martha
Blue Crack Supplier
So when the people and their elected officials outlawed Chinese marriage in California, that was cool with you?
Any answers to this?
So when the people and their elected officials outlawed Chinese marriage in California, that was cool with you?
Gay man sues publishers over Bible verses - USATODAY.com
CASCADE TOWNSHIP, Mich. — A gay man is suing two heavyweight Christian publishers, claiming their versions of the Bible that refer to homosexuality as a sin violate his constitutional rights and have caused him emotional pain and mental instability.
Bradley LaShawn Fowler of Canton, Mich., is seeking $60 million from Zondervan, based in Cascade Township, and $10 million from Nashville-based Thomas Nelson Publishing.
Fowler filed the suit in federal court against Zondervan on July 7, the same day U.S. District Judge Julian Abele Cook Jr. refused to appoint an attorney to represent him in his case against Thomas Nelson.
Fowler filed a suit against Thomas Nelson in June. He is representing himself in both claims.
"The Court has some very genuine concerns about the nature and efficacy of these claims," the judge wrote.
Fowler, 39, alleges Zondervan's Bibles referring to homosexuality as a sin have made him an outcast from his family and contributed to physical discomfort and periods of "demoralization, chaos and bewilderment."
The intent of the publisher was to design a religious, sacred document to reflect an individual opinion or a group's conclusion to cause "me or anyone who is a homosexual to endure verbal abuse, discrimination, episodes of hate, and physical violence ... including murder," Fowler wrote.
Fowler's suit claims Zondervan's text revisions from a 1980s version of the Bible included, and then deleted, a reference to homosexuality in 1 Corinthians without informing the public of the changes.
The other suit, against Thomas Nelson and its New King James Bible, mirrors the allegations made against Zondervan.
[...] There also what I consider to be valid arguments against no-fault divorce, the proliferation of single parent families as well as same-sex marriage. [...] So I don't know, maybe instead of allowing more marriages we should actually be outlawing the entire institution.
[...] We have laws against racial discrimination so if they are equal then why not take away the tax-exempt status of religious organizations that refuse to recognize same-sex marriage. Catholic charities in Massachusetts got out of child adoption services because that state held their beliefs against gay adoption to be discriminatory, so they just got out of the business rather than face lawsuits. Someone, somewhere, would challenge the First Amendment rights of a church to refuse to marry people of the same-sex.
One has to show that they are in fact not being treated equally.
Define equal. Certainly Jefferson's phrase "all men are created equal" is only "virtually" true. In the eyes of the law and God, but in reality, of coarse not. All of us are born with all sorts of advantages and disadvantages.
The U.S. Constitution anyway, is meant to be a rigid document listing what the federal government can and cannot do, leaving the rest up to the populace.
That's one of my points actually. There is no, not any, precedent for same-sex marriage. Not in the law, not in tradition, not in any religious or secular moral system, not even in a previous state wide vote in California. None. That in itself doesn't mean that same-sex marriage shouldn't be recognized in the year 2008, but it does mean that perhaps it's way too big of a change to be decided by 7 or 9 people alone.
AM I the only one who didn't see anything abusive in what Martha said? Why did it make clear sense to me what she said? Oh, maybe it's because I am one of those gay people who wants to have the same rights (not special rights) that everyone else has as far as marriage laws.
CASCADE TOWNSHIP, Mich. — A gay man is suing two heavyweight Christian publishers, claiming their versions of the Bible that refer to homosexuality as a sin violate his constitutional rights and have caused him emotional pain and mental instability.
Ah, Canada's constitution is slightly different in intention that way. It does outline what the government can/can't do in a way but it's less explicit as it underwent major reforms in 1983 with the inclusion of the charter of rights and freedoms, and has been a much more organic animal than the US Constitution and -- though nonetheless rigid -- is less explicit about what can/can't be done but is a summary of key principles and values.
Heya! Long time no talk.
