Some minor controversy has spawned in some backwater state - Florida ;) - of the US. It seems that a student named Webster Cook took a Eucharist during Catholic mass and did not eat it. He was then stopped and assaulted by the woman who was distributing the Eucharists.

Both parties have filed formal complaints with the necessary authorities, but for the student it got a whole lot worse. People have been threatening him with death, sending him emails in which he is "damned to hell" and have been attempting to force the door to his apartment in an heroic attempt to rescue the cracker. So far there has been no word on what the exact loot was, but two tubes of Pringles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pringles) have been reported missing ;)

The Catholic League, which is a watchdog, have condemned his act as a hate crime. Indeed, no kidding: “We don’t know 100% what Mr. Cooks motivation was,” said Susan Fani a spokesperson with the local Catholic diocese. “However, if anything were to qualify as a hate crime, to us this seems like this might be it.” The disrespect that this "Catholic" group is showing here towards humanity is astonishing. Stealing Eucharists out of curiosity is a hate crime? Whatever happened to those thousands of African descent and homosexuals who are murdered each year for their race or sexual orientation? Is that in any way less? well according to the Catholic League it is!

Something is extremely wrong here. It always got up my nerves that religious people where demanding respect for their convictions, but now they are taking another step, not following their customs is now qualified as a hate crime and should be prosecuted as such. A woman on some Catholic blog took it even a step further:
[...] you can bet that if this student walked into a Muslim service and walked out with the Koran or started ripping it's pages, the actions against the student would be swift. If he walked into a temple and spray painted swastikas on the Torah, no way would he be seen as a hero standing up for his rights. He would be seen as one who committed a hate crime.

Just so you know:
1) Not eating a Eucharist = Tearing up the Quran
2) Spraying swastikas on Torah's = a religious hate crime.

Links:
Student Who Took Religious Icon Getting Death Threats (http://www.myfoxorlando.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail;jsessionid=912931E6387D06E86603288C86CA66A1 ?contentId=6932236&version=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=1.1.1&sflg=1)
'Body Of Christ" Returned To Church After Student Receives Email Threats (http://www.wftv.com/news/16806050/detail.html?rss=orlc&psp=news)
'Body Of Christ' Snatched From Church, Held Hostage By UCF Student (http://www.wftv.com/news/16798008/detail.html)

Looking at the topic title, I thought this was about something completely different. Taking a cracker hostage...

This is a joke, right? How out of their minds/desperate for attention or for having something to do are they to do something like this?

Not being Catholic I'm a little fuzzy on the rules, but I believe "that cracker" is supposed to be a part of Jesus. I would think that most religions would consider it a "hate crime" if someone under false pretenses stole a piece of their God. I'm assuming that you were trying to be flippant with some of your remarks, but to a Catholic this may be a very serious issue and isn't deserving of being mocked. There may have been some whackos who sent death threats, but I'm confident that cooler heads will prevail and we won't see any violence.

It seems that a student named Webster Cook took a Eucharist during Catholic mass and did not eat it. He was then stopped and assaulted by the woman who was distributing the Eucharists.

If communion is as sacred to the Catholic Faith as the Sacrement is to the Mormons then I can comment. What he did was disrupt the communion and disrespect the Eucharist. He has violated the spirit and reverence that should accompany such a ceremony and insulted a faith that is likely very near and dear to many of those in attendance. A mortal sin? Not really, but still very rude and disrespectful. If the term Hate crime can be applied to a misdemeanor, this would qualify.

People have been threatening him with death, sending him emails in which he is "damned to hell" and have been attempting to force the door to his apartment in an heroic attempt to rescue the cracker.

A little excessive, but I'll cut them some slack. The people doing this are obviously pissed off at this guy...

The disrespect that this "Catholic" group is showing here towards humanity is astonishing. Stealing Eucharists out of curiosity is a hate crime?

Yes, it is. It shows contempt for a group based on their religious belief. What this guy did was against some statute, and he will likely have to answer in the courts for what he did. I won't go so far as to equate this with...

Whatever happened to those thousands of African descent and homosexuals who are murdered each year for their race or sexual orientation?

...which would indeed be mortal sins. Christ came right out and said that only those without sin should cast the first stone. According to my own faith, Murder, or shedding INNOCENT blood is one of the only two sins that carry with them a sentence of Perdition. If being black or gay are the only motivation for their death, then they would count as innocent blood.

It always got up my nerves that religious people where demanding respect for their convictions,

And it pisses me off when people demand that I abandon my convictions in the name of political correctness.

not following their customs is now qualified as a hate crime and should be prosecuted as such.

What this guy did goes beyond not following Catholic tennets or Dogma. He actively disrupted the worship services and openly disrespected something sacred to them. A misdemeanor under the law, but likely constitutes a hate crime.

Not eating a Eucharist = Tearing up the Quran

By his action, the host was defiled. That's very serious in their minds.

Spraying swastikas on Torah's = a religious hate crime.

Drawing penises in the cover and margins of the Torah is disrespectful vandalism, and likely punishable by law. It is the Anti-Semetite connotations associated with the Swastika that changes teh crime from a misdemeanor to a hate crime.

If all this is to you is a fuss about a cracker, you are showing this matter as much respect as Mr. Cook did in the initial incident. To decry the institution for their human rights record then mock them for their beliefs and what they hold sacred is nothing short of hypocritical.

Taking a cracker hostageRelax, everyone - I'm just fine. Once my ransom was paid they let me go.

The reason why I created this thread is because I think that the term 'hate crime' is being incorrectly applied. Even if the student was consciously trying to show his disrespect to the Catholic Church, it can still not be labeled as a hate crime.
This for the simple reason that disrespect does not automatically equal hate.

I feel that by incorrectly applying the term hate crime so something as this, the Catholic League is diminishing actual hate crimes, like murder and abuse on racial or ethical grounds. Disrespecting a belief can be done without hate. With all due respect: believing that something which cannot be logically proven, which cannot be observed and not even empirically verified does not automatically deserve respect. I'm not saying that it must be disrespected, I'm not saying that it needs to be disrespected and I'm not even saying that actively disrespecting something for the heck of it is OK. I'm just saying beliefs will be not be automatically shielded from mockery and disrespect.

The student was trying to show to his friend what being a Catholic was all about. He took him to a mass and stood in line to collect a Eucharist, which he wanted to show. The student claims to be Catholic himself, but apparently only pays lips service. There was no hate in his actions, and not the amount of disrespect that warrants assault.

At first I thought this was about crackers - ie racist white men.

He took a cracker and didnt eat it?

Thats a new low for Christianity and Christians. I hope those with brains are ashamed at this. Its a cracker.

What he did was disrupt the communion and disrespect the Eucharist.

...

He actively disrupted the worship services and openly disrespected something sacred to them.


Not according to the news reports. By the sounds of it, he was not disruptive- it was a Catholic church leader who disrupted things trying to use physical force to get it back. If she had not, then everything else would have proceeded as per normal.

Yes, what he did was disrespectful, but it was not actually disruptive and not having respect for something is not nearly the same as a hate crime. Nor should it be. His only reason for taking it was to help explain the religion to one of his friends- hardly a hateful motivation!


Yes, it is. It shows contempt for a group based on their religious belief.


This probably sounds like splitting hairs to you, but he wasn't showing contempt for the group so much as for the religious belief itself. That is a slightly different kettle of fish.


And it pisses me off when people demand that I abandon my convictions in the name of political correctness.


Not something I really see on here- do you get that in RL? I thought America was rather heavily Christian?

Not something I really see on here- do you get that in RL? I thought America was rather heavily Christian?The American Christian majority (Gnarff is actually Canadian, by the way) likes to fancy itself an oppressed minority, ignoring the fact that they control the white house, the Supreme court, and until two years ago, both houses of congress. Go figure.

The American Christian majority (Gnarff is actually Canadian, by the way) likes to fancy itself an oppressed minority, ignoring the fact that they control the white house, the Supreme court, and until two years ago, both houses of congress. Go figure.

For many of us, who are Christians, going to our chosen churches, and being able to worship as we desire is more than enough. However, there are those who would like to change America into a giant "Christian Theme Park;" kind of like Disney World, but with the Nine Circles added and reserved for those who "won't go along," of course.

This for the simple reason that disrespect does not automatically equal hate.

I accept that, but what this student did went beyond disrespect. He actively violated a key tenet of the faith. The Communion ordinance is taken very seriously, and deviating from it in front of a crowd was wrong.

I feel that by incorrectly applying the term hate crime so something as this, the Catholic League is diminishing actual hate crimes, like murder and abuse on racial or ethical grounds.

I don't think so. It may lead to mockery of the Catholic church, but murder is still murder.

believing that something which cannot be logically proven, which cannot be observed and not even empirically verified does not automatically deserve respect.

I won't change anyone's mind on that, but it DOES warrant protection. Drawing Swastikas in the Torah or spray painting them in a Synagogue is beyond mere vandalism. AS such the crime should warrant a more severe punishment. Further more, in Canada and the US, that protection is promised in the Constitution. While you can't be forced to respect a religion, you are not allowed to outright attack it either.

The student was trying to show to his friend what being a Catholic was all about. He took him to a mass and stood in line to collect a Eucharist, which he wanted to show. The student claims to be Catholic himself, but apparently only pays lips service. There was no hate in his actions, and not the amount of disrespect that warrants assault.

First, if he wanted to show a friend what being Catholic was about, he should have taken the Eucharist and returned to his seat. A brief explanation of the ordinance would be part of the discussion. If he wanted his friend to see what a communion wafer looked like, he could have asked the officiator to show his friend what a wafer looked like. He did not need to create a public spectacle by behaving inappropriately during the most solemn moment in a Catholic service. Further, what exactly did the person officiating the ordinance do? If this was a simple tug of war over the Eucharist, then the term Assault would be an exaggeration.

Thats a new low for Christianity and Christians. I hope those with brains are ashamed at this. Its a cracker.

That's just it--to them it is no longer a cracker but a piece of the body of Christ.

By the sounds of it, he was not disruptive

In a situation like that, any action other than partaking of the Host would be considered disruptive.

was a Catholic church leader who disrupted things trying to use physical force to get it back.

That I can't comment on. It may be that part of the resopnsibility of the officiator would be to ensure that the participants performed according to expectation. To my knowledge, Communion is not forced, therefore those wishing to partake are expected to act appropriately.

His only reason for taking it was to help explain the religion to one of his friends

So he wasn't hateful, but just an idiot. He could have accomplished that end with much less difficulty or attention. The court would have found that out through a trial.

