Editor James Sanna firstname.lastname@example.org
Without comment. Think about it.
10:08 am on Wednesday, October 31, 2012
5:23 pm on Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Would you allow a Islamic hospital that takes Federal Funds to discriminate against women. ? Or a Mormon church run daycare in the 1970's to have refused to hire blacks ?
Its that simple !!!!
6:15 am on Thursday, November 1, 2012
Another day, another "holier than thou" posting by Donald Lee.
7:00 pm on Thursday, November 1, 2012
If a Muslim or Catholic chaplain contracted by the Army to provide services refuses to counsel a gay couple, based on the chaplains religious beliefs, one of whom is injured, would you accept that ?
Its that simple !!!
11:51 am on Friday, November 2, 2012
Would that couple *want* counseling from an official of a faith that disapproves of their union? I think not. Would the army *force* the couple to get their counseling from that disapproving chaplain in the name of "equal treatment"? I hope not, but I'm not so sure.
This is not a road we want to go down. Freedom of expression and of choice is far far better than imposing some ill-defined "equality" on everyone.
12:22 pm on Friday, November 2, 2012
This isn't relevant to the video, but I wanted to add context to the discussion on Army chaplains lest the job get distorted. I have a selfish reason for doing this. I'm the son of an Army chaplain.
When my fahter was a unit chaplain, he counseled people of different faiths all the time — Catholics, Mormons, even Wiccans. The military is extremely ecumenical. Plus, counseling isn't always — or even usually — about matters of faith. A large part of the job is just helping soldiers and families deal with the stresses of military life. A chaplain is often the only person for soldiers to talk to who's at least somewhat removed from the military hierarchy.
One other note: Many in the chaplain corps, including my father, argue that a major part of a chaplain's job is protecting the freedom of religion — ensuring that soldiers of all faiths have access to the spiritual guidance they need.
All this is to say there are plenty of times when a Muslim or Catholic chaplain would end up helping couples of a different faith, and there are plenty of times couples would welcome it.
2:42 pm on Friday, November 2, 2012
Its not a question of wanting counseling from an official of faith that disapproves their union. The official of a faith made a choice to enter the public square to provide a service. Can they then enter the public square and then claim their Freedom of expression and choices have been limited ?
If a Catholic or Muslim hospital takes Medicare, then they are entering the public square. Can a Muslim hospital claim they will not hire women ? Not in their mosque but in a public hospital.
3:59 pm on Friday, November 2, 2012
Responding to James Warden - Exactly right. The point is that both the counselors, and the conselees have a choice. A Catholic chaplain may well counsel on housing issues, or general stress, but probably would not be the right choice for a homosexual with sexual issues. A faithful chaplain would not want to do it, and the counselee would not be comfortable. The logic of "anti-discrimination" forces both of them to pretend that the tension over obvious issues does not exist.
4:35 pm on Friday, November 2, 2012
Donald, quit dancing around the issue. Catholic churches and other religions have a choice. And when they make that choice to enter the public square then they cannot claim that following the law of the land is some kind of interference of their religious beliefs.
4:01 pm on Friday, November 2, 2012
Good column providing details of an incident that often gets play in this debate:
8:06 pm on Friday, November 2, 2012
How is providing a photo service accepting a gay couples views. Catholic Social Services often contracts with states to provide social services. It is fully agreed upon that for non catholics to visit their sites is not an infringement of their religious rights. So what's the difference ?
9:59 am on Sunday, November 4, 2012
Can you clarify this question? I don't understand what you are asking.
6:20 am on Monday, November 5, 2012
It's not considered a violation of either parties religious freedoms when institutions such as Catholic Services contract and provide services to the general public which includes gays.
Similarly how and why could taking a photograph of a gay couple be a violation of freedom ? It is a service, just like proving meals by catholic services ?
11:47 am on Monday, November 5, 2012
Forcing people to do what they don't want to do is a problem. Taking pictures is no a problem. Forcing people to take pictures is a problem. Same with catholic institutions. They are free to make contracts, and also to refuse to make contracts, which is as it should be.
Say you are an accountant. You decide to refuse to serve an existing client, who happens to be homosexual, and happens to be militant. In fact, he has a habit of insulting your other clients because they don't approve of him. You decide to dump that client, because he is not worth the grief.
Being a homosexual, he has the "legal club" that he can wield to force you to serve him. His recent speech hints strongly that his "preferences" have been a factor in your decision to dump him. His lawsuit can force you to keep him as a client.
Is this what we want?
9:26 pm on Monday, November 5, 2012
A gay person has no choice but to accept social services from a Catholic Charity, if that is the contracted agency in his/her county. The mere interaction of people/institutions with two different religous/moral views has never been considered forcing ones view on others. So why should it be different for a lay photographer and a gay person/couple.
Your accountant analogy is specious. Many people use "legal clubs" that suit their circumstances. Starting with companies and their patent trolling. Assigning it as some kind of reason to deny gay rights is grasping for straws.
6:09 pm on Monday, November 5, 2012
An excellent article that points out some obvious points about the mariage amendment and Same Sex Marriage: http://www.dennisprager.com/columns.aspx?g=4bd9a8e1-d2e3-4e27-8ff9-13225099eea5&url=why_a_good_person_can_vote_against_samesex_marriage
9:14 pm on Monday, November 5, 2012
"To argue that opposition to same-sex marriage is immoral is to argue that every moral thinker, and every religion and social movement in the history of mankind prior to the last 20 years in America and Europe was immoral. About no other issue could this be said. Every moral advance has been rooted in prior moral thinking. "
The same analogy could be made for women's rights. Women's suffrage became popular only in the later 18th and early 19th Century. Therefore by Pragers analogy women had no right to be treated as equal before that nor after that because in earlier history of man there was no great moral calls for equality of women as we have it today. Right ?
7:12 pm on Saturday, November 17, 2012
@Donald, I wholeheartedly agree. We're taking care of it as fast as we can. Sorry for the delay.
10:48 pm on Saturday, November 17, 2012
I presume the comment is about the spammers, not SSM. ;->
7:59 am on Sunday, November 18, 2012
You presume correctly.
Would you like to receive email updates about this blogpost?
Advertise on Patch and reach potential customers in your backyard and beyond. Click here for more information.
Learn more »
If you want to help local causes, or your cause needs local help, your next click should be right here.
Learn more »
Share with your social networks:
Hopkins news, events, and deals sent to you daily and breaking news as it happens.
See more options
You’re now signed up!
Enter your tip here and it will be sent straight to
James Warden, Valerie Engler, Chris Steller, and Editor James Sanna,
Hopkins Patch's (incredibly grateful)