The Federal Prop. 8 Trial / Gay Marriage Catch-All

RoughneckGeek wrote:

If the employer really has an issue with providing benefits to same-sex spouses, then in 29 states they could just fire the employee for being gay. Problem solved.

Are you really actually okay with that? I'm asking because I'm not.

Bloo Driver:

Every thing is a particular thing, Larry. That's a hair you can't really split, sorry.

It's not a hair I'm splitting. You're generalizing one thing into everything - like saying that prohibiting people from saying "Fire" completely and utterly crushes freedom of speech. It doesn't. It's just that one thing, and for very specific reasons. In this case, it's just this one thing, marriage. It's not everything. It's not anything. It's this one thing.

Seth:

I suppose so. I'm good with secular gay marriage in the US, and I think it serves a very useful civic purpose. However, if forcing churches to recognize it in some manner is part of the deal, then I think that churches who were arrayed against it had very good cause for fighting, and this edges me just a bit closer to their side of this conflict. Frankly, I don't understand where people can just let this be.

Demosthenes:

But, we wouldn't allow a non-religious organization discriminate against a gay couple... so why would we allow a religious one to do the same? I get not allowing them to marry in the church as that violates the church's beliefs... but employment is employment, it's not a religious thing.

And frankly, a Christian church that says, we would rather condemn a sinner to less healthcare and well-being for their religious beliefs rather than helping a fellow human being... kiiiiiiiiiiind of sucks at their religion... so their statements on what their religion dictates kind of falls out of the window for me.

Hey, why doesn't the Catholic Church just fund non-profit outfits and such that do charity work? Why ask for work at all at that point?

It's not a condemnation here. It's just a refusal to recognize marriages they don't like. No condemnation is taking place at that point.

Yep. When it comes to employment, a church is just a business that serves a particular market. Churches should in no way be required to, say, marry gay couples (and, histrionics from the right aside, nobody sane has ever suggested otherwise). I firmly believe churches have the right to preach bigotry, intolerance, and everything else. Whatever. The moment you employ people and seek all the protections under the law any kind of business receives, you start acting under all of the relevant laws.

Churches are a business. As someone whose father was a minister for 40+ years, I grew up in a church environment. There are budget meetings, petty squabbles, and everything else you find in a store, school, or anywhere else.

LarryC wrote:

Bloo Driver:

Every thing is a particular thing, Larry. That's a hair you can't really split, sorry.

It's not a hair I'm splitting. You're generalizing one thing into everything - like saying that prohibiting people from saying "Fire" completely and utterly crushes freedom of speech. It doesn't. It's just that one thing, and for very specific reasons. In this case, it's just this one thing, marriage. It's not everything. It's not anything. It's this one thing.

No, you're failing to grasp context. This is not the only time that any given church has cited "religious freedom" in order to try and ignore legal regulations. If, somehow, church-based businesses had only ever ever made this complaint when it came to recognizing same sex marriage, you would be on to something.

I suppose so. I'm good with secular gay marriage in the US, and I think it serves a very useful civic purpose. However, if forcing churches to recognize it in some manner is part of the deal, then I think that churches who were arrayed against it had very good cause for fighting, and this edges me just a bit closer to their side of this conflict. Frankly, I don't understand where people can just let this be.

I can't tell if you're willfully or accidentally ignoring the point that there's a difference between a church and a business. No one is forcing a church to recognize marriages they don't like. What they're forcing a business to do is live under the same regulations that every other business has to. If the church does not want to endorse that, they're free to not be a business, there are distinct categories of operating that make room for you to be one or the other if you want.

OG_slinger wrote:
LarryC wrote:

Not business. Churches. I stand by the right of a racist church not to recognize marriages it does not want to, including its actions as an employer.

The cases we're talking about are when a church is an employer of a non-church business, such as the church running a school or hospital. The federal government has made some exceptions for church employees when they're actually employed *at* the church, such as with the birth control mandate for Obamacare. The logic of the minor exceptions is that the church isn't very likely to employ non-believers.

However, when the church hires someone for one of its outside businesses, it's hiring them because of their skillset and experience, not their religious beliefs. They are functioning exactly like any other business and, as such, they have to respect employment and equality laws.

If the churches don't like this, then they can divest themselves of their outside businesses and only focus on doing churchy things.

