• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access.

    By joining you will gain full access to thousands of Videos, Pictures & Much More.

    Membership is absolutely FREE and registration is FAST & SIMPLE so please, Register Today and join one of the friendliest communities on the net!



    You must be at least 18 years old to legally access this forum.
  • Hello Guest,

    Thanks for remaining an active member on GayHeaven. We hope you've enjoyed the forum so far.

    Our records indicate that you have not posted on our forums in several weeks. Why not dismiss this notice & make your next post today by doing one of the following:
    • General Discussion Area - Engage in a conversation with other members.
    • Gay Picture Collections - Share any pictures you may have collected from blogs and other sites. Don't know how to post? Click HERE to visit our easy 3-steps tutorial for picture posting.
    • Show Yourself Off - Brave enough to post your own pictures or videos? Let us see, enjoy & comment on that for you.
    • Gay Clips - Start sharing hot video clips you may have. Don't know how to get started? Click HERE to view our detailed tutorial for video posting.
    As you can see there are a bunch of options mentioned in here and much more available for you to start participating today! Before making your first post, please don't forget to read the Forum Rules.

    Active and contributing members will earn special ranks. Click HERE to view the full list of ranks & privileges given to active members & how you can easily obtain them.

    Please do not flood the forum with "Thank you" posts. Instead, please use the "thanks button"

    We Hope you enjoy the forum & thanks for your efforts!
    The GayHeaven Team.
  • Dear GayHeaven users,

    We are happy to announce that we have successfully upgraded our forum to a new more reliable and overall better platform called XenForo.
    Any feedback is welcome and we hope you get to enjoy this new platform for years and years to come and, as always, happy posting!

    GH Team

A Religious Exemption For LGBT Discrimination? That Is The Hobby Lobby

W!nston

SuperSoftSillyPuppy
Staff member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
11,991
Reaction score
1,411
Points
159
This infuriates me as it should all Gay Americans. We will never earn our equality through the Supreme Court. They will never go against the Church that is supposed to be separate from the State but isn't in this day and age. We will have to march on state capitols and march on Washington, D.C. We will have to march on every religion's church, cathedral, synagogue and mosque. We will have to march for our equality. The time has come for a bigger show of strength like the war protests against Viet Nam and the civil rights protests against segregation. Where is are the Democrats? Where are the liberals? Where are any of those who marched with Martin Luther King, Jr.? No. We cannot depend on any one to march by our side. We need to kick ass and take names. I'm ready. I'm really wound up about this bullshit.

Hobby Lobby's Harvest: A Religious Exemption For LGBT Discrimination?
LOS ANGELES TIMES | By Michael Hiltzik | July 16 2014

Hobby%20Lobby%20la-fi-mh-lgbts-from-work-20140715-001.jpg

The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., right, being hauled off to the Birmingham, Ala., jail on April 12, 1963. Behind him: The Rev. Ralph Abernathy. (Associated Press)

Events in the real world continue to mock the assertion by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito that his majority opinion in the Hobby Lobby case is a "narrow" one.

Alito maintained that his June 30 decision concerned only the contraceptive mandate of the Affordable Care Act and, practically speaking, exempted only closely-held family companies from its enforcement.

But Hobby Lobby's children keep proliferating. The big issue at the moment is a pending executive order from the White House barring discrimination by federal contractors against LGBT (that is, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) people.

In recent days, President Obama has received letters from more than 70 civil rights groups, including the NAACP and ACLU, asking him to resist calls to soften the order by including a religious exemption. A similar letter came from 54 law professors and legal scholars.

The trigger for all this was a letter sent to Obama on July 1 -- the very day after the Hobby Lobby ruling came down -- by 14 self-described "religious and civic leaders" seeking a religious exemption from the coming anti-discrimination rule. Among the signatories, some of whom have been close to Obama or even worked for him in the White House, are Rick Warren, senior pastor of Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, and Father Larry Snyder, chief executive of Catholic Charities USA.

This remarkable letter implicitly raises questions about what it means to be religious in general or Christian specifically in America today, what role supposedly sincere religious beliefs have in the workplace, and how anyone can seek to discriminate on moral grounds.

The most eloquent answer to these questions came from Martin Luther King in his "Letter From Birmingham Jail." More on that in a moment.

The theme of the July 1 letter is that while no one likes prejudice -- "We agree that banning discrimination is a good thing," the authors state generously -- there's a time and place for everything. And this may not be the time and place to force religious organizations to accept LGBT equality, because it might make them very uncomfortable. And you don't want to make charitable people uncomfortable:

"We are asking that an extension of protection for one group not come at the expense of faith communities whose religious identity and belief motivate them to serve those in need."

Let's not move too fast, they write. "We still live in a nation with different beliefs about sexuality. We must find a way to respect diversity of opinion on this issue." A religious exemption would allow for "balancing the government's interest in protecting both LGBT Americans, as well as the religious organizations that seek to serve."