Not something I really see on here- do you get that in RL?

Not me personally, but there have been incidents in North America or other so-called enlightened countries where a minister teaches from the scriptures, specifically the parts that oppose homosexuality, that were brought up on charges or accused of human rights violations. I've run afoul on with users here and on other message boards because I can't condone homosexuality.

The American Christian majority (Gnarff is actually Canadian, by the way) likes to fancy itself an oppressed minority,

The signs are there. It's only a matter of time before lobby groups use the courts to force the state makes a more concerted effort to overrule religious doctrine.

ignoring the fact that they control the white house, the Supreme court, and until two years ago, both houses of congress.

I don't think the Christian majority controls the courts as well as you'd think. If they did have that kind of control, then ther ewould be tight restrictions on abortion and no Gay Marriage debate (It would have been stopped by the courts). In Canada, The Prime Minister is a devout Christian, but that means nothing. Parliament and the Courts are not controled by the Christians. In fact, the Liberal government before the current regime legalized a few things that christians oppose!

For many of us, who are Christians, going to our chosen churches, and being able to worship as we desire is more than enough.

And for one congregation in Florida, they couldn't even do that without some well-meaning individual disrupting a service by acting inappropriately.

However, there are those who would like to change America into a giant "Christian Theme Park;" kind of like Disney World, but with the Nine Circles added and reserved for those who "won't go along," of course.

While that may be pushing it, I wouldn't mind the government playing closer to the tenets of Christianity. While I don't want one faith writing the laws (not even my own), There should be some consensus among the majority of the faiths that the government can look to.

You know it's not really the body of Christ, right? It's a symbol. And he's not really holding it hostage, otherwise he could threaten to break it unless they leave him alone. Or eat it, I suppose...

You know it's not really the body of Christ, right? It's a symbol. And he's not really holding it hostage, otherwise he could threaten to break it unless they leave him alone. Or eat it, I suppose...

Catholics believe it really is the body of Christ. I don't, it's a symbol, but Catholics believe it literally is..

Mmmm, cannibalistic religions.

Look, what this kid did was ignorant. If I walked into a Muslim mosque and started eating a ham sandwich, or loudly quoting the New Testament, I can guarantee that it would be considered a disruption at the least and very likely a hate crime. The Muslims there (and I work with Muslim immigrants, so I'm not just talking out of my hairy butt here) would be furious, and violence would not be far from the mids of some. Then there'd be a HUGE outcry that we white people need to remember that Canada is multicultural and that we should all show respect to the Muslim community.

Except for the violence part, I have no problem with that. What is irking me is that some people are acting as if the Catholic church issued some sort of fatwa-ish death threat. Some zealots may have made such threats, but I am 1000% sure that the Church officially condemns those threats.

If this kid has a beef with the Catholics, there are many legal ways he can go about expressing his opinion. Coming into a cathedral and openly challenging their practices while they are trying to worship is trespassing at the least. He deserves a stiff fine and some re-education classes.

The signs are there. It's only a matter of time before lobby groups use the courts to force the state makes a more concerted effort to overrule religious doctrine.No, sir, they most assuredly are not. With the exception of requiring Utah to abandon polygamy as a condition for statehood (and Utah didn't have to become a state), this nation has never once required a religion to change its doctrine. Separation of church and state cuts both ways, Gnarff. Just as it limits the ability of church to interfere with matters of state, it also limits the ability of the state to interfere with matters of the church.

I don't think the Christian majority controls the courts as well as you'd think. If they did have that kind of control, then ther ewould be tight restrictions on abortion and no Gay Marriage debate (It would have been stopped by the courts).No, Gnarff, it is you who drastically over-estimate the power of the Supreme court. A conservative majority doesn't give our Supreme Court the ability to overturn the constitution or legislate from the bench (although it does appear to give them the power to over-turn elections).

Catholics believe it really is the body of Christ. I don't, it's a symbol, but Catholics believe it literally is..No, Catholics don't believe it's really the body of Christ. They know it's just a symbol too. An important symbol, but a symbol nonetheless.

And not all Catholics would get as upset about what this kid as some seem to have, or as Gnarff seems bound and determined to work himself into. Most would simply see this as what it is - a childish display of disrespect and think the kid who did it was a little *sshole – which he is – and not get worked up about it, because it's really not that big a deal. It is, really, just a cracker.

What we are talking about here is the disrespect of a symbol. If you wiped your butt with the American flag (or any flag) in front of a group of ardent patriots of that country you'd get a similar reaction.
The signs are there. It's only a matter of time before lobby groups use the courts to force the state makes a more concerted effort to overrule religious doctrine.Paranoid much?

You know it's not really the body of Christ, right? It's a symbol.

I know that, but I've had a devout catholic that I know from other conversations to be very intelligent argue that it litterally becomes the body of Christ.

With the exception of requiring Utah to abandon polygamy as a condition for statehood (and Utah didn't have to become a state), this nation has never once required a religion to change its doctrine.

There wa a law passed I believe in 1876 criminalizing Polygamy. Even if Utah did not apply for statehood, the members would still be hunted and incarcerated for the practice. Try again.

Separation of church and state cuts both ways,

I'll believe that when I see it.

A conservative majority doesn't give our Supreme Court the ability to overturn the constitution or legislate from the bench

It doesn't have to. It could rule the criminalization of Polygamy to be a precedent for the traditional definition of Marriage and told the gay marriage advocates that they would not be satisfied in the United States.

And not all Catholics would get as upset about what this kid as some seem to have, or as Gnarff seems bound and determined to work himself into.

I understand. I am offended by what he did, and I'm not even Catholic. What I find more disturbing is the "but it's just a cracker" logic used to ridicule the institution.

Quote:
The signs are there. It's only a matter of time before lobby groups use the courts to force the state makes a more concerted effort to overrule religious doctrine.

Paranoid much?

It's not paranoia when they really are out to get you. Homosexual lobby groups have targetted ministers that preached scriptural passages that condemn the practice of homosexuality. Despite promises from politicians to the contrary, a Minister in Saskatchewan was fined for refusing to marry a gay couple. If this was simply a matter about gay rights and state recognition, there wouldn't be a problem, but the lobbyists don't want to stop there...

Wow. You've convinced me, they really are out to get you. Me too. AND my butt. I think you're right, they WON'T stop there. Better get used to the idea of forced anal sex and the outlawing of heterosexual marriage, 'cuz iiiit's comin'. I know I am. The gay lobby painted a target on the back of your pants a long time ago. Clearly that's what's in store for us all, in this plot you've uncovered. Hmm, I wonder if I'll have time to rewatch my copy of The Birdcage to prepare for the impending Gaypocalypse before they make me marry a goat...

Seriously, you are paranoid. Get out more. Please.What I find more disturbing is the "but it's just a cracker" logic used to ridicule the institution.That is offensive, but only when used to justify or excuse the actions of the person in question. In an attempt to put this into perspective, however, especially in a legal context, the description is quite accurate. In the realm of "hate crimes" and other dastardly things people do to one another, we are, in fact, getting worked up over a cracker (or wafer, if you prefer), and simply pointing that out is not necessarily ridiculing the institution. The person doing the insulting needs to get a life, but likewise the angry mob needs to get a grip. Disrespect or no, attempting to break into a man's house to rescue a 1-inch disc made of flour and water worth less than a penny is something a barking lunatic does, not someone worth defending or admiring for their convictions. Call me crazy.

There wa a law passed I believe in 1876 criminalizing Polygamy. Even if Utah did not apply for statehood, the members would still be hunted and incarcerated for the practice. Try again.Aside from the fact that I explicitly conceded polygamy (and only to be nice), you completely miss the point. Polygamy was illegal in each and every one of our original 13 colonies, it was illegal in each and every state of the new union created by our revolution; polygamy has been illegal in the United States since well before Joseph Smith was even a twinkle in his father's eye. There's a reason that Mormons originally practiced polygamy in secret, not going public with it until they administered their own government in an out of reach territory. When they began the practice, polygamy had already been illegal for hundreds of years.

I'll believe that when I see it.Try looking.

Homosexual lobby groups have targetted ministers that preached scriptural passages that condemn the practice of homosexuality.


Well, obviously. If a minister started using quotations from some book to attack and condemn part of who you are, wouldn't you feel the same? Said ministers are stirring up irrational hatred of a minority based on the prejudices of a group of men that lived hundreds of years ago.


but the lobbyists don't want to stop there...


Really? What do they want then? You aren't seriously suggesting that they will try something like banning heterosexual marriage, are you?

That's not what he's saying at all. What he is saying is that a person who disagrees with gay marriage runs the risk these days of being forced from his job should he fail to act against his conscience. Some extreme gay rights groups, instead of going to one of the many people who will gladly conduct their gay marriage, would rather go out and find someone who disagrees with the practice and then have the guy fired for not kow-towing to their demand to be married. These extremists (and I acknowledge right up front they are a minority in the gay community) are not really interested in getting married. They are interested in using the law to force compliance from people who dare to believe differently than they do. It's not cool when anyone does that, no matter what their orientation.

Now I can see a bit of the logic when the marriage commissioner is employed by the state (though I still don't see why a gay couple can't just find a commissioner who shares their views -- I know there's a lot out there -- in fact I attended a gay wedding once) but what is worriesome is the idea that a religious minister may be forced to perform a marriage against his faith or lose his licence to perform marriages. Some may call me paranoid but I don't think that scenario is as "out there" as some people would like to believe.

when the said group tries to make the church accept them & change their beliefs to accept them then i have a problem with the said group(be it homosexuals or whoever). Christians have the right to believe whoever they want is going to hell just as muslims have the right to believe all non-muslims are going to hell.
(rant)
If you wish to be different from the community than you have to accept the fact that some members are going to treat you differently.
If you happen to be part of a group that my religion thinks is unclean(or whatever) than i shouldn't be forced to deal with you because of some stupid PC BS. (end rant)
Oh and decados referring to a religions holy text as "some book" just completely negates anything you have to say on the matter. They believe it is the literal word of God even if you don't.
Try to defend the guy all you want but in the third article it was stated that he was upset that religious groups were holding church services on public campus, so he went there with the intent of causing a scene.
He can deny it all he wants but when you are upset with a group, you don't go to that groups meetings.
There are a lot of people on this board that decree any form of discrimination unless it concerns christians then it is open season.
Look in the mirror people. oh BTW i'm not a christian but i see the hypocrisy expressed here. Just as i would never insult(intentionally) those who follow the left-hand paths, i have to extend the same courtesy to those who follow the right-hand paths.

