Perhaps as something of a little salve to these parts... ...and... ...
I think the following is an interesting read and it touches on some things the administration has done or not done at less publicized agency levels... Although I haven't picked over it, and I might not agree with all the arguments and conclusions.
Appreciated; I'll read it over in detail later.
I'm not sure the distinction between "hosting" and "performing" is clear to everyone who reads that. If you read it quickly, it sounds like the churches might be forced to actually officiate same-sex marriage services. There is a significant possible slippage in the way we use the word "host" -- It could have either of those meanings. This rather makes me think the article itself may have been written more as an axe grinding exercise, and less as clear and full reporting of the situation.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glitter_bombing
Granted, churches might consider their space to be something where only events they approve of should take place, but I have to agree with the counterargument. If they are operating in a role that qualifies them as a public hospitality business, then they cannot deny service to whole categories of people any more than other businesses. Thus the analogy presented in the article you cite: Now, I don't know if there are say, spas or bed and breakfasts that could be allowed to close their doors to certain types of people. If there are, then it might be interesting to explore whether there is any real difference.
Honestly, I sort of wonder how many would wish to be married in a church where the clergy are fundamentally opposed to their relationships? Pay real money and have a memorable part of your life in that place, just to demonstrate rights and spite them with being forced to host the ceremony? Well okay, it does sound rather like what Christians have historically done to Pagan sites... So it's not impossible, if you assume that gays with rights would somehow adopt an ideology that makes them act like much earlier Christians (with armies). But anyway. I can follow the 'running a public hospitality service, means you must do business with the whole public' argument.
Regardless of any number of other factors, there are always people out there who will be dicks and do things just to upset people who hold different views. Although I accept freedom of speech and don't want to shut down discussion, the claim that only one side of any argument has to be guarded is not credible to me.
Getting into the whole "public" argument will take significantly more time and effort, as well as potentially derailing the thread. I'm really not a fan of the whole "you have to follow X or else we take away your privileges" deal.
Let's create the extreme example of the Church of Stan, which only allows people named Stan, and everyone else isn't ever allowed in. Now, it's idiotic, sure, but would I want them to either lose their charity status or be forced to have other members?
Just in case this example is either too extreme or there actually is a Church of Stan (in which case I apologize), it's not difficult to extend this question to pagan rites which are only for females and believe that (if memory serves, and apologies if I get it wrong) that men are forces of destruction and their presence desecrates particular areas. But, I prefer crazy examples, since I feel like I'm probably butchering this.
There is a lot more identity play going on, I imagine, across some of the same communities you may have in mind, and perhaps some other communities. If Obama did not get to Harvard Law, if he were not a good public speaker, if he were not apparently straight and visibly married, if he were a "big, scary" Black man rather than a thin and clean-cut one... Perhaps even, if he did not love basketball, or if his background was less international, what if his family had no White parenting...
I think we could skip around various communities where he has drawn support and start eliminating people. Although we might find quite a few who voted on issues. Is all this really unique to Obama? Or is the question more which identities he drew and whether those are new or "useful" ones? Not sure I quite follow this.
That was a jab at anyone who considers the color of the skin more important than the content of character. I wasn't saying Obama was at fault there so much as the people who voted for him.
The way I see it, you're just as much a bigot for despising (or adoring) a white person as you are a non-white person, as much for straight as for gay, as much for a woman as for a man, as much for a fundamentalist as for an atheist, and so on.
I could argue about people's proclamations that there's finally a non-white in the White House and that maybe he pushed for that, but that's a stretch.
A man robs a store. He tells someone else where he's hidden the money, but other than that, there's no way to pin the crime on him. The person he told doesn't want to testify for whatever reason (it puts them into a bad situation of some sort). The state can subpoena them. Alternatively, someone might have alibi evidence for the accused, but doesn't want to testify ('He couldn't have murdered that person, he was tied up in a latex body suit with a ball gag in his mouth at the time.') The defense can subpoena them.
The existence of privilege comes about because certain relationships are built on trust. You trust that what you tell your priest-confessor is between you and your Deity. You trust that the person you have pledged 'forsaking all others, till death do us part' (or whatever) won't betray you. You trust that your therapist won't tell anyone that you still carry a blue blanket at the age of 36. Once that trust is broken, the relationship can't be maintained. The legal system has determined that these specific relationships are worth protecting to the point that they over-ride the ability of either side to subpoena. (Actually, they can subpoena, but the witness can claim '____ privilege', and there's nothing that the attorney can really do about it, so they usually don't bother.)
Thank you. I think I have a little better perspective.
I'm not sure how I feel about this. Now, I absolutely don't want priests, therapists and so on to be commanded by law to testify. The obvious result is that the state would command information, and people would stop being honest with priests and therapists, with an obvious downward spiral.
It's more about, do I want the state to be able to demand testimony at all? If so, under what circumstances? Under what circumstances should it be blocked as well?
Let's put down the example that a prostitute is with a man during the time that he's accused of murdering someone. She wouldn't want to come forward because she doesn't want to admit what she was doing, risking both loss of face and conviction of solicitation. Should she be forced to?
I mean, I kind of want to say that she should, but I don't know if I want to go down that road. If you can force a stranger who doesn't want to come forward voluntarily, who can't you force? Does it make sense to give privilege to a spouse but not a lifelong friend?
This is probably something that should be taken to a whole other discussion.