Are we talking interests that are actually owned by the church or ones that are affiliated with them? I can see where mere affiliation is grounds for upholding secular law over religious concerns, but if the church actually owns the business, then asking it for pay marriage benefits is still asking the church to sanction things it is religiously opposed to sanctioning, which violates separation, and freedom of religion as well.

As you say, the alternative is effectively forbidding churches that are opposed to gay marriage from performing acts of charity or mission statements consistent with their religious goals.

Larry I'm a little less militant on this topic than others; blame it on my libertarian tendencies that says people should choose work that reflects their values and employers should choose employees that do the same. That's why we're mildly in agreement.

That said, this directly contrasts with my desire to see people treated fairly under the law, and my desire to protect individuals from the abuse of more powerful groups.

LarryC wrote:

Many church representatives feared that they would be coerced to recognize secular marriages by the state in various ways. This was handwaved away as a pointless fear. It seems to me now that they were absolutely right to be worried, and that their fears were well-founded, after all.

No, you're confused. The "pointless fear" was "Obama will force me to bring homosexuals into my church and marry them." That is the "forced to recognize homosexual marriage" that will never happen, and is a dumb fear. Every priest still has the right to refuse to perform their ceremony for homosexuality, premarital sex, not part of their congregation, whatever.

The "oh man, specific business now can't discriminate in specific ways, and homosexuals are now equal in the light of the law for any secular transaction concerning marriage" wasn't a writing side effect, it was 98% of the entire f*cking point.

2% was "yay, I get called the same as everyone else" 98% was "yay I don't get penalized in taxes, or the healthcare market, and a Catholic hospital can't kick me out of the premises while my husband dies alone!"

Secular law always trumps religious law. It's not a loophole, or a betrayal of "freedom of religion", and if you think it its you are ignorant of what "freedom of religion" means in context.

For example, in America following Islam is not a "get out of jail free card for driving around the city throwing rocks at any woman with an exposed ankle." The second your religion is used for anything that carries over to another person, surprise, the secular laws matter!

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

Yep. When it comes to employment, a church is just a business that serves a particular market. Churches should in no way be required to, say, marry gay couples (and, histrionics from the right aside, nobody sane has ever suggested otherwise). I firmly believe churches have the right to preach bigotry, intolerance, and everything else. Whatever. The moment you employ people and seek all the protections under the law any kind of business receives, you start acting under all of the relevant laws.

Churches are a business. As someone whose father was a minister for 40+ years, I grew up in a church environment. There are budget meetings, petty squabbles, and everything else you find in a store, school, or anywhere else.

This sets, IMO, a very dangerous precedent in conflating the Church and the State. Essentially, you're pushing to have your beliefs slammed down everyone's throats because the State currently endorses it. The only way an opposing Church can express themselves is to fight you at the State level and force you to comply with them. This is very dangerous ground, IMO.

Bloo Driver:

No, you're failing to grasp context. This is not the only time that any given church has cited "religious freedom" in order to try and ignore legal regulations. If, somehow, church-based businesses had only ever ever made this complaint when it came to recognizing same sex marriage, you would be on to something.

I do not believe so. Analogously, "Fire" isn't the only speech restriction that is imposed on the public, and the public rabidly (and rightly, IMO) rails against a great many more restrictions. Be that as it may, the restriction on "Fire" still doesn't constitute a generalized restriction on "anything." It is a very particular exception made for very particular reasons.

I can't tell if you're willfully or accidentally ignoring the point that there's a difference between a church and a business. No one is forcing a church to recognize marriages they don't like. What they're forcing a business to do is live under the same regulations that every other business has to. If the church does not want to endorse that, they're free to not be a business, there are distinct categories of operating that make room for you to be one or the other if you want.

I confess ignorance about American commerce law. Is there a way for a church to hire people for services and operate for the benefit of a population en masse without being a business of some sort?

Again, Larry, answer this simple question; do churches opposed to mixed-race marriages have the right to refuse benefits to a married couple from different ethnicities because of religious opposition?

Yonder wrote:
LarryC wrote:

Many church representatives feared that they would be coerced to recognize secular marriages by the state in various ways. This was handwaved away as a pointless fear. It seems to me now that they were absolutely right to be worried, and that their fears were well-founded, after all.