The introduction of the Charter actually didn't reform the principles of federalism, enumerated in s. 92 of the BNA. Technically, our federal/provincial spheres are better enumerated than those of the Americans (just look at the comprehensive lists in s. 92), but there are also a couple of vague ones like "property and civil rights" and the POGG (peace, order and good government) clause which have allowed our courts to stray from the rigidity in the US.
Furthermore, our Supreme Court has affirmed the living tree doctrine many times, where the justices on the SCOTUS are, for the most part, hostile to that idea.
FOX-- You're smart and I like you.
I'd PM you but you don't have PM capability!
I'm fairly certain this fellow doesn't have a case.
Just because some one sues doesn't mean that we all need to worry. . .Frivolous lawsuits happen everyday and life goes on.
They still cost you money in defending yourself.
You don't have to be premium to send and receive PMs now, though the saved message capacity is small (25 messages). I'm not sure if it's still possible to disable one's PM capacity entirely; it probably is, but unless you're having stalking/harassment issues (which should be reported of course), I can say the mods, at least, would strongly appreciate it if people didn't do that, since it's much faster and easier for us to interact with members when needed via PM rather than email--that way, we know the address is current, we get reply notices automatically upon logging in here (and don't have to pick them out from a thicket of spam), and any issues either party might be having with their email account unbeknownst to the other (this happened to me last month ) won't be a factor.That's true, I don't. There's always email?
Why didn't you report the post at the time, rather than (incorrectly) assuming any mods had read it, then follow up with a PM if you found the response inadequate? Do you honestly think your post here is any improvement at all on the very same tone you're complaining about?I know this is from a few weeks ago, but what a load of shite.
The above is horrible, personalised, offensive, nonsense that should not be tolerated.
Why is it ok for the extreme left wing on FYM to go tossing around accusations of misogyny, racism, homophobia, etc at anyone that doesn't share their take on things?
Why is it ok that the left-wing on FYM get away with this crap ALL THE TIME?
This person Martha obviously does not have a lot of faith in her own ability to argue a point if she posts the above extremist, offensive, bigoted nonsense every time she is challenged.
There's certainly a good way and a bad way to go about making a case for racist/homophobic/etc. biases being present in someone's argument--"I think there's some unexamined racism underlying your thinking here" has a much better chance of getting someone to consider the merits of that claim than "What a fucking, pathetic heap of racist bullshit!!"--but I agree, I don't think it's reasonable at all to deem the diagnosis itself beyond the pale. I've been told myself before (not necessarily in here that I can think of, but certainly in real life) that there was racism or sexism in my thinking on some particular issue, and I don't explode with indignation and assume the person meant to morally equate me to some sort of violent despot when that happens; I ask them to explain their reasoning, think about it, then say why I agree or disagree. That's a necessary conversation to be able to have. It is true, though, that making such claims hatefully puts you in the position of being guilty of some of the very same things you're railing against; I think one can be sensitive to and realistic about the fact that tensions run high on certain issues, especially among those who've suffered considerable personal pain on account of it, without losing sight of that point.I feel like you want to paint people who hold racist worldviews in this brush of virulent hatred and it's not that way. In the same way those who hold homophobic views aren't all virulent gay-haters either. It's not that simple, and yet the views are still hurtful and problematic even those who hold them "dont' mean" for them to be.
They could try, but the case wouldn't go anywhere. Churches can and do refuse to marry interfaith couples all the time, for example, despite such couples having full legal rights to marry, and those churches are well within their rights to do so--a religious wedding ceremony at a church of one's choosing isn't a protected right at all. The adoption process is not a religious ceremony and so is not analogous.We have laws against racial discrimination so if they are equal then why not take away the tax-exempt status of religious organizations that refuse to recognize same-sex marriage. Catholic charities in Massachusetts got out of child adoption services because that state held their beliefs against gay adoption to be discriminatory, so they just got out of the business rather than face lawsuits. Someone, somewhere, would challenge the First Amendment rights of a church to refuse to marry people of the same-sex.
