How "Christian" of him!!

[SlowwHand]

You talk like gay people are automatically not bigots because they endure instances of bigotry. That's another point you need to move off of.

[HalfLotus]

The gay folks I've known well were exceedingly tolerant. Atl, GA: #2 gay capital of USA.

[Asher]

Also,



you accepted Mr. Fun's biased source at face value earlier in the thread and berated Ben for disagreeing or disputing it.

Ozzy, pay very close attention here because I will only say this once and any subsequent posts of mine on this matter will be venomous.

I clearly berated Ben for his harebrained logic and arguments, not BECAUSE he disagreed with it.

Further still, if you had actually ****ing read what I wrote, you'd see it was ALL facetious trolls and not at all to be taken seriously.

My first serious post was post #29 in this thread, which did not take MrFun's story at face value (and indeed, I asked for corroboration and citations).

If you're going to make posts like this directed at me, you'd better know damn well what you are saying. You either can't ****ing read, or can't understand when somebody is being facetious. Frankly, I don't care what your problem is -- just fix it.

[Asher]

But the church worries that it would have to offer health benefits to same-sex spouses of employees and facilitate adoptions by same-sex couples, both of which it says would violate its religious beliefs.

Woe-is-****ing-me.

You have to adhere to the same rules and laws as everyone else. If you want public money and public tax-exempt status, PLAY BY THE RULES and shut the **** up.

The Catholic church needs somebody to seriously hand them a reality check.

Many religions have their religious beliefs stemmed by the rules of law in the interest of civil fairness and human rights. We can't stone people for ****ing their Argentinian mistresses, nor can a man keep a harem of dozens of wives. There are limits to religious oppression and bigotry, and the Catholic church better get on the right side of this issue if they value their very existence.

[DinoDoc]

Both sides could have had thier cake and ate it to had DC followed the example of New Hampshire and allowed an exception for religious organizations.

[Kuciwalker]

That's a pretty stupid analogy.

xpost

[Asher]

You're quite right in the legal sense: if the church backs out it will be in breach of contract (assuming nothing in the bill says otherwise). But I meant in the sense of consent. The church and the government entered into an agreement according to which the church would assist the needy, according to certain terms. Why the government chose to contract with a private charity to provide services to the needy, I don't know.

Regardless, the government is adding new terms to its contract with the church in fact, not in law. That's why I object to this argument that the church is 'playing politics. It has objections to dealing with same sex couples in their capacity as such. It maintains those objections despite the bill, which effectively introduces a new 'clause' into their contract. So it breaks the deal. That's hardly dishonourable, though it may constitute a breach of contract in the legal sense.

If the Church ran a harem of underage girls or employed slave labour, they'd probably whine, too. They can't complain about fairness here. They're contractually obligated to help the poor and needy, as in their contract. If they have to give the members of the church who have "gay married" (and I'm sure there are none) the same benefits under the laws of society, then they have to. All the whining in the world won't change that.

If they're upset by it, they should let the contract expire and then not renew it and sit in the corner and huff and puff about how they can't help people because they'd need to theoretically provide a gay spouse benefits.

[Asher]

Both sides could have had thier cake and ate it to had DC followed the example of New Hampshire and allowed an exception for religious organizations.

They should not get exemptions. That's retarded. Why the **** should they get exemptions? They already are tax exempt, that's already too much. If they are employing people, they are subject to the same laws as everyone else. Because they believe in ridiculous hocus-pocus nonsense doesn't grant them exemptions to the fair treatment of their employees and their families.

Kuci: It's only stupid if you disagree with it. Society's rules trumpets religious freedoms. Bigamists were up in arms when society told them they needed to respect women and limited it to one man and one woman, and now Catholics are up in arms when society tells them they need to respect same-sex marriages. Religious beliefs are secondary to rights society deems inherent to people. No one is forcing the church to marry gay people in their churches.

[Asher]

I'm still very irked by the casual suggestion that Churches should be excempt from legislation promoting fairness in the workplace. Religion is one of the worst offenders in this regard, providing an exemption for them is simply absurd.

What if the issue was interracial marriage? Let's say the Baptist Church believed that white folk and black folk should not marry eachother and they refuse to provide spousal benefits to interracial couples. Would you all casually suggest we simply provide them an exemption for their bigoted beliefs because it's a Church?

[Asher]

Honestly, the more I talk about Christianity, read about Christianity, and talk to Christians the more enraged I get with the religion.

I always get flak for it because there are "good Christians in the world" but that seems to actually be a very rare occurrence in the grand scheme of things, and they're not really practicing Christians if they are.

Far too many people use religion as a convenient excuse for bigotry and it's maddening. People pick and choose which passages of the bible and which translation and which edition of the bible they want to believe in and then refuse to compromise or be reasonable about it. It almost shakes my fundamental belief in humanity -- how can people, especially otherwise intelligent people -- buy into this ****?

There's just no excuse.

Tax the ****ing churches. Practice all the religious nutjobbery you guys want, just be sure you pay your taxes and follow the laws of the land. This exemption bull**** is just too far.