I can understand the person who grabbed him to stop him leaving with it. I'd be furious if anyone even *touched* my consecrated tools without my consent.

I am dubious at this boys motives, however. If he had a friend who wanted to know about catholicism then why didn't the friend go along as well? Why not TALK to people who attended service or the priest who ran it?

Why feel the need to bring up how much funding goes into the religious events on campus?

I do not see enough information on the boys views (with good reason) to decide whether or not this is a hate crime or an act of pure idiocy. However with the deception employed to simply obtain a wafer surely implies he intended it perhaps as more of a dare or perhaps to antagonise someone on a personal basis. If so he definitly lacks subtlety :rolleyes:

I am a Catholic. There seems to be some misconceptions going on here. The Eucharist being referred to here is that wafer that is used during the sacrament of Communion. As I understand it, Communion is not a Catholic-specific sacrament. All Christians have Communion. Also, while the wafer may indeed be made of the same ingredients found in the common cracker, it is clearly insulting to refer to it as just a cracker.

That having been said, calling this a hate crime is going a little too far. I think stealing a Eurcharist - while clearly disrespectful - is a far cry from going into a mosque and ripping out pages of the Koran or spray painting a swashtika inside a synogogue. On the other hand, it was still a foolhardy action. To think that no one would be upset is absurd. This is an important religous event to Catholics - a sacrament in fact - they are not going to have a sense of humor about something like that.

I see that a lot of people here think that he did it on purpose. I don't really have any reason to believe that thats what he did. Here is how I think it happened:
1) Student goes with friend to mass.
2) Student stands in line for a Eucharist.
3) Student accepts it and wants to walk away with it.
4) Priest grabs student, student quickly puts Eucharist in mouth.
5) Student walks over to friend and takes Eucharist from the mouth.
6) Priest sees it happen and grabs student again, this time it gets more aggressive.
7) Student does a runner with the Eucharist.
Doesn't seem any reason to call the kid an *sshole.. :confused:

Well, obviously. If a minister started using quotations from some book to attack and condemn part of who you are, wouldn't you feel the same? Said ministers are stirring up irrational hatred of a minority based on the prejudices of a group of men that lived hundreds of years ago.
But becoming insulted is not a just passive action. There is always something happening at the receiving end that is connecting the dots and becoming mad and angry because of the insult. How about shrugging it of your shoulders, or as someone used to say a long time ago: "Turn the other cheek." So what if he thinks that Christians are evil and that they're like donkeys, it's just some silly book he is quoting it from (this time I'm using the Quran as an example, but there are a lot of other books that are quite silly and people see as holy. How does that make a silly book any less sillier?) Wasn't believing in something a choice? It seems a contradiction in terms to me, but isn't that the accepted opinion? If you choose a religion that forces you to become insulted and forces you to act. Well then, it seems to me that the problem is with you and not the one who does the (unintended) insult!

Oh and decados referring to a religions holy text as "some book" just completely negates anything you have to say on the matter. They believe it is the literal word of God even if you don't. Who's "they"? The official stance of the Roman Catholic Church and most of the Protestant churches is that its NOT the literal word of God.

He can deny it all he wants but when you are upset with a group, you don't go to that groups meetings. So he never went?

1) Student goes with friend to mass.
2) Student stands in line for a Eucharist.
3) Student accepts it and wants to walk away with it.
4) Priest grabs student, student quickly puts Eucharist in mouth.
5) Student walks over to friend and takes Eucharist from the mouth.
6) Priest sees it happen and grabs student again, this time it gets more aggressive.
7) Student does a runner with the Eucharist.
Doesn't seem any reason to call the kid an *sshole..


Here let me try to spin it too!

1) Student goes with friend to mass with agenda to knowingly circumvent the proper performance of a religious rite.
2) Student stands in line for a Eucharist.
3) Student accepts it and wants to walk away with it knowing that is not the proper performance of the religious rite and can reasonably expect to be thwarted.
4) Priest attempts to thwart student, student quickly puts Eucharist in mouth knowing his failure to do so is the reason the priest attempted to thwart him.
5) Student walks over to friend and once again knowingly in violation of a religious rite takes Eucharist from the mouth.
6) Priest sees it happen and again attempts to thwart student.
7) Rather than conceding he is in the wrong and surrendering the Eucharist to the priest or consuming it as he knows is proper, the student does a runner with the Eucharist.


*sshole? I'd have to say: Yes.

@LKD: That makes some more sense.


If you happen to be part of a group that my religion thinks is unclean(or whatever) than i shouldn't be forced to deal with you because of some stupid PC BS.


How far does that go? If I believe anyone with black skin is unclean, am I justified in ignoring them? If so, can I then refuse to serve them if I was, for example, a waiter? What you said is on the edge of a very slippery slope.


There are a lot of people on this board that decree any form of discrimination unless it concerns christians then it is open season.


I'm not convinced. Most of this 'anti-Xian discrimination' appears to be little more than paranoia.


Oh and decados referring to a religions holy text as "some book" just completely negates anything you have to say on the matter. They believe it is the literal word of God even if you don't.


Well that's my points soundly defeated! I forgot that not following a religion meant that I was also forbidden from commenting on it. :rolleyes:

I forgot that not following a religion meant that I was also forbidden from commenting on it. :rolleyes:

There is a difference between commenting and demeaning.

(rant)
If you wish to be different from the community than you have to accept the fact that some members are going to treat you differently.

And they have every right to feel the way they feel and to exclude you from their social circle. This does not mean they have the right to assault you. But they have the same right to association or non-association as you do. It is incumbent on all citizens to respect that right in others.

If you happen to be part of a group that my religion thinks is unclean(or whatever) than i shouldn't be forced to deal with you because of some stupid PC BS. (end rant)

This only applies to personal association, however. In a public business, I do not have the right to refuse service to someone based on his race, religion, or several other factors. But in my private life, (and religions are private institutions not covered by government social engineering and PC nonsense) I don't have any responsibility to tolerate conduct of which I do not approve. I sure as hell do not have to modify my rites, beliefs or practices just because someone doesn't agree with them. He's free to go out and find a religion that is more in line with his views, or even to start his own religion without any fear of Government (or my) interference with his beliefs.* That's what makes Western Democracies great!

*Unless those beliefs, rites or practices are a violation of law, such as polygamy at the present time or a rite that involves killing members of another faith!

How far does that go? If I believe anyone with black skin is unclean, am I justified in ignoring them? If so, can I then refuse to serve them if I was, for example, a waiter? What you said is on the edge of a very slippery slope.
Not at all slippery, if you wish not to associate with a particular group, don't. If you wish to take a job where you will have to interact with members of said group be prepared to treat them like you treat anyone else.
Now as far as if you own the business, i personally feel you should be able to decide who you wish to do business with without the government trying to tell you otherwise. The government has no right to try to make us like everybody. Certain groups are allowed to get away with it & others aren't. Take any large cities "chinatown" - a town section where asians choose to live & work around others just like them. Now if a group of whites wanted to make an "aryantown" everybody & their brother would be up in arms.

@Blackthorne TA:
That might be the way that it went as well, but I'll just stick to Hanlon's Razor:
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.


@Gnarfflinger
It's not paranoia when they really are out to get you. Homosexual lobby groups have targetted ministers that preached scriptural passages that condemn the practice of homosexuality. Despite promises from politicians to the contrary, a Minister in Saskatchewan was fined for refusing to marry a gay couple. If this was simply a matter about gay rights and state recognition, there wouldn't be a problem, but the lobbyists don't want to stop there...
I agree with you at some point there. State has no business in religion (the other way around too!) In my opinion, a minister has all rights to refuse to marry a couple in church. If, however, he acts as a representative for the state, then he should not be allowed to refuse. Here in the Netherlands, we have two types of marriage, for the church and for the state. The church is not forced to marry gay couples and the state is not allowed to refuse them.

Uhh, martaug, I don't think that, oh, let's take the Chinese for example, are the ones who coined the term "Chinatown". They do not advocate it's use, though they may use it for the sake of convenience once it enters the lexicon of a city. However, if you go to Chinatown, they still will serve you, I believe. I've never heard of a Chinese restaurant owner refusing service to a Caucasian.

That said, there are also areas of the city that may not be called "Aryantown" but they basically are -- you look at some subdivisions or even some small towns and you'd have to go a long way to find anything but WASPS. That may be some de-facto racial profiling but I see it as like attracts like -- it doesn't necessarily imply racism or bigotry unless it is coupled with unsavory behaviours like planting burning crosses or such.

As for a business refusing service to certain groups of people, if such is a personal decision then I agree with you to a point. I'm going to make up a group of people so as to be suitably PC for this discussion.

I am a white Canadian of English descent. I own a small cafe, where I sell sandwiches, coffee and other fast foods. Over the past 30 years, many Hoovians have moved into my community. (They were fleeing the depredations of the Grinch ;) ) I don't like them. Who cares what my reasons are?

IMHO, I should not have to serve them in my restaurant. My restaurant is not a government owned institution -- though it is open to the public, it is a privately owned business and I feel I should be able to choose who I will and will not serve. The invisible hand of the marketplace will eventually punish me, though, because Bill Hoka, the guy who runs the cafe down the street from me, gladly serves the Hoovians and thus his profits will likely be better than mine (assuming all other things are equal between us). In the long run, he will be able to use those profits to increase the value of his store, maybe getting better signage and hiring a skilled chef. I may even go out of business for my decision.

This is not the case presently. I must serve the Hoovians. If I don't, I am guilty of discrimination under Canadian law. I could be fined and possibly lose my business licence. I understand the rationale behind the law, as if Bill Hoka, and I, and all the other restauranteurs in town (independantly or collectively) choose not to serve the Hoovians then the Hoovians are gonna go hungry (and it'd be worse if the Grocery stores also choose not to serve Hoovians). Nevertheless, if it is MY private company I should be able to do what I wish with it.

As for religions, well, the faith I practice states that we accept and love everyone. If someone came into our services and went up to the Sacrament table and started grabbing handfuls of bread from the Sacrament trays, I can guarantee that he would be asked / forced to stop. Were he hungry, we have a procedure for helping him get the food he needs, but if he persisted in disrupting the service by not being respectful of our rites, he would be asked to leave. Maybe a dork might make a death threat but most members of my congregation would simply chalk it up as an amusing experience. But I fail to see why we should let people trample on our rites in the name of being "open-minded" or whatever you want to call it.

That might be the way that it went as well, but I'll just stick to Hanlon's RazorOh, I doubt his original motive was malicious and agree it was most likely profound stupidity, especially since had he explained his curiosity and asked for a wafer prior to it being consecrated and transsubstantiated, most likely a priest would have been happy to oblige.