No, you're confused. The "pointless fear" was "Obama will force me to bring homosexuals into my church and marry them." That is the "forced to recognize homosexual marriage" that will never happen, and is a dumb fear. Every priest still has the right to refuse to perform their ceremony for homosexuality, premarital sex, not part of their congregation, whatever.

The "oh man, specific business now can't discriminate in specific ways, and homosexuals are now equal in the light of the law for any secular transaction concerning marriage" wasn't a writing side effect, it was 98% of the entire f*cking point.

2% was "yay, I get called the same as everyone else" 98% was "yay I don't get penalized in taxes, or the healthcare market, and a Catholic hospital can't kick me out of the premises while my husband dies alone!"

Secular law always trumps religious law. It's not a loophole, or a betrayal of "freedom of religion", and if you think it its you are ignorant of what "freedom of religion" means in context.

For example, in America following Islam is not a "get out of jail free card for driving around the city throwing rocks at any woman with an exposed ankle." The second your religion is used for anything that carries over to another person, surprise, the secular laws matter!

Once again, I view this POV as extremely dangerous, and I increasingly think it's why your people clash so much along religious lines. Religion is very largely a great deal about interaction with other people. It is, almost by definition, something that carries over to other people. To me, it seems like you're saying that State and Church are the same thing.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

Again, Larry, answer this simple question; do churches opposed to mixed-race marriages have the right to refuse benefits to a married couple from different ethnicities because of religious opposition?

I do not know. I am not versed in American law. However, I would support that right, if it were not currently doable. I note that you omitted "married couple their church employs." Not in general - just applicable to the compensations they give to their employees.

LarryC wrote:

I confess ignorance about American commerce law. Is there a way for a church to hire people for services and operate for the benefit of a population en masse without being a business of some sort?

My understanding - someone correct me if I'm wrong:

For people working at the church (secretary, etc.): controversial insurance requirements do not apply

For people working at a school affiliated with the church: controversial insurance requirements do not apply (? not entirely clear to me, but I know that schools can't be sued for discriminating against people on the basis of sexual orientation, so I'm assuming contraceptive insurance rules don't apply to them either...?)

For people working at a charity affiliated with the church: controversial insurance requirements do apply

For people working at a hospital affiliated with the church: controversial insurance requirements do apply

LarryC makes a good point about churches being able commit charity or work with their mission statements. I am completely for churches being involved in the community and giving charity but that isn't what is occurring in most cases with religious affiliated organizations running business operations. They are seeking profit and getting unfair advantages through the guise of religion. Let's just look at hospitals as an example.

Religious organizations enter into an area and decide they want to heal the sick as that is consistent with their faith. Well, they open a hospital and often claim a tax-exempt status or religious exemption from the law based on their religious affiliation. However; this gives them an unfair advantage compared to the privately owned hospital down the street. The competitor cannot claim a tax-exempt status and cannot price compete with the hospital run by the religious organization and eventually gets priced out of the market and has to close. That leaves the area with only the faith based hospital.

Now the question I pose; how is this a charity? The hospitals I know that are run by religious affiliated groups don't give me care for free and I know they profit from doing business in these areas. Now they want to tell me what I can get in regards to care because of their religious beliefs? This is why I feel it is important to treat all business as businesses and leave religion in the church.

LarryC wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:

Again, Larry, answer this simple question; do churches opposed to mixed-race marriages have the right to refuse benefits to a married couple from different ethnicities because of religious opposition?

I do not know. I am not versed in American law. However, I would support that right, if it were not currently doable. I note that you omitted "married couple their church employs." Not in general - just applicable to the compensations they give to their employees.

No problem. Just wanted to understand fully how much you think religion can be used as a crutch for bigotry of any kind. Keeping it classy as usual, I see.

Mormech wrote:

My understanding - someone correct me if I'm wrong:

For people working at the church (secretary, etc.): controversial insurance requirements do not apply.

You're thinking about the ACA contraceptive stuff, we're talking about gays being married, and now being undeniable dependents for health coverage, which I'd unrelated to the ACA.

Blondish83:

I think it would be fair to require religiously affiliated (but not owned) businesses to abide by the secular law. I also think it would be consistent to ask businesses that ask for religious affiliation and exemptions to also operate under non-profit rules - that is, they have to be non-profits, or else lose special religious exemptions.

LarryC wrote:

Blondish83:

I think it would be fair to require religiously affiliated (but not owned) businesses to abide by the secular law. I also think it would be consistent to ask businesses that ask for religious affiliation and exemptions to also operate under non-profit rules - that is, they have to be non-profits, or else lose special religious exemptions.