Essentially, they want to be allowed to continue to accept money from the federal government to fund their good works without being "disqualified or disadvantaged in obtaining contracts because of their religious beliefs."

The remarkable thing about these words is that faith leaders could still utter them in 2014, despite the blot on churches' moral standing left by religious leaders' resistance to desegregation in the 1960s.

It's unsurprising that Martin Luther King's words, written in 1963, anticipate these churchly arguments being made on behalf of exclusion and discrimination a half-century later. It's because he heard the same thing in his own time.

King's letter was addressed to eight white religious leaders of Birmingham -- nominally liberal clergymen of the Episcopal, Methodist, Catholic, Presbyterian, Baptist and Jewish faiths -- who had criticized him for leading sit-ins protesting the city's segregation ordinances; he was arrested and jailed for violating an anti-demonstration injunction. King's protest was "unwise and untimely," they said, an "extreme" measure likely to extinguish the "new hope" for racial peace being seen in the city.

King recognized this criticism as an effort by a privileged majority to hang on to its privileges just a little while more. But he recognized that to them, there never is a right time -- "I have never yet engaged in a direct-action movement that was 'well-timed' according to the timetable of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation," he wrote.

King condemned the "sanctimonious trivialities" of white churchmen, uttered from behind "the anesthetizing security of stained-glass windows." The contemporary church "is so often a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound," he wrote. "It is so often the arch supporter of the status quo."

In his most thunderous passage, he wrote: "The Negro's greatest stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens Councillor or the Ku Klux Klanner but the white moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice."

Could these words apply any better to the signatories of the July 1 letter to President Obama? They also counsel moderation. They counsel delay. They plead discomfort. The head of Catholic Charities, which publishes a code of ethics that disallows "unjust discriminatory behaviors against individuals served" on the basis of "sexual orientation," pleads for the latitude to practice such discrimination in the workplace because he doesn't want to miss out on federal contracts. The pastor of a Southern California megachurch apparently believes that anti-LGBT discrimination should be condoned in the name of "diversity of opinion."

It's doubtful that any of the pious, hand-wringing signatories of the July 1 document ever read King's "Letter From Birmingham Jail"; if they had, they could not have put their names to their own letter without shame.

If President Obama is to uphold the faith that millions of Americans put in his promise to govern over "one America," the executive order forbidding LGBT discrimination is an acid test.

The signers of the July 1 letter have already failed it. Their act points to one other line from King's jailhouse missive: "The judgment of God is upon the church as never before."
 

gorgik9

Super Vip
Joined
Dec 3, 2010
Messages
14,586
Reaction score
17,686
Points
120
Important article and great post! Thanks sniffit! And take out the baseball bat, it's time to stop beeing so damned meek and mild...It seems freedom of religion American version means freedom to discriminate others as much as you want as long as it's discrimination for religious reasons. And let's spill the beans : religious means christian. Discrimination for christian reasons.
 

tonka

Super Vip
Joined
Apr 3, 2011
Messages
1,776
Reaction score
205
Points
63
The owners of Hobby Lobby are not even sincere in their "beliefs". They own stock in a health care company that makes birth control.
 

topdog

Super Vip
Joined
Nov 1, 2010
Messages
2,400
Reaction score
662
Points
128
...They will never go against the Church that is supposed to be separate from the State but isn't in this day and age...

Yes, the government can't endorse religion. But it can't interfere with the practice of one's faith either. The first amendment begins:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

That, and the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) which says that government can restrict religious practices only when they have a compelling reason were the basis for the Hobby Lobby decision.

I'm not arguing for the HL decision, I'm just saying that the freedom to religious expression sits right next to church/state separation in the bill of rights; you have to uphold both.

Gay activists are right to be concerned, though. The only thing that keeps future anti-gay discrimination laws from being gutted in a similar way is the state's "compelling interest" in providing equal protection for all citizens.
 

W!nston

SuperSoftSillyPuppy
Staff member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
11,991
Reaction score
1,411
Points
159
I'm sure you are absolutely right, topdog :)
 
Last edited:

tonka

Super Vip
Joined
Apr 3, 2011
Messages
1,776
Reaction score
205
Points
63
This trend is at least better than the past.
Not many years ago, social conservatives got laws passed so that everyone had to follow their beliefs. Gay rights, birth control, lots of things.
That has shifted to a more limited defensive stance.

While it hurts the employees of Hobby Lobby, I don't think this will be wide spread. Businesses need to recruit talent. This kind of thing sends a message to possible hires to stay away.
 

W!nston

SuperSoftSillyPuppy
Staff member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
11,991
Reaction score
1,411
Points
159
I like your positive spin on this tonka :)
 
Top