However, once accosted for his transgression, he chose to be stubborn and take umbrage to their laying hands on him rather than be sympathetic to their concern for what his intent was in taking the Eucharist and give it back (or consume it). And then to later call on them to apologize for accosting him... the gall!

That's not what he's saying at all. What he is saying is that a person who disagrees with gay marriage runs the risk these days of being forced from his job should he fail to act against his conscience. Slight problem LKD. None of this stuff happens. There have been employees fired by their employers for refusing to work with gay people, but that's something quite different. It isn't an issue of conscience, since it isn't a sin to have a homosexual as a coworker. It also isn't specific to gay rights issues, since employees who think they can tell their employers who they can and cannot hire tend not to keep their jobs.

Some extreme gay rights groups, instead of going to one of the many people who will gladly conduct their gay marriage, would rather go out and find someone who disagrees with the practice and then have the guy fired for not kow-towing to their demand to be married.Now I know you're just making **** up. Please provide an example of a Justice of the Peace getting fired for refusing to marry a gay couple.

Sorry, not making it up at all -- it's something that is very likely in Canada's present social climate -- it might be different in the US, but here the political correctness line is much stronger.

I wasn't talking about people who refuse to work with homosexuals, I was talking about people who do not want to be the officiator at a ceremony their religion forbids. I know you think I'm a nutter, Drew, but this stuff is not that paranoid where I live. I'll check the records. It may have already happened, but if it hasn't, IMHO it's only a matter of time.

There is a difference between commenting and demeaning.


A matter of perspective, obviously. However, even if I was demeaning towards that religion, it is ridiculous to suggest that my tone invalidates any arguments made.

A matter of perspective, obviously. However, even if I was demeaning towards that religion, it is ridiculous to suggest that my tone invalidates any arguments made.

I disagree. Tone will almost always trump reason. Just look at this entire thread. The title of thread alone was "trolling" for an argument.

Suppose for a moment that you did a scientific paper proving that the English are better then the Italians. You could have all of the evidence in the world, but if you titled your paper "Guineas are stupid" it will invalidate your argument with almost everyone and that includes the English.

I'll check the records. It may have already happened, but if it hasn't, IMHO it's only a matter of time.Proof positive that you just pulled this out of your ass. The vast majority of JOP's are self-employed, clergy, or both. Self employed people and clergy don't get fired for adhering to their own religious beliefs, LKD.

I don't think you are a nutter, by the way. I just think that you are divorcing yourself from logic and reason. There is no gay conspiracy. There is no secular humanist conspiracy. In the interest of fairness, I'll also point out that there's no vast right wing conspiracy, either. You've built your entire argument around this idea that gay rights activists are actively trying to force Christians to act in a manner prohibited by their faiths, but unless "refusal to tolerate people who see the world differently than you do" is a tenet of that faith, this simply isn't true. Since gay marriage was legalized, how many religious institutions have been forced to marry homosexuals against their will? Don't bother looking it up; I already did. None.

Your argument that if it hasn't happened yet, it's only a matter of time is classic slippery slope fallacy. It has no basis in logic, reason, or reality.

If a minister started using quotations from some book to attack and condemn part of who you are, wouldn't you feel the same?

Not who they are, but what they do. It's not the people, but their sins that they condemn. If they can't seperate the two, then that's their problem. If they won't seperate the two, then that's also their problem.

Said ministers are stirring up irrational hatred of a minority based on the prejudices of a group of men that lived hundreds of years ago.

Wrong. They are condemning an impure act that has been forbidden by God.

You aren't seriously suggesting that they will try something like banning heterosexual marriage, are you?

No, but they are trying to coerce religious leaders to use the name of God to santify their marriages despite the fact that their sexual practices are an abomination.

I still don't see why a gay couple can't just find a commissioner who shares their views -- I know there's a lot out there

I suspect that they didn't want to find another commissioner...

If you wish to be different from the community than you have to accept the fact that some members are going to treat you differently.

Well put. I have to endure people looking at me like I have two heads because I don't drink Alcohol. I even have some that believe that they are doi9ng what's best for me by trying to discredit my faith. Being called for the things that make you different from the norm IS being treated like everyone else. If the homosexuals don't like that, then be careful what they wish for...

when you are upset with a group, you don't go to that groups meetings.

Thank you. What right does he have to disrupt them?

I'd be furious if anyone even *touched* my consecrated tools without my consent.

That's the heart of the matter. It is the consecration of the cracker that changes it from a cracker to an emblem of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ--something key to the Catholic faith.

So he never went?

No, he did go. It would have been sensible to be somewhere else, but he chose to go, cause a disturbance during the most sacred part of the service, and wondered why people got pissed off...

If so, can I then refuse to serve them if I was, for example, a waiter? What you said is on the edge of a very slippery slope.

We're talking about two different things here. You look at serving food to them or some other mundane business. The minister in question was canned for refusing to perform a marriage for them. Food is food, but Marriage is a sacred ordinance to the religious, and if their faith forbids homosexuality or rigidly defines marriage as between a man and a woman, then you are asking him to directly violate his ethos.

the faith I practice states that we accept and love everyone.

Let me add to this one point: The commandments apply to all. Homosexual activity, just like fornication or adultery, is strictly prohibited, but it is not the business of the congregation, but rather for the offender(s) and their Bishop.

LKD also brought up the Sacrement. In our church, it is not any great secret. The prayers are found in scripture (in two different parts, the same prayers are given), and the trays of bread and water are passed through the congregation. Anyone in attendance can see the trays and their contents. In most cases the members themselves can easily explain the Sacrement to a guest, and can introduce the person to the priesthood who officiate the ordinance.

Uhh, martaug, I don't think that, oh, let's take the Chinese for example, are the ones who coined the term "Chinatown". They do not advocate it's use, though they may use it for the sake of convenience once it enters the lexicon of a city.

You may find this hard to believe but it's sort of a religious preference. We have a large area in H-Town that is "Chinatown," in the southwest part of the city. I always thought it was a strange place, since it used to be the middle of white suburbia about 20 years ago. Now, even many of the street signs are in Chinese - big change. I asked one of the restaurant owners in Chinatown why they chose that area. He explained to me that when they started settling in Houston in larger numbers they bought over a Chinese mystic to evaluate the H-Town area, and that he determined that a dragon had died (which is a good place to live if you are Chinese) near Belaire and Gessner, and that is why they settled there. I wasn't sure if I believed him, but I looked it up and sure enough, that's what they did. Pretty cool....

Yep, most chinese are big into the proper feng shui alignments for were they live & work.

Said ministers are stirring up irrational hatred of a minority based on the prejudices of a group of men that lived hundreds of years ago.
and
Wrong. They are condemning an impure act that has been forbidden by God.

I assume the above relates to homosexuality specifically? In that case I have to say - oh please. This is a typical 'pick and choose' approach to which parts of the bible you follow. There is all sort of weirdness in the old testament which is largely ignored (not eating pigs and shellfish, stoning people etc), yet the vague passage supposedly condeming homosexuality is touted far and wide...

By the way, we seem to be drifting from the cracker rather a lot...

Proof positive that you just pulled this out of your ass. The vast majority of JOP's are self-employed, clergy, or both. Self employed people and clergy don't get fired for adhering to their own religious beliefs, LKD.

I don't know where you got the mistaken belief that JOP's are self employed http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2008/07/07/justices_of_the_peace_split_on_civil_unions/?page=full

"In Massachusetts, where justices of the peace are gubernatorial appointees, they were warned after their state legalized gay marriage in 2004 that they are to perform same-sex marriages or resign. Some gave up their posts over the issue.

Vermont, the first state to legalize civil unions, elects its justices of the peace and, like Connecticut's, gives JPs discretion regarding particular civil unions or weddings. They could find trouble in a blanket refusal to do civil unions, however, because that could be considered illegal discrimination based on sexual orientation."
There are alot of states like massachusetts, where as a JOP you don't have a choice, you either do it or resign.

As far as not trying to censor christians : http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31080

Certain passages of the Bible can be construed as hate literature if placed in a particular context, according to a Canadian provincial court.
The Court of Queen's Bench in Saskatchewan upheld a 2001 ruling by the province's human rights tribunal that fined a man for submitting a newspaper ad that included citations of four Bible verses that address homosexuality.

A columnist noted in the Edmonton Journal last week that the Dec. 11 ruling generated virtually no news stories and "not a single editorial."

Imagine "the hand-wringing if ever a federal court labeled the Quran hate literature and forced a devout Muslim to pay a fine for printing some of his book's more astringent passages in an ad in a daily newspaper," wrote Lorne Gunter in the Edmonton, Alberta, daily.

Under Saskatchewan's Human Rights Code, Hugh Owens of Regina, Saskatchewan, was found guilty along with the newspaper, the Saskatoon StarPhoenix, of inciting hatred and was forced to pay damages of 1,500 Canadian dollars to each of the three homosexual men who filed the complaint.

like i said there is an obvious double standard when it coms to christianity as opposed to other religions.

Gnarff, I think Vukodlak could be right- we are moving considerably away from the whole cracker business, so I'll leave things there apart from one final comment:


Food is food


Unless it is a cracker. ;)


I disagree. Tone will almost always trump reason. Just look at this entire thread. The title of thread alone was "trolling" for an argument.

Suppose for a moment that you did a scientific paper proving that the English are better then the Italians. You could have all of the evidence in the world, but if you titled your paper "Guineas are stupid" it will invalidate your argument with almost everyone and that includes the English.


I'm sorry, TGS, but that is quite simply a load of rubbish. Arguments are based on logic, and the logic behind an argument is entirely unaffected by the arguer's tone.

Attempting to sway people through tone is rhetoric- it isn't an argument in itself, and neither does it affect any arguments made. Now, I'm not saying that tone has no effect on people- it does. However, tone does not 'trump reason' in, what should be at least, an intellectual discussion.

Well, I called a friend of mine who works as a newscaster. She told me that to her knowledge, no civil JP (who here are employees of the government, not freelancers) in Alberta has been fired for refusing to perform a gay marriage. However, she did say that when gay marriage was legalized, a civilly employed commissioner stated that because of his religious beliefs he would not be performing any gay marriages. He was told that if he refused a request to perform a gay marriage, he risked losing his job. I have no link at the moment but I've asked my friend to search through her station's files to find the story.

So the concept is not one coming out of my butt, Drew!

