I don't think the Catholic Church considers their stance discriminatory. It seems they feel compelled by the city to promote and endorse homosexuality because of this new law that requires them to earn this "certificate" stating they will, among other things, give children to gay couples and allow gay couples to rent out the Church property for non-wedding events.
I can't find an example of the Catholic Church passing out condoms - please elaborate.
And as far as I can tell, the Church does not currently need to achieve a certificate that demands that they MUST give children to divorced couples and MUST allow divorced couples to rent out the Church property. The Church should be allowed to determine what they consider to be a safe, morally sound place for these children - and should be allowed to determine which group rents out their property.
I simply believe in this case, the Church does not want the city to determine what homes they place children and what groups can rent their property. Additionally, in their view, giving "spousal" benefits to a homosexual couple is the same as giving benefits to a shacked up couple. The Church only recognize a spouse as a product of a marriage, and marriage can only happen between one man and one woman.
Scapegoat for what?
However, after all this being said - it is still a great example of why churches shouldn't accept taxpayer money. If there was no taxpayer money involved, this wouldn't be an issue.
hey, if childish ideological purity is more important than providing services to the needy and respecting and following the laws of the city of Washington DC, then the Catholic Church should get itself out of the charity business. i think this will be important to explain to the people who are going to freeze to death this winter.
if that's what's important here, if the right to discriminate against gays is more important than helping people in need, then the church should abandon it's decades of exemplary work with the poor. this appears to be your position, AEON. somehow, Catholic charities have survived in New England, but apparently DC is different. here, i am to understand, and you agree, the adherence to doctrine -- as disputed as you and i and Melon know that doctrine is -- is more important than helping people.
clearly, the Catholic Church has always remained pure and strictly adhered to its doctrine in the past. evidently there's new doctrine: "thou shalt deny legally required benefit payments to those whose status you deem to be sinful".
the Catholic Church may adhere to its own doctrines in terms of what marriages it sanctifies. however, it has no place seeking to use the secular law to force its doctrines on others. why does the church work with a city that remarries people after they've been divorced and their previous spouses are still living?
i find this a sad situation because i know how good the Catholic Church is at these things. however, you seem to be applauding whatever it is they need to do to remain pure. allowing individual exemptions opens the door to discriminate on the basis of *any* religious principle. what if the Catholic Church was opposed to interracial marriage (as many churches were in teh 1960s)? where does it end? there is no absolute right to religious freedom or the expression of religious belief. you may not sacrifice your firstborn child simply because your religion may allow it, and likewise,
you may not refuse to give your child treatment for disease because your religion teaches that you can just pray it away.
you can follow your religious beliefs insofar as they follow the laws of the country in which you live. and if you believe the laws should be changed, well, that's what we have "activist judges" for.