Shifty
O.G.
Fixed. :o
Should a marriage commissioner have the right to refuse homosexual couples?
- Thread starter PlasmaTwa2
- Start date
Fixed. :o
PlasmaTwa2
The Second-Hottest Man in my Mother's Basement
I was wondering why you were calling me "Prime Minister."
vodkazvictim
Why save the world, when you can rule it?
On what logic do you base that comment?
And if you DO choose to believe in God, do you then choose NOT to believe in God?
Because many people get upset when they become dissilusioned with or lose their faith.
hehe, I give you the outcome..... from today.
The Gays 1 : Christians 0
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ristian-hotel-owners-refused-double-room.html
Should a marriage commissioner have the right to refuse heterosexual couples?
Rattrap
Doesn't feed trolls and would appreciate it if you
...this is already going to echo my debate with Chef, I can tell, but what the hell: What do you mean by you don't 'believe' in gay marriage?
This...is actually a good question, once I've given it some thought. My gut reaction was, 'Why yes you do!' but the truth is a bit more complicated. To believe or not could be based on upbringing, logical reasoning (which not everybody has a very good ability to do...dare I say, most people are quite shit at it), plain ol' Freudian 'hope'...I made the choice, myself. But I've long ago (and this isn't trying to be at all egotistical) accepted that I have more responsibility in my reasoning than most.
Indeed! I'm on the side of 'no' - a civil servant shouldn't have any right to deny a citizen their services. A 'religious' excuse can be made for everything from drug use to animal sacrifice - and before anybody argues that 'mainstream' religions can be distinguished from fringe cults, take a look at the Mormons. Or for even a good look at the big book itself, try reading The Year of Living Biblically. It's both entertaining and sheds light on many of the absurd rules in the Bible (while being quite respectful, I should add).
The only difference between a religion and a cult is scale.
PlasmaTwa2
The Second-Hottest Man in my Mother's Basement
Is heterosexuality a crime in some countries?
Why should that question be relevant since neither are a crime in Canada?
I get where you're going but your dialectical approach in this case, with that question produces a non sequitur IMO.
PlasmaTwa2
The Second-Hottest Man in my Mother's Basement
It isn't relevant. I just think his question was dumb, so I responded with something dumb as well.
A marriage commissioner refusing to marry a heterosexual couple would be a different beast entirely because the reason would be different; he wouldn't be claiming religious rights to do so (and if he did, no one would take him seriously because the church is not opposed to that). A marriage commissioner refusing to marry a homosexual couple due to religious reasons is a legitimate claim that is backed by constitutional rights.
IE, they aren't really compatible.
Well, all religion isn't based on the church, synagogue, mosque, temple, etc. That's why in the US despite suggestions to the contrary our founders sought to keep religion and the state out of each other's business.
Because as silly as it sounds and as unlikely as it seems (in theory) there could be a circumstance where someone's religious belief could one day call into question things we consider commonplace and common sense like man/woman marriage.
That's why no one's individual belief on any circumstance should be allowed to pervade a g'ment's official role. Because once the precedence is set..you never know who will claim what they want to do in the name of whatever later.
I just look at it this way...no one has a right to a job. Meaning, as long as the conditions of a job are not illegal you always have the right to take your employment elsewhere if the job requires circumstances you are unwilling to submit to. The g'ment isn't precluding someone's right from practicing and adhering to the tenets of their religion. They are simply saying (rightfully) your religion shouldn't interfere and preclude the g'ment from carrying out it's affairs.
PlasmaTwa2
The Second-Hottest Man in my Mother's Basement
When our Constitution guarentees religious rights, I assume it is under the assumption that the religion/religious organization in question is recognized by the government, which keeps out all the weird cults that worship a buffalo that tells them they can't work on Wednesdays. I don't have much faith in my government, but I have enough that they wouldn't listen to something dumb like that.
I don't know about Canada but I would think guaranteeing of religious rights/freedoms means one can practice what they want no matter how kooky others feel it is. As long as your free practice doesn't interfere/encroach on the rights of others.
That's what it means in the US.
Guaranteeing religious rights in no way means your religion is somehow sanctioned as one the g'ment feels is sensible enough....at least not in the US.
You didn't understand. Why do i ask: "Should a marriage commissioner have the right to refuse heterosexual couples?". Because the answer to this question is exactly the same that the answer to this thread. It can be "yes" or "no", but it's the same.
God Money trumps all. Those who said that you have to do yer damn job whether you like it or not are correct. Now as to if that is good and fair, that is a matter of workers rights and a totally different dilemma.
Every citizen in a free and law abiding country should have equal rights. End of story.
That is why religion and legal partnership should be totally separate things.
All consenting adults, regardless of sexual orientation or other personal viewpoint should be entitled to legal documentation arising from their partnership that is certified by a government official.
Any people who practice and holds religious views can engage in a spiritual commitment before the authority of their choosing that is based on their respective faith and has nothing to do with government process whatsoever.
That would solve the problem right there. If anyone was opposed to this idea it would be an act of bigotry and a violation of someone's rights.
Every citizen in a free and law abiding country should have equal rights. End of story.
That is why religion and legal partnership should be totally separate things.
All consenting adults, regardless of sexual orientation or other personal viewpoint should be entitled to legal documentation arising from their partnership that is certified by a government official.
Any people who practice and holds religious views can engage in a spiritual commitment before the authority of their choosing that is based on their respective faith and has nothing to do with government process whatsoever.
That would solve the problem right there. If anyone was opposed to this idea it would be an act of bigotry and a violation of someone's rights.
Pushing religion, homosexuality and human rights to the side, I think everyone should have the right to refuse a service to others, for whatever reason.
A guy walking in Applebee's without a shirt nor shoes; Applebee's should have the right to refuse him service on that basis.
A person walking into a government agency who meets all the criteria for having a g'ment service performed for them should not be subjected to the whims of an individual acting in his/her own personal interests against the person.
Similar threads