I guess what I'm arguing is this -- there are a lot of extremists out there, whose views do not necessarily reflect those of the majority of people who hold to similar positions. (For example, animal rights activists who break into labs and release animals. Those activists do not reflect your position as an animal rights activist, Drew, right?) I believe that the vast majority of gays merely want to to have a marriage ceremony and live their lives the way they want. There are SOME activists who want to take things significantly further. I know that in religion there are similar extremists. I just want people to recognize that such extremists exist in other groups as well.

Which leads us back to the cracker. I'll use myself as an example - -I know that there are some Catholics who believe (or believed) that the cracker actually transubstantiates into the flesh of Christ. I do not share this belief. BUT I do not head on over to the nearest Cathedral and interrupt their services by standing up and saying "Hey, idiots, it's just a cracker! I'm gonna take one home and feed it to my pet bird, ha ha you fools!"

I know the kid didn't say anything like that but his actions were just as disrespectful. By the same token, offering a death threat for the kid's stupidity is out of proportion no matter how you cut it. If you don't agree with a religion's peaceful practices, then go home, or protest outside if you've REALLY got nothing better to do, but don't interrupt them!

@ Martaug, I was referring to their duties in the officiating of marriage ceremonies. Such ceremonies are usually conducted "on the side", and outside the direct employ of the state. The state licenses them and mandates how much they can charge for their services, but they decide when to work, with whom they work, and how often. Thus far, none of the many Massachusetts JOP's who have publicly refused to perform gay marriages have been asked to stand down, nor has any clergy been forced to perform gay marriages. This alarm, like most others raised in the gay marriage debate, was just another much ado about nothing.

@LKD, I think we mostly agree, now. I still feel that you grossly over-estimate the power of the tiny, tiny minority of gay rights activists that actually do want to force the religious community to perform gay marriages, but at least you've conceded that there just aren't very many people who see things that way. On the rest, we can simply agree to disagree. Time will tell.

That said, I do believe that state employees who are expressly employed to officiate marriage ceremonies should not be allowed to refuse to officiate over a gay civil marriage if at the court house, during their state appointed office hours, and specifically assigned to officiate over court-house marriages. Since a state marriage is a legal procedure and not a religious sacrament, refusing to provide such a service in a court house and during official court hours - if doing exactly that is your appointed duty - would constitute discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. An individual uncomfortable with the idea of officiating over the occasional gay courthouse marriage (which is just a dry legal proceeding, after all) during his normal work day should simply request another post.

There is all sort of weirdness in the old testament which is largely ignored (not eating pigs and shellfish, stoning people etc),

Once again, that prohibition was historical from the scribes and Pharisees (like judges and politicians of today), as opposed to...

yet the vague passage supposedly condeming homosexuality is touted far and wide

...which is very explicit, and DIRECTLY from God.

we seem to be drifting from the cracker rather a lot

That cracker as some insist on calling it, is only the tip of the iceberg. By stealing the "cracker", which is sacred to the Catholic faith, it was perceived as an attack on their faith. On the mere principle, there should have been charges brought against the young man in question.

I do believe that state employees who are expressly employed to officiate marriage ceremonies should not be allowed to refuse to officiate over a gay civil marriage

And how would you feel if your boss told you that you would be fired for refusing to eat Veal Cutlet? These people are being asked to violate a major tenet of their religious beliefs. Shouldn't this constitute a Human Right's violation?

And how would you feel if your boss told you that you would be fired for refusing to eat Veal Cutlet? These people are being asked to violate a major tenet of their religious beliefs. Shouldn't this constitute a Human Right's violation?Bad comparison, Gnarff. No one is asking the judge in question to have a gay marriage himself; the couple getting married is eating the veal. The judge is being asked to legally bind a marriage contract as an agent of the state; he's being asked to cut, prepare, and sell the veal to someone else. Gnarff, if my boss required me to cut, prepare, and sell veal as a condition of employment, my boss would be a butcher, and do you think I would work for a butcher?

You may want to re-visit my bold again, since you appear to have misunderstood what I said. If you are specifically employed to perform courthouse weddings, then that is your job. In a courthouse wedding, the judge asks a few questions, signs and notarizes your marriage license, and sends you on your way. No pomp, no ceremony. It's just a legal procedure. If a judge wants to refuse to perform private gay marriages on his own time (most weddings don't happen in court-houses or during court hours), that's his prerogative, but if he's on the bench and a gay couple wants to have their marriage license signed and notarized, he has no right to tell them that no, they can't finalize their paperwork.

There is all sort of weirdness in the old testament which is largely ignored (not eating pigs and shellfish, stoning people etc),

Once again, that prohibition was historical from the scribes and Pharisees (like judges and politicians of today), as opposed to...

Quote:
yet the vague passage supposedly condeming homosexuality is touted far and wide
...which is very explicit, and DIRECTLY from God.

My apologies, there msut be two such passages. The one I read (in Leviticus I think it was) is vague and certainly subject to interpretation - and also has no bearing on female homosexuals. Incidentally, just to put into perspective, I seem to remember the same passage saying something about not being with your 'father's other wives', and not having sex with a woman who is menstruating...

Incidentally, I never could find that bit about the devil quoting scripture for his own purpose. :D That in the bible?

but if he's on the bench and a gay couple wants to have their marriage license signed and notarized, he has no right to tell them that no, they can't finalize their paperwork.

If he's the only judge in town, then I would agree with you on this one (to a point) Drew. What worries me, and you believe that I'm jumping at shadows, is a scenario like this:

Judge Franks is a Christian who firmly believes that gay marriage should be illegal. He has sat on the bench for 20 years and served the community extremely well. Now the law has changed. He's not happy with it, but he is a decent man and doesn't kick up a fuss that wouldn't make a difference anyway. Two gay men come to the courthouse asking for their papers to be signed. Franks tells them that he cannot in good conscience sign their papers, and sends them over to Judge Jones, who cheerfully signs their papers and the two gay men go home happy. No problem, no fuss.

The next two gay men who come in have the same thing happen, but THESE two are not satisfied. Judge Franks has failed to kowtow to their beliefs. To be a good person, you MUST believe exactly as they do. They want FRANKS to do it because he's the first judge they saw. They won't wait 20 minutes, that's a horrible infringment on their rights. Judge Franks, they say, secretly hates all homosexuals and wants to kill them all and his refusal to give them their gay marriage is proof that he kills homosexuals in his spare time! He must be removed from the bench for holding such dangerous beliefs!

Tempest in a teapot that could end up hurting Franks for no other reason than the second pair of gay men like to cause trouble. Getting married wasn't their prime goal. Threatening the job and livelihood of a long-standing public servant to make a political statement was their real purpose. It makes me sick. Their rights were never infringed.

Now as I said, if they live in a small town and Franks is the only judge, then Franks has some thinking to do. In his position, I would step down or move to criminal court or retire or something. But in a big city where there's plenty of other judges (or marriage commissioners, or whatever they are called in your jurisdiction) there's no need to force that representative to be a party to an action he or she is morally opposed to. Another representative can easily give the gay people what they need.

I know you think that's a pretty esotaric scenario, but I think that the radicals would love to do something like that out of spite.

The next two gay men who come in have the same thing happen, but THESE two are not satisfied. Judge Franks has failed to kowtow to their beliefs. To be a good person, you MUST believe exactly as they do. They want FRANKS to do it because he's the first judge they saw. They won't wait 20 minutes, that's a horrible infringment on their rights. Judge Franks, they say, secretly hates all homosexuals and wants to kill them all and his refusal to give them their gay marriage is proof that he kills homosexuals in his spare time! He must be removed from the bench for holding such dangerous beliefs!You're jumping at shadows again, LKD. People don't just walk up to a judge in chambers or in the courthouse. The clerk sends them, and a judge who has requested not to be assigned weddings simply won't have them assigned to him. You are using a fake situation that has never happened* with fake, two dimensional people to illustrate your fear. You have a just and righteous judge and two wholly nefarious homosexual reactionaries who act purely out of malice, spite, and ignorance. Issues with real people don't happen as you've laid them out, and we have yet to see a judge get fired for refusing to officiate over a gay union.

Judges can choose which kinds of cases they'll take. They don't have to perform marriages. Now, if a judge chooses to have marriages added to his caseload and is uncomfortable with the idea of performing the occasional gay union, then he is well within his rights to choose to have marriages removed from his caseload. Just as a vegetarian waiter at a steakhouse can't reasonably expect to keep his job while refusing to serve his customers steak, an anti-gay marriage judge shouldn't be allowed to refuse to perform gay civil unions if he chooses to have marriage proceedings added to his caseload. Given the fact that bench weddings are among the least stressful and acrimonious things a judge can possibly be asked to do, there will be no shortage of judges who will take them on without a fuss.

My point here is that a judge shouldn't be able to perform some marriages while refusing others during work hours. He is within his rights to choose not to receive any marriage licenses during bench or office hours, but as an agent of the state, he is not within his rights to tell homosexuals to "get in another line" when they are on his caseload. After work, he can discriminate against homosexuals all he wants, but at work, his job is to serve as an agent of the state, and the state doesn't discriminate on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation.

* Or you'd be talking about a real situation, instead.

oh i see drew any situation you make up is real & any situation that doesn't agree with you is false.
Jeez, you totally ingored half of what he posted to try and spin it your way.

there will be no shortage of judges who will take them on without a fuss.

the state doesn't discriminate on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation.

The State is composed of people, and a judge is a citizen with just as many rights as another citizen. It is not discrimination to send people to another line, as the first quote I took from your post illustrates -- there's lots of other representatives of the State who can help you -- it is not necessary for me to do so.

I know you think that my scenario is 2 dimensional, but I see it as plausible, as I do believe that there are homosexuals out there with a definite agenda, just as there are Christians with an agenda, politicians with an agenda . . . having an agenda is not necessarily a bad thing, nor is disagreeing with someone else's agenda.

oh i see drew any situation you make up is real & any situation that doesn't agree with you is false.
Jeez, you totally ingored half of what he posted to try and spin it your way.Martaug, I don't traffic in hyperbole and apocryphal stories. My situation was an if-then. If a judge has weddings on his caseload, then he would be discriminating if he told people who waited in line to receive a constitutionally guaranteed service that, since they are gay, they need to wait in line again. Since that isn't the same treatment to which a heterosexual couple would be subjected, it would constitute discrimination. Since judges are asked to finalize marriage paperwork for heterosexual and, where applicable, homosexual couples, this isn't a made up situation, either.

No JOP's have been asked to stand down for recusing themselves from gay courthouse marriages. Since gay marriages and civil unions have been legal in one form or another and one state or another for quite some time in the US, it stands to reason that if this was going to happen, it would have happened already. While technically possible, the fact that it already hasn't means that it isn't bloody likely to happen in the future. The moon hasn't turned to blood at any time in at least the last 10,000 years. It won't turn to blood tomorrow.