May or may not be his exact motive, but I agree, the case has 'filed-expressly-to-make-a-point' written all over it. (Fowler is representing himself because, unsuprisingly, he couldn't get a lawyer to take the case, and no, he isn't a lawyer himself.)The Bible in all legal sense shouldn't have anything to do with the federal courts, so actually he may be making a brilliant move to prove a point and shut some people up.
I feel like you want to paint people who hold racist worldviews in this brush of virulent hatred and it's not that way. In the same way those who hold homophobic views aren't all virulent gay-haters either. It's not that simple, and yet the views are still hurtful and problematic even those who hold them "dont' mean" for them to be.
Now couldn't it be possible--just possible--that the same might be true of those who oppose gay marriage?
As if any failure to fully condone all homosexual lifestyle choices is a symptom of a phobia on my part.those who hold homophobic views aren't all virulent gay-haters either.
Legitimate question (for real): Have religious organizations who refuse to recognize mixed marriages (Catholic churches for example) lost their tax-exempt status? Have churches who refuse to recognize racially mixed marriages lost theirs as well?
Your arguments are always based on a fear of what may happen. Living in fear is no way to live.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Church Loses Tax Exemption Over Civil Unions
A Methodist church group that refuses to allow gay couples to hold civil unions in a board walk pavilion has lost its state property tax exemption. The state Department of Environmental Protection dropped the exemption for the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association. "It's clear the pavilion is not open to all persons on an equal basis," said DEP Commissioner Lisa Jackson. It's not clear how much money is involved. It is clear to get the exemption, property has to be equally available to everyone. And while this particular group does not approve of gay unions on religion grounds, such unions are legal in New Jersey. The tax exemption is allowed for the rest of the boardwalk and beachfront property owned by the association. The decision means that the association would have to pay property taxes on the pavilion and the land on which it sits for 2006 through 2008. The state's action then is more symbolic than monetary. And it's not over. The Division of Civil Rights is investigating complaints by two lesbian couples they were denied use of the pavilion. That investigation prompted a federal lawsuit saying the state investigation infringes on the association's speech and religion rights.
Scott Hoffman, the Chief Administrative Officer of the Camp Meeting Association, was quoted as saying that the association considers the Pavilion to be as much of a religious structure as the Tabernacle or the Youth Temple and that it would not permit same-sex civil union ceremonies to be conducted there, arguing that this was the position of the United Methodist Church.
A local advocacy group, Ocean Grove United, disputes this, contending that the issue involves public, not religious, property [source: Asbury Park Press, June 21 2007]. They contend that the beach and Boardwalk Pavilion are open to the public and that the Camp Meeting Association has accepted public funds for their maintenance and repairs. They also cite the Association's application to the State of New Jersey for monies under the state's "Green Acres Program", which encourages the use of private property for public recreation and provides a $500,000 annual property tax exemption. In their application for these funds, the Camp Meeting Association reportedly stated that the disputed areas were open to the public. U.S. Representative Frank Pallone, Jr. (Democrat), in whose Congressional district Ocean Grove is located, stated "they've taken state, federal and local funds by representing that they are open to the public."
.........................................................................
Brian Raum, counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian conservative legal organization representing the Camp Meeting Association, argued that "disaster relief is available to anyone" in defending the use of public funds to repair the Great Auditorium when it was damaged in an hurricane. He said that the Methodist association had never represented itself as anything but a religious organization.
Complicating matters further is that the Camp Meeting Association gave up a degree of property ownership rights for the boardwalk and beach in the 19th century to avoid taxation:
" OCEAN GROVE, June 4.--By a decision of the Monmouth County Board of Taxation handed down today Ocean Grove's $3,000,000 beach front, the property of the Camp Meeting Association, is to escape taxation. It was shown to the board by the association's legal representative, Samuel A. Patterson, that the valuable strip of land, with its board walk, had been dedicated years ago by the association as a public highway, and not therefore subject to taxation. ---The New York Times, June 5, 1908 "
Without more information, however, I cannot tell if this was the case; but it doesn't appear at all that it is about forcing a church's minister to perform a ceremony against his will.