That is currently how the system works. But, unless I am misunderstanding you in earlier posts you stated you don't want to force these religiously affiliated organizations (not owned) to recognize same-sex marriage. So, you would agree that a religiously affiliated organization should recognize same-sex marriage if that is civil law?

Also, non-profit law is another that I have taken issue in recent years. I have seen many churches handing out information and telling their worshipers to vote in a certain way that is consistent with their faith. Now, how is this not a violation of their tax-exemption status? At this point they are acting in part as a PAC and should be taxed accordingly.

Blondish83 wrote:
LarryC wrote:

Blondish83:

I think it would be fair to require religiously affiliated (but not owned) businesses to abide by the secular law. I also think it would be consistent to ask businesses that ask for religious affiliation and exemptions to also operate under non-profit rules - that is, they have to be non-profits, or else lose special religious exemptions.

That is currently how the system works. But, unless I am misunderstanding you in earlier posts you stated you don't want to force these religiously affiliated organizations (not owned) to recognize same-sex marriage. So, you would agree that a religiously affiliated organization should recognize same-sex marriage if that is civil law?

Also, non-profit law is another that I have taken issue in recent years. I have seen many churches handing out information and telling their worshipers to vote in a certain way that is consistent with their faith. Now, how is this not a violation of their tax-exemption status? At this point they are acting in part as a PAC and should be taxed accordingly.

If so, I apologize for giving the wrong impression. Religious affiliations are just recognition things. They're not actually the same entity - a hospital affiliated with a Methodist church is not actually that Methodist church. It just wants the logo on the door. They are not churches so they have to abide by secular law.

I'm in broad agreement with you about the voting issue. We have an issue with that locally. I hate it when priests tell people who to vote. It's not kosher.

Sadly; the churches are claiming that laws legalizing same-sex marriage DOES force them to recognize the marriage. I have yet to see any bill passed that does this, but because of this misinformation we have 29 states that outlaw same-sex marriage and deny full rights and protections to their citizens.

Life would be much easier if civil marriage and sacred marriage were not both referred to as marriage but time is moving on and it's inevitable that we will eventually see equal rights for all citizens.

Blondish83 wrote:

Sadly; the churches are claiming that laws legalizing same-sex marriage DOES force them to recognize the marriage. I have yet to see any bill passed that does this, but because of this misinformation we have 29 states that outlaw same-sex marriage and deny full rights and protections to their citizens.

Life would be much easier if civil marriage and sacred marriage were not both referred to as marriage but time is moving on and it's inevitable that we will eventually see equal rights for all citizens.

Actually in states that do recognize gay marriage the law does force them to recognize the marriage. For instance, hospitals in Illinois can no longer keep gay spouses from being recognized as next of kin. It just doesn't force them to perform those marriages. But to your greater point, it's all political theater.

It's not a condemnation here. It's just a refusal to recognize marriages they don't like. No condemnation is taking place at that point.

Try having your marriage refused to be recognized for something basic like healthcare and see how good you feel about that. The refusal to provide service or assistance on religious grounds because you religion views their union as an "abomination" is a condemnation. They may not be saying in THIS statement that they view homosexuality as a sin, blah blah blah, but it's implied.

As to the bolds, as an employer, what they don't like really isn't their business. They are legally obligated to treat all employees as equals with regards to race, religion, ethnicity, creed, astrological sign, or preferred bubblegum flavor (unless, you know, it's a bubblegum factory and someone's favorite flavor is made by a competitor).

Seeing as how their religious beliefs are actually supposed to mean that they do the same thing... standing by my statement, they suck at their own religion, and should probably find some other way to waste everyone's time.

Question, as a hypothetical... say a religious text said that no man should be paid more than the price of 3 handfuls of grain a day. Should that religious organization be allowed to impoverish its employees by violating minimum wage laws?

Or say...selling your children into slavery.

I would say that if that religious organization actually fought for this and enforced it - that it wouldn't have a whole lot of employees. But to the point, I would say yes.

Demonsthenes:

Try having your marriage refused to be recognized for something basic like healthcare and see how good you feel about that. The refusal to provide service or assistance on religious grounds because you religion views their union as an "abomination" is a condemnation. They may not be saying in THIS statement that they view homosexuality as a sin, blah blah blah, but it's implied.