Just because some two dimensional, comic-book-nefarious gay couple tries to institute an eeeevil plan to get a righteous, god-fearing judge fired for sticking to his Christian principles doesn't mean anyone else is going to bite. It isn't enough to be an activist, after all, to make something happen. It isn't enough to make lots of noise and create controversy. The public - 2/3 of whom still disapprove of gay marriage - actually has to take both you and your agenda seriously.

No one is asking the judge in question to have a gay marriage himself

But they are demanding that they commit blasphemy against their deeply held religious beliefs. That too is a greivous sin.

if my boss required me to cut, prepare, and sell veal as a condition of employment, my boss would be a butcher, and do you think I would work for a butcher?

But what if your job description was CHANGED to demand that you do just that? It had never before done that, but now you are required to do that lest you get fired and labeled a pariah, ridiculed for your vegan principles. That is what's happenning to these judges. They had the duty to preform marriages between men and women. This has never been a violation of their convictions before, but now that the law has changed, they should not be forced to act against their ethical principles. To do otherwise is persecutory to those with religious beliefs.

If you are specifically employed to perform courthouse weddings, then that is your job. In a courthouse wedding, the judge asks a few questions, signs and notarizes your marriage license, and sends you on your way. No pomp, no ceremony. It's just a legal procedure.

But Marriage is NOT just a legal procedure to Christians. To Christianity Marriage is a very sacred ordinance. To most Christian faiths, it is restricted to male and female. To change their job description to require that they do anything against their moral principles is unethical. To discriminate against their religious beliefs is unconstitutional.

The one I read (in Leviticus I think it was) is vague and certainly subject to interpretation - and also has no bearing on female homosexuals.

First, that passagte is NOT vague, but rather explicit. Secondly, thou is gender neutral. This prohibition applies to both men and women. The rules for sex are explicit. Between a man and a woman who are married. ANYTHING else qualifies as a grievous sin.

Incidentally, just to put into perspective, I seem to remember the same passage saying something about not being with your 'father's other wives'

I would have thought that fell under the heading of adultery...

anti-gay marriage judge shouldn't be allowed to refuse to perform gay civil unions if he chooses to have marriage proceedings added to his caseload.

So their rights as religious people mean nothing? Their job description has changed. To do this, you put their rights below that of an ordinary citizen.

My point here is that a judge shouldn't be able to perform some marriages while refusing others during work hours.

Which is completely wrong. If it is at all possible, a person SHOULD have the right to legally refuse ANY action that would violate or compromise their values.

If a judge has weddings on his caseload, then he would be discriminating if he told people who waited in line to receive a constitutionally guaranteed service that, since they are gay, they need to wait in line again

Going to a Mormon specific example, here. Suppose a Judge were ordered to perform a gay marriage. Doing so would call his standing within the church into question, possibly to the point of warranting additional dicipline from the Church. So you would force them to choose between their Job and their Religion? Just imagine the furor if someone was told they are fired because they are gay...

But Marriage is NOT just a legal procedure to Christians. To Christianity Marriage is a very sacred ordinance. So it's sacred when a pair of atheists go to the courthouse and fill out some paperwork with a judge? What about the union of an earnest young bi-sexual man and his butch bi-sexual girlfriend who both enjoy swinging, worshiping the devil, and practicing sado-masochism? Is their open marriage sacred? State marriages are legal proceedings. They are not religious proceedings. People for whom marriage is sacred don't get married in the courthouse with the bailiff and court reporter as witnesses. They marry through a church.

So their rights as religious people mean nothing? Their job description has changed. To do this, you put their rights below that of an ordinary citizen.Sometimes, the terms of your employment change. When they do, you have a choice to make. I've left 2 different jobs because they asked me to do things I wasn't comfortable doing. What they asked me to do wasn't illegal (and it wasn't food-related), but I felt it was shady. Both times, the decision was hard, but I made it. A judge's job is to be an instrument of the law. When he accepts his appointment or election, a judge knows damn well that laws change from time to time. When they do, he has a choice. He doesn't have to stay a judge, but if he does, then he does have to follow the law.

Which is completely wrong. If it is at all possible, a person SHOULD have the right to legally refuse ANY action that would violate or compromise their values.He can. A judge isn't a soldier under a binding contract. He can quit. He can also request not to have weddings put on his case load when he's on the bench.

Going to a Mormon specific example, here. Suppose a Judge were ordered to perform a gay marriage. Doing so would call his standing within the church into question, possibly to the point of warranting additional dicipline from the Church. So you would force them to choose between their Job and their Religion?No. I would force him to choose between doing his job and not doing his job. If he doesn't want to do the job he agreed to perform with full knowledge of the fact that he is expected to execute the law whether he agrees with it or not and that the law is subject to change, he can choose to quit...or, more conveniently, he can simply have the bench marriages put on someone else's docket. There are lots of judges would love to have a break from criminals, speeders, broken families, etc that they usually deal with and would be more than happy to conduct a wedding for a couple of strangers - even gay strangers - instead.

or, more conveniently, he can simply have the bench marriages put on someone else's docket.

You mentioned this before, and I have to say I agree with it, as odd as it is for us to agree ;) (actually, it's not that odd, but anyhow) Simply focussing on other areas of law would seem to be the best bet. Also, while my examples were designed to make a point (one that I still feel is valid, if unlikely to occur) I do not think (and never did) that people simply waltz in one day and get a marriage performed. It's something they schedule. The judge's clerk could simply not schedule gay marriages for his judge, filling up the judges docket with other marriages and letting another judge perform that wedding (I would bet lots of judges do this for myriad reasons.) That way, EVERY side gets it's reasonable demands / needs met and no one gets their rights trampled on.

GETTING BACK TO THE CRACKER!! Is there any follow up on the cracker incident? Did the fellow apologize? Has Paul Bettany taken a break from flagellating himself and killed the blasphemer? (It was Bettany who played the Opus Dei assassin in Da Vinci Code, right?), has the boy been arrested for trespassing for his behaviour on privateproperty?

Ok, here's the thing that I don't see. How is this a crime? He didn't steal it, they gave it to him and, when he didn't eat it, they tried to take it back. Now, they may have given it to him under the assumption he would eat it, and he may have even understood that assumption, but if he didn't legally agree to it, and if he didn't try any kind of deciet in getting the cracker (I don't think he lied about not being Catholic, I think he was never asked), then what crime was he commiting.

Likewise, if I go to a sinagogue and ask if I can bring food in, and the rabbi (assuming me to be a practicing Jew) says its ok (I have no idea if it is or not, but just pretend) and I bring out a ham sandwitch, I may have offended them, I may have insulted their religion, but I have not committed a crime. Have I?

On top of that, the reaction of these people is ridiculous. They threaten him with death because he (a non-catholic) violated a catholic rite? That's about par with a Jew threatening death on a doctor who didn't circumcise a child at birth, in my book.

Disrupting the rites of a congregation is a form of trespassing in my book, though I'm sure that in 5 minutes flat the lawyers here will chew my clothes off. It certainly is in bad taste and I think that the Catholic leadership there have a right to expect an attendee to cooperate with their rite while he is in their building.

I don't think this is a hate crime. However, if something similar happened in a Muslim or Sikh building THEY would certainly try to paint the action as a hate crime.

No argument from me that the death threats are an over-reaction and need to be condemned in the strongest of words. The kid also needs to be re-educated, as I have opined before.

@LKD,

Sorry, I cannot find anything new on this story. FOX news has an 'interview' with the friend of the Eucharist-thief, it's about 10 seconds long so no revelations there.

State marriages are legal proceedings. They are not religious proceedings.

Then it should not share the same name as a religious ordinance. To call that marriage means that the state is interfering with religious matters.

Sometimes, the terms of your employment change. When they do, you have a choice to make.

That's not morally right. In the case of forcing a judge to legitimize a gay marriage against his religious belief, that's also unconstitutional. If he is asked to resign over the issue, he can refuse. If they try to fire him, then he can and shouls sue for wrongful dismissal.

A judge's job is to be an instrument of the law. When he accepts his appointment or election, a judge knows damn well that laws change from time to time. When they do, he has a choice. He doesn't have to stay a judge, but if he does, then he does have to follow the law.

The same law that guarantees his freedom of religion? Part of upholding teh law is defending his own constitutional rights.

I would force him to choose between doing his job and not doing his job. If he doesn't want to do the job he agreed to perform with full knowledge of the fact that he is expected to execute the law whether he agrees with it or not and that the law is subject to change, he can choose to quit

And if he refuses, do you fire him because he's a Mormon? Try substituting in Muslim or Jew and see where you get...

more conveniently, he can simply have the bench marriages put on someone else's docket. There are lots of judges would love to have a break from criminals, speeders, broken families, etc that they usually deal with and would be more than happy to conduct a wedding for a couple of strangers - even gay strangers - instead.

But what happens when that doesn't work out? A temp comes in and sends a gay couple before this judge. Does he not have the constitutional right to refuse to participate and require them to go to another judge?

but if he didn't legally agree to it, and if he didn't try any kind of deciet in getting the cracker (I don't think he lied about not being Catholic, I think he was never asked), then what crime was he commiting.

By getting in the line to receive communion he agrees to partake of the ritual as expected. Entering the line with intent to do otherwise would be deceit. Doing this would be disturbing the peace and trespassing.

I bring out a ham sandwitch, I may have offended them, I may have insulted their religion, but I have not committed a crime. Have I?

If they ask you to take it outside and you refuse, you are trespassing. Likewise, if you tried to take a coffee into a Mormon building, I think you'd be asked to finish it outside before entering. You would still be welcome to dispose of the cup in a garbage can inside the building, but you'd be asked to finish it outside. When you enter a religious building, you are expected to behave appropriately.

They threaten him with death because he (a non-catholic) violated a catholic rite?

I agree that's excessive. But I would expect some legal repurcussions over the incident.

I don't think this is a hate crime.

I'll leave that to the court. If he was earnestly trying to show his friend a communion wafer, then the court will realize he's an idiot, call him an idiot several times in the process of levying a fine for trespassing and disturbing the peace. If this was actually a hate crime, committed in protest against the catholic church, then the comments of the Judge and the punishment would be more severe.