[Asher]

[/end rant]

[notyoueither]

I'm still very irked by the casual suggestion that Churches should be excempt from legislation promoting fairness in the workplace. Religion is one of the worst offenders in this regard, providing an exemption for them is simply absurd.

What if the issue was interracial marriage? Let's say the Baptist Church believed that white folk and black folk should not marry eachother and they refuse to provide spousal benefits to interracial couples. Would you all casually suggest we simply provide them an exemption for their bigoted beliefs because it's a Church?

Would it make the veins in your forehead throb?

[Wezil]

Have you heard this closer to home story Asher?

Religious charities threatened by rights tribunal rulings
Posted: December 16, 2009, 12:28 AM by Ron Nurwisah
Charles Lewis, Christianity, human rights

By Charles Lewis, National Post

TORONTO — Religious charitable groups could be forced to choose between abandoning their values or going out of business if an Ontario Human Rights Tribunal decision is not overturned, an Ontario Divisional Court was told on Tuesday.

In 2008, the tribunal ruled that Christian Horizons, an evangelical Christian group that provides care and homes for the severely disabled, did not have the right to fire an employee because she entered into a lesbian relationship. The woman, Connie Heintz, like all other employees, had signed a code of conduct that forbids sex outside of a traditional marriage between a man and a woman.

The tribunal based its decision on a provision of the Ontario Human Rights Code that allows religious groups to discriminate in hiring if they can prove the interests they are serving are those of people who share the same religious identity. But because Christian Horizons cared for people of all faith groups, it could not use that provision, the tribunal ruled. As well, it added that because Christian Horizons is not involved in indoctrination, the group had no right to use the exception.

On Tuesday, lawyers for Christian Horizons argued that the tribunal did not understand the fundamental mission of Christianity and that it was a violation of religious freedom to deny the group the right to live out its faith as it saw fit.

“The mission is to serve, not to indoctrinate,” lawyer Adrian Miedema told the three-judge panel. “It does not mean the exception should be denied because you don’t teach Christian principles.”

Earlier in the day, Barbara Grossman, another lawyer for Christian Horizons, told court that the group’s religious beliefs compel it to serve all people, not just co-religionists.

“They are following what Jesus Christ said in the Gospels that they must minister to all.”

She said if the court let the ruling stand, then Christian Horizons would be left with just two options: cease being a religious organization or refuse to help people who don’t share their faith.

She said the latter option would be a practical impossibility, akin to asking patrons of a soup kitchen to fill out a religious questionnaire.

Ms. Grossman questioned whether the intent of the provision was to allow a situation in which charitable groups would only care for people of the same faith.

“Did the legislature intend to put these groups out of business because they care for those of other faiths?” she asked.

Ms. Grossman said Christian Horizons “serves the disabled without regard to their faith” and noted that the staff of 2,500, through various group homes, cared for 1,400 of the province’s “most difficult to serve.”

She said the interests being served are not those of the clients, but of the larger religious community that supports the group — in this case, evangelical Christians.

She pointed to a 1984 British Columbia case in which a Catholic teacher was fired from a Catholic school board for marrying a divorced man and then doing so in a civil ceremony. She challenged the decision under that province’s human rights code, which also had a religious exception. The woman argued that the school was serving the interests of the students and therefore her marital status did not impact her employment. But the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the interests being served were those of the broader Catholic community, not the students.

Likewise, in 1991, Christian Horizons was brought before another human rights tribunal after firing two people who went to live in common law relationships. The tribunal said the interest Christian Horizons was serving was not its disable clients but its fellow evangelicals. Christian Horizons ultimately lost that case, but only because they did not have a morals code in place so the two could not have known what they were violating. As a result, Christian Horizons instituted a morals code that every employee must sign.

Ms. Heintz joined Christian Horizons in 1995 as a committed evangelical Christian. She was asked to leave in 2000. A year later she brought a complaint, which took seven years to reach a conclusion. Ms. Heintz was in court on Tuesday but told the judges she would not be making a submission.

The court will also hear from several religious intervenors, including the Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and the Canadian Council of the Christian Charity.

A lawyer for the Ontario Human Rights Commission will have a chance to defend the tribunal’s decision and the group Egale Canada, a gay rights organization, will act as an intervenor for Ms. Heintz.

The appeal hearing is expected to end on Thursday but a decision may not come for at least six months.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/holy-post/archive/2009/12/15/religious-charities-threatened-by-rights-tribunal-rulings.aspx

[Asher]

Would it make the veins in your forehead throb?

Like you wouldn't believe.

[DinoDoc]

How can the district retroactively change the terms of the contract by adding a clause? Is that what happened? If so, somebody cite it.

If the district just passed a law requiring something else independent of the contract, that's not the same thing. And in this case the church would be in breach of the contract.

Based on what I've been reading, the City will be canceling the contracts it has had with the Church not the other way around.

To the DC Polytubbies: How are city officials planning on making up the monies the Church leveraged to fund the social services contracted for?