I actually don't expect my marriage to be recognized by all churches. If I happen to work for a non-Catholic church for some reason, I fully expect them not to extend marriage benefits. It's their thing, and I really don't feel bad about this. If I cared that much about it, I would probably not work for that church to begin with.

The "gay people shouldn't work for a company that thinks they shouldn't be married" has a flip side. Gay people probably don't feel comfortable working with people that dislike their marriage so much they want to deny healthcare over it, so it seems like a pretty moot point. The number of employees actually affected is so small that, even if you agreed with them it would seem like a waste to write an entire set of exemptions for them, exemptions that would then probably explored as loopholes to hurt far more people far more deeply than were "hurt" by the original system.

Yonder wrote:

The "gay people shouldn't work for a company that thinks they shouldn't be married" has a flip side. Gay people probably don't feel comfortable working with people that dislike their marriage so much they want to deny healthcare over it, so it seems like a pretty moot point. The number of employees actually affected is so small that, even if you agreed with them it would seem like a waste to write an entire set of exemptions for them, exemptions that would then probably explored as loopholes to hurt far more people far more deeply than were "hurt" by the original system.

We'll cross that bridge when we get there. If the number of affected people is small, then it seems worthwhile to uphold the principles of separation of Church and State and freedom of religion just for precedent and statement. It is extremely damaging, IMO, to propagate the idea that the only way to be able to express your beliefs freely is to have it legislated into law.

Also note that not only does "don't work for them!" require that you have other available options, it also requires that you know what their attitudes are. For example, most people who work at Hobby Lobby probably don't realize their stance on contraception. Or, at least, they probably didn't know until it became big news when Hobby Lobby sued to get a religious exemption from having to provide contraception in their health care plans.

(For non-U.S. people: Not only do employers provide almost all health care in the U.S., but it's unusual to ask for major details while applying for a job, particularly for low-end jobs. There's a double-bind of "If I ask pointed questions, I might make this HR person sh*t-can my application as a troublemaker" vs "If I don't ask I might not get coverage I need", both competing with "Everybody provides this, right?")

LarryC wrote:

We'll cross that bridge when we get there. If the number of affected people is small, then it seems worthwhile to uphold the principles of separation of Church and State and freedom of religion just for precedent and statement. It is extremely damaging, IMO, to propagate the idea that the only way to be able to express your beliefs freely is to have it legislated into law.

If you think that allowing an employer to skirt/ignore Federal Law because the action is based on religion is "separation of church and state", I think one of us seriously misunderstands what that phrase means.

General Motors To Offer Benefits To All Gay Married Employees (James Nichols, Huffington Post)

Detail: Regardless of whether their state of residence recognizes the marriage.

Hypatian wrote:

General Motors To Offer Benefits To All Gay Married Employees (James Nichols, Huffington Post)

Detail: Regardless of whether their state of residence recognizes the marriage.

Benefits if they've been unable to get married due to state restrictions?

Bloo Driver wrote:
LarryC wrote:

We'll cross that bridge when we get there. If the number of affected people is small, then it seems worthwhile to uphold the principles of separation of Church and State and freedom of religion just for precedent and statement. It is extremely damaging, IMO, to propagate the idea that the only way to be able to express your beliefs freely is to have it legislated into law.

If you think that allowing an employer to skirt/ignore Federal Law because the action is based on religion is "separation of church and state", I think one of us seriously misunderstands what that phrase means.

Actually, no. There are certain things that are central to religious practice. For instance, if the state, for some reason, does not protect Sunni Muslims while they are praying their usual 5 times a day, or otherwise makes it impossible, that would be the State interfering with religious expression, regardless of the reasons behind State actions.

Like I said, it's not just anything. It's a very particular something. Marriage happens to be one of the foundational sacraments of the Catholic Church, and is otherwise also extremely important to the religious lives of many churches. It's not just anything. Eroding the church's ability to recognize or not recognize relationships of this nature is a straight challenge of a central religious practice.

LarryC wrote:

it seems worthwhile to uphold the principles of separation of Church and State and freedom of religion just for precedent and statement.

The principles of freedom of religion are being upheld, you're talking about something entirely different than what "freedom of religion" means.

If you want your own three word label for it try "supremacy of religion", it gets your idea across better.