Discrimination ok, if based on religion? what else then?

I for one think the churches are going too far. I have never had a problem with the churches teaching against homosexuals and all that crap. After all, it is their churches and their right to spread hate. But involving innocent children who can't fend for themselves... I think the churches are getting too selfish.

Never mind. I didn't really mean what I said. There, again we have a disagreement

Anastasia, no offense but again you've shown that you know nothing about the term "seperation of church and state".

---

AKA G.A.S.B.Y.George Absolutely Stupid Bush the Younger

Because of seperation of church and state.I don't know why people seem to think that seperation of church and state means the church could do whatever the hell it wants without gov intervention. That's not what seperation of church and state is.SCS means that the church should be treated by the gov as just another private organization. This means that if the church is in the bussiness of pornography it has to adhere to all the rules and regulations on pornography. If the church is into the bussiness of car dealership, it has to adhere to all the rules and regulations of bussinesses. If the church is in the bussiness of trading pets, it has to adhere to all the rules and regulations of pet trade.The church can't simply say "it is our religious belief that porn should only involve altar boys and priests therefore the state should have no say in what we do..."There are certain rules and regulations for adoption agencies. If the church want to get involve with adoption and finding suitable potential parents for the orphans, it has to adhere to all the rules and regulations that all other adoption agencies follow.

---

AKA G.A.S.B.Y.George Absolutely Stupid Bush the Younger

Oh, I agree completely. But the church CHOSE to get into the bussiness of adoption. Therefore, it must adhere to all the rules and regulations that all other adoption agencies must follow.Again, seperation of church and state means the church should not be given any special status if it chooses to do something outside of the scope of it's religion.If the church feels that it cannot follow certain regulations, then don't get into the bussiness in the first place.

For example, if the World Church of Creator wants to start their own adoption agency, would it be ok for them to deny potential parents of color to adopt white children? Would it be ok for them to deny potential white parents to adopt children of other ethnicity?You seem to think this is somehow an indication of oppression of religious beliefs. This is not the case at all. If the church wants to start selling cars, it can't simply say "we refuse to sell you a car because you are not a protestant white male..." It has to adhere to all rules and regulations regarding the selling of cars.

Yes, the old tradition fallacy.So, since the institution of slavery existed way before the emancipation proclamation, I suppose we could still own slaves today, right? Oh, how about this. The church used to teach back in the old old days that killing infidels is not murder. Since tradition is always right, perhaps I should go out and start killing muslims?Just because religion started doing it first doesn't mean it has it all right.By the way, notice how you didn't address my other points at all. This is close to quote mining, especially if my other points address the issues you brought up. But it is black mail.Option 1: Let us discriminate against them fags or...Option 2: We'll let all them orphans (who are sinners... at least that's what the church used to teach regarding orphans) rot on the streets.If that's not black mail, I don't know what is.My other point with this quote is just because an organization started something doesn't mean it can't be regulated later on. That is, of course, you are advocating that we start selling tobacco to minors. Or we could start throwing people in jail for being unable to repay their debts.Where have you been the last 50 years? A lot of progress have been made on the human rights front. Discriminating against gays is wrong, period. I don't care if the church has a monopoly on discriminating against gays, it's wrong. I don't care if the infallable pope start telling us it's not wrong to discriminate against gays, it's still wrong.

Just some updates, I guess. BBC article

quote:

---

Downing Street has said there will be no exemption from anti-discrimination laws for Catholic adoption agencies.
But Tony Blair said they would get 21 months to prepare for change, calling this a "sensible compromise".

​

Catholic adoption agencies had warned they would close rather than place children with gay couples, saying that went against their beliefs.

---

quote:

---

"There is no place in our society for discrimination. That's why I support the right of gay couples to apply to adopt like any other couple.

​

"And that way there can be no exemptions for faith-based adoption agencies offering public funded services from regulations that prevent discrimination."

---

quote:

---

But former shadow home secretary Ann Widdecombe said it was not a compromise and meant Catholic agencies would have to close down.

​

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, head of Catholics in England and Wales, had said the closure of his seven agencies would be a "wholly avoidable tragedy".

---

Ok, now we know that discrimination is apparently more important than the children themselves, according to the church.

I'm glad you found the answer I personally agreed with the supreme court's decision regarding the boy scouts of america (aka weirdos) and the gay kid. This is the reason why I am against the new bill that wants to ban smoking in restaurants and such. Those places are private properties. If you don't want to smoke someone else's cigarette, then go to a restaurant that doesn't allow smoking.This is why I highlighted the "public funding" part. The catholic church could stop receiving public fundings and continue with their faith based discrimination and I wouldn't say a single word. I do, however, have a problem with them using public fundings to spread their discrimination.

You know, you've just shattered one of my positions. Looks like I will be supporting the bill now.

Entirely my fault for not thinking it thoroughly through before opposing it. Just proves that even the devil is not infallible

If you'd care to read a few posts afterward, I admitted to have made a mistake of not considering the employee factor. I switched side after thinking long and hard about the new factor (which I never considered before) cre presented.I'm not one of those that cling onto previously held beliefs that have been shown inadequate just for the sake of saving face. I was wrong to have not considered the employee factor and I admitted it.

Ana, it takes at most 3 whole seconds for you to copy and paste the url. It takes significantly longer than that for the rest of us to hunt down what you referenced. It's not the law that you have to provide a link when you reference or quote something. It is, however, a common courtesy so that the rest of us don't have do the work you've already done.

Right click on the address bar (it's called the url) and choose copy. Then, write down the following:

[url=http://] EvC homepage[/url]

The url is the red portion. It will give the following link: EvC homepage

Forgive me for nosing in since I have only been a lurker as far as this thread is concern, but I could have sworn your entire argument this whole time rested on the basis that the church neither endorsed nor condemned the nazis and their actions. Now, someone presented evidence from your own link that seemed to show that the church did endorse the nazi regime, which you then responded that the trust was misplaced.Furthermore, you stated yourself that the church, just like everybody else, had no idea murderous persecution and genocide was being committed and you turned around and proudly proclaimed that the church tried to save hundreds of thousands of jews.So, which is it? I'm confused. So, do you or do you not want to say that the church endorsed the nazi regime (even if it was misplaced) and do you or do you not want to say that the church had at least some knowledge of wide scale persecution of the jews taking place?