What religions and faiths should we respect? What if there is a group of people who believe wearing a shirt is a sin? Should they be allowed to work shirtless? A cracker is a cracker is a cracker no matter how many people claim it is the body of god and offending people who get offended for such things is a good thing. Like those Muhammed cartoons, the muslims were up in arms for a few drawings. Incredibly silly and very dangerous, this is the same thing. If the religious loonies get to dictate what is offensive and what is not we will soon be back in the stone age. Things like these are good as it exposes the outrageousness of so many peoples beliefs. I am sure most of you would think I am silly if I claimed that the empty yoghurt bottle next to my computer was the holy bottle of god and should be revered as such no? How can people not find Christianity or Islam or whateveroreligion just as silly? Is it based on the following? The more followers you have the less outlandish your beliefs get? The older your beliefs are the less silly they get? I don't get it? Most of you scorn how completely bizarre the scientologist are but you are willing to nod your head in respect to the old monotheistic religions? There is no difference! Whether you worship a yoghurt bottle or the biblical god your claim to reason is the same!

Quote:
I would force him to choose between doing his job and not doing his job. If he doesn't want to do the job he agreed to perform with full knowledge of the fact that he is expected to execute the law whether he agrees with it or not and that the law is subject to change, he can choose to quit

Quote 2:
And if he refuses, do you fire him because he's a Mormon? Try substituting in Muslim or Jew and see where you get...

Yeah, you don't think so? For instance if a Jew was hired to work in a sausage maker's he could just refuse to do any work because of his religion. Or he has a right to demand to do a job that doesn't require him touching pig? Puh-lease... Or a muslim working as a barman has a right to refuse to serve alcohol?

Come on! If your religious beliefs are at odds with a particular job - don't take on that job!

Then it should not share the same name as a religious ordinance. To call that marriage means that the state is interfering with religious matters.So what you're saying that this isn't really about whether homosexuals have the right to marry? This whole issue is really just about the word "marriage"? If that were actually true, wouldn't that be a bit petty? Words mean different things to different people, and your faith doesn't own the word "marriage". Gnarff, most US states where gay marriage is legal don't actually have "gay marriage". They have gay civil unions, but those civil unions are just as vociferously protested as the gay marriages, so if this whole thing is really just about a word, you'll need to send those protesters a memo.

That's not morally right. In the case of forcing a judge to legitimize a gay marriage against his religious belief, that's also unconstitutional. If he is asked to resign over the issue, he can refuse. If they try to fire him, then he can and should sue for wrongful dismissal.Why isn't it morally right? Since a judge is elected or appointed to execute the law under the full understanding that the laws he is required to execute will change from time to time, he knows that he will occasionally have to enforce laws he doesn't agree with. It's a condition of his employment. If you refuse to accept a condition of your employment in the real world, you usually don't get to keep your job. Why should the courts be any different?

The same law that guarantees his freedom of religion? Part of upholding teh law is defending his own constitutional rights.Requiring a judge to perform a legal marriage of two homosexuals in a non-religious procedure violates neither his religion or his constitutional rights. All you are asking the judge to do is verify that consent is mutual and sign the paperwork. You are not asking the judge to bind the couple in a religious ceremony. Besides, Gnarff, do you honestly believe that gay marriage is the only legal procedure that goes against the edicts of your religion? What about divorce, liquor licenses, copyright cases involving pornographic films, licensing for prostitution in Nevada, strip clubs, gambling, etc? A judge's job is to enforce the law. He doesn't get to write it. If the judge isn't comfortable with that, he is welcome to find another job.

And if he refuses, do you fire him because he's a Mormon? Of course not! I fire him because he refuses to do his job. His religion is irrelevant.

But what happens when that doesn't work out? A temp comes in and sends a gay couple before this judge. Does he not have the constitutional right to refuse to participate and require them to go to another judge?Aside from the near impossibility of such a situation (courts employ more than one clerk and the security requirements of the job would make hiring a temp for such a position nigh impossible, even after a thorough background check and a week of training), this is why I suggest that a judge should either agree to perform any bench marriages that come his way or he should have them all put on someone else's docket. A temp is going to follow established procedure when scheduling marriages. If the procedure is to place them in dockets A,B,C, and E, he won't put them in docket D. If there were a screw-up, the judge would have the right to move all the marriages over to the appropriate docket. If the judge just moves the gay couples that reach the front of the line, that would constitute preferential treatment being granted to heterosexuals on the part of the state, which would be illegal.

joaqin, the issue isn't whether people get offended over things that happen every day. The issue is that when you enter the private property of a faith group (or any group, for that matter) you should respect their practices, or at least behave in a way that seems respectful, regardless of your personal beliefs. If you don't agree with what is happening, then remove yourself from that location.

Let's take a wedding for an example. If you attend a wedding and it's time to throw the bouquet. Some idiot guy muscles his way in with the girls and says "I always wanted to catch a bouquet!" The bride wanted a perfect, no hassles wedding and is now upset. Why? Because some dork decided to disturb the proceedings for whetever reason. The bouquet catching isn't a religious ceremony or anything, but the lack of respect shown by this guy is inappropriate and should be treated as a disturbance of the peace.

As for the yougurt cup comment, I realize that you pride yourself on being as offensive as possible for the shock value, and I try to be understanding, but sometimes you go too far. You might consider trying a slightly more civilized tack to make your points. I attempt to show respect for differing belief systems -- I don't think it's too much to ask the same from you.

As for the whole judge and gay marriage / civil unions issue, I firmly believe that there must be a middle ground that protects the rights of all the players involved. Finding that middle ground is difficult with absolutist extremists (both the Christian and Gay varieties) but not impossible.

Come on! If your religious beliefs are at odds with a particular job - don't take on that job!

The problem lies when the parameters of the job changed. It's not like a Muslim taking a job at the pig slaughterhouse. In the 60s and 70s the idea of gay marriage was not even on the radar. It's not a decision that most people getting into law thought they'd ever have to tackle. I simply don't see the value in turfing a judge who has served the community well for several decades to appease a vocal minority's whim, especially when said vocal minority can easily and without significant trouble get what they want from another source.

I've pondered what Drew said (about how no JP has been fired for refusal to perform a gay marriage), and I am going to venture that it is very likely that the courts have an impromptu system similar to the one I postulated earlier. At least I hope they have, because the idea that otherwise spotless JPs have been quietly shoved out is too depressing to contemplate.

LKD, I wasn't trying to go for shock value. I was dead serious about the yoghurt bottle metaphor. Can you please tell me what the difference is between me claiming my yoghurt bottle is divine and Christians claiming a cracker is the flesh of god or well, there are plenty of other dubious statements various religions make. Judging by your reaction you would not show respect for someone worshipping the holy yoghurt bottle, would you? What if the cult of the yoghurt bottle could trace its origins thousands of year back in time and had a following in the millions? Would that make it respectful? I view Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, Scientologi and whateverism just as you would view me if I said I worship an empty bottle full of sour yoghurt leftovers. I would be happy if you could point out the difference in believing in a divine yoghurt bottle and believing in for example one of the thousand variants of the biblical god.

As for your example I get your point but you could have chosen a better one. I would find it hilarious if some dude dived for the bouquet and if the bride is so stuck up that she can't find the humour in it, it gets even funnier. :p

Judging by your reaction you would not show respect for someone worshipping the holy yoghurt bottle, would you?

If the guy had it on his desk at work and expected me to genuflect to it as I walked past, I wouldn't. If it were on his desk and I believed that he truly believed it to be something sacred, I wouldn't mock him for his belief. And I certainly wouldn't go to his church and spit in the bottle, which is the equivalent to what the kid did. Even if I thought him to be wrong, unless he did something that showed he was dangerously unstable, I would respect his position. That's what human rights is all about -- respecting the differing beliefs and attitudes of others, and leaving people in peace to practice their beliefs without interference.

Oh, and as for the bride thing, I was trying for a non-religious example of a jerk interrupting something that was special to someone else. It doesn't matter if the jerk doesn't think it's important -- the bride who shelled out thousands of dollars did and it's his utter lack of respect for her feelings (and this kid's utter lack of respect for the feelings of the people whose Mass he disturbed) that makes me dislike people of his ilk.

By getting in the line to receive communion he agrees to partake of the ritual as expected. Entering the line with intent to do otherwise would be deceit. Doing this would be disturbing the peace and trespassing.
I think you would have a hard time argueing this legally. That's up there with saying that walking into a person's house means you are legally agreeing to buy item X they want to sell you. On top of that, while it could be trespassing (if the legal arguement is allowed), it isn't disturbing the peace. That's what the Catholics did in response.

If they ask you to take it outside and you refuse, you are trespassing. Likewise, if you tried to take a coffee into a Mormon building, I think you'd be asked to finish it outside before entering. You would still be welcome to dispose of the cup in a garbage can inside the building, but you'd be asked to finish it outside. When you enter a religious building, you are expected to behave appropriately.
But what if they ask you to go outside, but leave the sandwitch for them to 'purify' (really making things up here, but play along)? As I understand the law (which is to say not completely), the moment they gave him the cracker without him first consenting to a legally binding agreement about it, it became his to do with as he pleased. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I'll leave that to the court. If he was earnestly trying to show his friend a communion wafer, then the court will realize he's an idiot, call him an idiot several times in the process of levying a fine for trespassing and disturbing the peace. If this was actually a hate crime, committed in protest against the catholic church, then the comments of the Judge and the punishment would be more severe.
Hah! One, I don't have the same faith in the justice system you do. It all depends on the judge he gets, and then on whether or not anyone appeals and what judge they get, and so on. I still don't see him as guilty of disturbing the peace in any way, and only of trespassing through a questionable extension of informed concent and one's right to govern what happens on one's property.

I do think that those that accosted him should be charged with disturbing the peace at the least, maybe even assault and attempted theft, but that's questionable.

As to the yogurt, if he was passing it out in little baggies with the expectation (but not agreement from everyone that took it) that they put it in their cubicle, and someone decided they were hungry and wanted a snack, that's too bad for him. Likewise, if I'm passing out Bibles to random strangers and someone takes it and starts ripping it up, while I may be upset, it's now their Bible to do with as they please.

The problem lies when the parameters of the job changed. It's not like a Muslim taking a job at the pig slaughterhouse. In the 60s and 70s the idea of gay marriage was not even on the radar. It's not a decision that most people getting into law thought they'd ever have to tackle. I simply don't see the value in turfing a judge who has served the community well for several decades to appease a vocal minority's whim, especially when said vocal minority can easily and without significant trouble get what they want from another source.

If it has been voted into law, and assuming you live in a democracy, then by definition it is something the majority wants or at least doesn't oppose. It is precisely for this reason that civil servants are not allowed to pick and choose which laws they uphold.

