, Christians and Muslims -- have at me. Tell me why your God gives you the right to discriminate.

That's inconsistent with freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion. I have the right to shout my faith aloud in the US, as surely as someone has the right to hold a Pride parade.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you just take what he wrote, not what he meant (and you think he wrote), he only demands the right to discriminate for Christian organizations. With that I somehow agree. A club that is only open to members (and isn't subsidized by the government) has the right to only employ members and it has the right to terminate membership, and with that employment.
Anyone working for those clubs should know that and start work there at their own risk. If you lay with wolves, don't complain about the flees.

I don't agree.

If a Christian organization is hiring paid staff, then they're choosing to abide by normal employment standards.

If they can't abide by those standards, then they can recruit unpaid volunteers.

 

[Heyo]

I don't agree.

If a Christian organization is hiring paid staff, then they're choosing to abide by normal employment standards.

If they can't abide by those standards, then they can recruit unpaid volunteers.

I see it as a separation of church and state issue. I don't want churches interfere with government and I'm willing to grant them some liberties in their internal affairs.
At least as long as they are truly internal. Ken Ham has received subsidies for his Arc Encounter and it is a business. His contracts which demand that his workers be YEC and even married or celibate are void in my opinion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I see it as a separation of church and state issue. I don't want churches interfere with government and I'm willing to grant them some liberties in their internal affairs.

I see it as a separation of church and state issue as well. Special treatment for religious organizations - like exempting them from the laws that apply to everyone else - violates that separation.

If churches find the laws around hiring staff to be too onerous, they can avoid them by simply not hiring staff.

This really isn't any different from, say, requiring churches to meet the building code.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's inconsistent with freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion. I have the right to shout my faith aloud in the US, as surely as someone has the right to hold a Pride parade.

Your rights are intact. You still have the right to "shout your faith aloud." All this ruling says is that if you choose to hire staff, you have to treat them in a way that doesn't infringe on their rights.

 

[Piculet]

I don't agree.

If a Christian organization is hiring paid staff, then they're choosing to abide by normal employment standards.

If they can't abide by those standards, then they can recruit unpaid volunteers.

What does that mean? That they have to hire the occasional homosexual?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What does that mean? That they have to hire the occasional homosexual?

No, because they don't have to hire employees at all.

If they do hire employees, then they can't discriminate on the basis of sex, race, etc.

 

[Piculet]

No, because they don't have to hire employees at all.

If they do hire employees, then they can't discriminate on the basis of sex, race, etc.

That's ridiculous.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's ridiculous.

Respecting the rights of workers is ridiculous?

 

[Piculet]

Respecting the rights of workers is ridiculous?

It is not a right of a potential worker to be hired.

 

[Piculet]

I have the right to shout my faith aloud in the US, as surely as someone has the right to hold a Pride parade.

You have for now... Unfortunately, not everyone thinks it should be so.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is not a right of a potential worker to be hired.

In hiring, the right of the worker is to a hiring process that is free of illegal discrimination.

 

[Piculet]

of illegal discrimination.

Better not make it illegal then. For sure they have a right to "discriminate" based on personality or voice and looks. Why not sexual behaviour? Besides.... They discriminate against religious people too.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You have for now... Unfortunately, not everyone thinks it should be so.

It's strange to me that Christians who think that they're being persecuted would want to undermine this law.

The law in question doesn't just imply that you can't fire someone for being gay or trans; it also implies you can't fire someone for being Christian.

If you ir @BilliardsBall really do think Christians are under attack, you should be supporting this law.

 

[columbus]

The law in question doesn't just imply that you can't fire someone for being gay or trans; it also implies you can't fire someone for being Christian.

Ironically, piculet is a Muslim.
Here where that law is in place it protects Muslims more than Christian folks, because Muslims really are a persecuted minority.
Tom

 

[Piculet]

It's strange to me that Christians who think that they're being persecuted would want to undermine this law.

The law in question doesn't just imply that you can't fire someone for being gay or trans; it also implies you can't fire someone for being Christian.

If you ir @BilliardsBall really do think Christians are under attack, you should be supporting this law.

First of all, I don't see such law or rule to be useful in the first place. It is like desperately treating one of the many symptoms and ignoring the ever worsening disease.

Secondly, I am a Muslim and if and when I worry about persecution, I seek help from Allah, not human made laws.

Thirdly, everyone knows rulings like this are impossible to actually apply properly and to guarantee people abide by them. In fact, it is guaranteed by default that not all people are going to abide by them and the consequences will largely be nothing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In fact, it is guaranteed by default that not all people are going to abide by them and the consequences will largely be nothing.

If you really think this, then why are you so worked up about the ruling?

 

[Piculet]

If you really think this, then why are you so worked up about the ruling?

I'm not "worked up". I understand the concern brought up by the Christians.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm not "worked up". I understand the concern brought up by the Christians.

You understand a concern about something with what you say will have no consequences?