That's not really my fear.
This case is much like several Boy Scout cases. An organization under legal attack for it's views on homosexuality in many parts of the country.
Should same-sex education become legal would religious schools, for example, be able to teach that homosexuality is a sin if that is their belief and still receive charters from the state. Would sermons be allowed to be broadcast over TV or radio if they contained language that some communities might begin to list as "hate-speech"?
And of coarse we had a thread a few months ago about the San Diego fertility clinic that was sued because of their religious objections to providing services for a lesbian couple.
I understand your point, yet you say
As if any failure to fully condone all homosexual lifestyle choices is a symptom of a phobia on my part.
And of coarse we had a thread a few months ago about the San Diego fertility clinic that was sued because of their religious objections to providing services for a lesbian couple.
so should pharmacists be allowed to deny birth control to unmarried women if it's in accordance with their religious beliefs? the morning after pill? or, even more outlandish, deny Viagra to unmarried men?
I think, though, that explaining how someone could reasonably consider that a possibility was precisely his point:I understand your point, yet you say
As if any failure to fully condone all homosexual lifestyle choices is a symptom of a phobia on my part.those who hold homophobic views aren't all virulent gay-haters either
I.e., a person can be comfortable with certain elements of the 'interracial lifestyle,' yet still show "symptoms" of racist views, like assuming that interracial marriages inevitably mean emotionally messed-up children, or that an interracial couple couldn't possibly have the same depth of love and understanding for each other that two people of the same racial background could, etc. Of course that doesn't mean said person must necessarily be some sort of cartoon-stereotype, slur-spewing redneck. But a couple in, say, the position Sean and his wife were in should be able to state forthrightly that such views are prejudicial, deeply hurtful and even dehumanizing to them; they shouldn't have to stick solely to reciting talking points about how mixed-race children are no more likely to be messed up than other children, or that mixed-race couples love each other just as much as same-race couples do, etc. Appealing to another's moral imagination and empathy is a very different mode of argument from debating the logistics of how a situation might unfold in practice. Again, I do think there are good and bad ways to go about doing this, and I do understand that conveyed in a certain way, a diagnosis of prejudice in someone's thinking can come across as suggesting all the person really wants is to scream at you, not to get you to acknowledge their points. And of course you can always disagree with them--but they have no more obligation to automatically accept that self-justification than you do to agree with them.These people are not raving, foaming-at-the-mouth racists. They wouldn't support a lynching or legal segragation. They have black (or white as the case may be) friends. They just think it's "not right" for blacks and whites to marry, and they are sincere in their belief.
That doesn't change the fact that their belief still represents a racist worldview.
I still don't think you've explained what these unique qualities are with reference to a romantic relationship--and I guess also to childrearing?--other than the tautological ones, i.e. that males aren't females and vice versa. What is a gay man intrinsically doomed never to get from his relationship with his partner that a straight man is intrinsically guaranteed to get from his wife (again, other than the blindingly obvious...dudes don't have vaginas) and why is that critical to a successful marriage? What are gay, or lesbian, parents terminally incapable of giving any children they have that straight parents are guaranteed to be capable of providing, and why is that critical to a child's health and happiness?the unique qualities that only a man and a women can bring
could you please tell me what are the specific "homosexual lifestyle choices" i've made and continue to make? i've been dying to know.
Same-sex marriage should become a reality on it's merits should it not? Because it is the right and worthy thing to do; a natural progression on the road to equal rights for all. Publicly debated with it's existence depending upon the weight of it's proponents arguments. Not by judicial fiat, against the will of the majority, with objections summarily dismissed as bigotry and opponents labeled as homophobes.