In the 60s and 70s the idea of gay marriage was not even on the radar.In the 60s, they were too busy protesting inter-racial marriage...

A cracker is a cracker is a cracker no matter how many people claim it is the body of god and offending people who get offended for such things is a good thing.

Exactly the disrespect that we religious folk put up with because we CAN'T legally shut them up. That is as much hate speech as the religious prohibition of Homosexuality. But when dealing with the faithful you must remember what they believe, and if you violate that, you will offend them on some level...

Like those Muhammed cartoons, the muslims were up in arms for a few drawings. Incredibly silly and very dangerous, this is the same thing.

Again, the cartoonist mocked what they hold sacred. Of course they will be pissed off. And in a religion where a few of the more extreme members have gone way overboard, that's where it becomes dangerous...

Things like these are good as it exposes the outrageousness of so many peoples beliefs.

It also reflects how disrespectful the detractors can be. If that's what Aetheism is about, then I will say it's just as hateful as they claim religion is.

I am sure most of you would think I am silly if I claimed that the empty yoghurt bottle next to my computer was the holy bottle of god and should be revered as such no?

And would you be angry with me if I pissed in it? Or threw it in the garbage while you were out? Or told you how stupid you were for your belief?

Most of you scorn how completely bizarre the scientologist are

I find it so foreign to my understanding that I can't relate to it. Something about it gives me a bad feeling though...

Come on! If your religious beliefs are at odds with a particular job - don't take on that job!

That may work in the examples you cite, or for a few other jobe like prostitute, porn star, whatever, the jobs are obviously in violation of religious ethics, and if no accommodations can be made for them, then you're right. If the Jew in question could be assigned to grind hamburger to make sausage out of beef, then the employer should accommodate him. But with a Judge, this is not the case. In fact, a Judge is considered a noble profession in religious circles. A Judge should NOT be forced to violate his personal religious ethics in the name of law when it is possible to assign the case or contract to another judge who does not share those prohibitions. To do otherwise is unfair discrimination.

So what you're saying that this isn't really about whether homosexuals have the right to marry?

No, it's about forcing Christians to legitimize the homosexual relationships, whether you call it Marriage or Civil Unions or anything else you want to call it. It's about reducing something sacred to a piece of paper akin to what you wipe your backside with after you're done with your daily constitutional...

They have gay civil unions, but those civil unions are just as vociferously protested as the gay marriages, so if this whole thing is really just about a word, you'll need to send those protesters a memo.

I don't care for Gay Civil Unions either, but I recognize them as a State attempt to accommodate a minority. I just wish they could do it without shoving it in the face of the religious--including a Judge, JoP, Marriage Commissioner or anyone else who could legitimize a heterosexual relationship.

he will occasionally have to enforce laws he doesn't agree with. It's a condition of his employment. If you refuse to accept a condition of your employment in the real world, you usually don't get to keep your job. Why should the courts be any different?

But this is not a simple disagreement, but a violation of his deeply held religious beliefs. Beliefs that ARE protected by the Constitution. A political disagreement with the Marijuana laws is one thing. He can disagree, but he still has to sentence drug dealers that come before him. Gay Marriage is different as he has to actively legitimize something his beliefs consider among the worst of sins.

Requiring a judge to perform a legal marriage of two homosexuals in a non-religious procedure violates neither his religion or his constitutional rights.

Simply legitimizing the relationship between two homosexuals is a violation of his beliefs. It is unconstitutional to force him to do that under duress of termination. I have no issue with homosexuals wanting to come out of the closet. I have a big problem with trying to force Christians into that closet...

What about divorce

Divorce is a fact of life. Sometimes a divorce is seen as better than a marriage where the covenents are broken routinely.

liquor licenses, copyright cases involving pornographic films, licensing for prostitution in Nevada, strip clubs, gambling,

Controlling vices, restricting where they can and can't be practiced, and whatever is not a violation of the Mormon faith. The Judge can and should try to recuse himself from cases where he would be required to view pornography. Actually, in Las Vegas, there is a significant Mormon population, and many of them work in Casinos or bars. AS long as they aren't gambling or drinking they don't have a problem. My Grandfather was a Tobacco Farmer while he served as a Branch President. My church respects the need to work in the world, as long as that work does not demand that the worker violate the laws of God with no opportunity to accommodate his faith.

I fire him because he refuses to do his job. His religion is irrelevant.

:bs: You fire him because he refuses to violate his religious beliefs. This is just as unconstitutional as firing a guy becasue of the colour of their skin.

If the judge just moves the gay couples that reach the front of the line, that would constitute preferential treatment being granted to heterosexuals on the part of the state, which would be illegal.

Just as illegal as forcing someone to act against their religious beliefs. I guess the lawyers screwed the pooch on this one...

Can you please tell me what the difference is between me claiming my yoghurt bottle is divine and Christians claiming a cracker is the flesh of god or well, there are plenty of other dubious statements various religions make.

At face value, there is no difference between your statement that you can't prove and my statement that I can't prove. And if I defiled your yogurt bottle you'd be pissed at me, just as the catholics are pissed at the kid for defiling the host.

you would not show respect for someone worshipping the holy yoghurt bottle, would you?

I would be obligated to try, but I admit it would be difficult. It sounds just too foreign to my understanding.

I would find it hilarious if some dude dived for the bouquet and if the bride is so stuck up that she can't find the humour in it, it gets even funnier.

Hell, at one wedding I even tried to congradulate one of my male cousins on his fine catch after the bride threw the bouquet! Nobody heard me though and the ceremony went on with the woman catching the bouquet doing whatever she was supposed to do after that. I really don't remember much else as it was during my drinking days...

I think you would have a hard time argueing this legally.

Not really. It was a Catholic Church, a Catholic Service, and I believe that the announcement would be made as part of the ordinance that those wishing to PARTAKE of the Host should come forward. The emphasis is on partake, and that anyone getting in the line is assumed to be consenting to partake as expected. I have heard that there is a means for those that are not catholic to enter the line to receive the blessing of the officiator, but I have never been a part of this.

it isn't disturbing the peace.

Again, I disagree. By acting in a manner other than proscribed for those partaking of the communion (which you agree to do by entering the line), you are disrupting the orderly procession of the ordinance.

As I understand the law (which is to say not completely), the moment they gave him the cracker without him first consenting to a legally binding agreement about it, it became his to do with as he pleased. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Consent is implied when he lined up to partake.

If it has been voted into law, and assuming you live in a democracy, then by definition it is something the majority wants or at least doesn't oppose.

In Canada, in any individual riding, the member of parliament is determined by a first past the post system, meaning that the candidate with the most votes in that particular riding (electoral district) gets the seat. I would bet that in over half the ridings this is NOT 50% of the vote (considering that there are three major parties, a fourth party in Quebec, and a number of fringe parties). Further, only 50% plus 1 of the members of Parliament need to support a motion for it to pass. Also, just because some guy got elected, he doesn't always vote as his constituents desire. In the Gay Marriage issue, the parties forced their hand, co-ercing them to vote along party lines to get the legislation passed. The vote was not recorded so that the individual members could not be held accountable to their constituents for their vote on the issue. To say it was democratically passed is quite a stretch...

It is precisely for this reason that civil servants are not allowed to pick and choose which laws they uphold.

So you suggest that Civil servants lose constitutional rights that everyone else gets?

It's about reducing something sacred to a piece of paper akin to what you wipe your backside with after you're done with your daily constitutional...Then why on earth aren't you out there protesting open marriages, unions between atheists, unions between satanists, prostitutes, and porn actors? Gnarff, the fact is that lots of people get marriages that you will never in a million years consider sacred or approve of. If you lack the critical thinking skills necessary to recognize that civil marriages performed by government beaurocrats not only aren't sacred, but in fact never were, then you need to get a clue. A marriage license is a piece of paper. A judge in a bench marriage signs that piece of paper. That's it.

Beliefs that ARE protected by the Constitution. A political disagreement with the Marijuana laws is one thing. He can disagree, but he still has to sentence drug dealers that come before him. Gay Marriage is different as he has to actively legitimize something his beliefs consider among the worst of sins.Of course the constitution protects beliefs. What it doesn't protect are actions. Jobs, even federal jobs, require people to do things that go against their religious beliefs all the time. Our constitution protects people having this type of moral dilemma by allowing them to quit or, when both reasonable and possible, move to another department.

Simply legitimizing the relationship between two homosexuals is a violation of his beliefs. It is unconstitutional to force him to do that under duress of termination.Actually it isn't. Signing a ****ing marriage license does not legitimize the marriage. It was already legitimized before the clerk even issued the license. All the judge does is notarize it. His job is not to approve or disapprove of the union, but to witness and rubber-stamp it. His role is simply to ensure that no one is underage, mentally incompetent, or forced to marry against his will. If he has a problem with it, he can quit or have bench marriages placed on someone else's docket with no questions asked.

Actually, in Las Vegas, there is a significant Mormon population, and many of them work in Casinos or bars. AS long as they aren't gambling or drinking they don't have a problem. My Grandfather was a Tobacco Farmer while he served as a Branch President. My church respects the need to work in the world, as long as that work does not demand that the worker violate the laws of God with no opportunity to accommodate his faith.So what you are saying is that it is OK for a Mormon to facilitate gambling by running a table in a casino or facilitate drinking by mixing Margaritas in a bar, but it somehow isn't OK for a Mormon to facilitate a gay marriage by signing and notarizing a legal document? Don't be ridiculous. If it isn't OK for a Mormon judge to sign the paperwork, then it isn't OK for a Mormon clerk to hand over the marriage license, it isn't OK for a Mormon bartender to mix Margaritas, and it isn't OK for a Mormon dealer to take bets at a blackjack table.

You fire him because he refuses to violate his religious beliefs. This is just as unconstitutional as firing a guy becasue of the colour of their skin.So, you are saying that it would be unconstitutional to fire a hindu for refusing to cut meat. It isn't. Even if a the owner of a once-vegetarian indian restaurant decides to change policy and start serving meat, he isn't obligated to keep the vegetarian chef on staff. If the vegetarian chef feels that serving meat violates his religious beliefs, he is welcome to find another job. By the way, Gnarff, hindus see meat eating and preparation as equal to murder. Proportionally speaking, asking a devout hindu to prepare meat dishes is asking a far greater sin than asking a Mormon Judge to sign some paperwork for a non-religious civil marriage. It may be hard, it may be cruel, but it is not unconstitutional to terminate an employee for refusing to do his job unless you are asking him to do something illegal.

Just as illegal as forcing someone to act against their religious beliefs. I guess the lawyers screwed the