- This topic has 77 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 7 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Sam: Their wedding is a furtherance, and thus part of the violation, of their being together.
“This is why the Civil Rights act, in my opinion went too far.”
Yup. It got rid of the “No Jews or Dogs” signs. It got rid of most of the Judenrein housing developments. It got rid of the Jewish quotas in colleges. It got rid of most of the Judenrein law firms.
Yup. It went too far.
“it should be noted that the store memories pizza went from having 2 reviews to over 500 hate reviews by these people.”
It is now out of business.
Remember that Indiana is the state that in 1924 elected Edward L. Jackson, a Republican who was a KKK leader, as governor. If today people want to legally discriminate against gays, tomorrow the “No Jews or Dogs” signs will be back and the next day co-op boards will declare themselves religiously opposed to having Jews live in the building. You don’t have to like homosexuality but if we don’t fight this now, we will be the target of Christian bigotry.
(In fact, we may already be. A recent poll found that 57% of Republican primary voters want to establish Christianity as the official religion of the United States, overturning the very First Amendment that they claim to be defending here and turning Jews into second class citizens. The only good news is that Big Business calls the shots in the Republican Party and Big Business knows that gay bashing is bad for business. Already Republican leaders like Jeb Bush and Asa Hutchinson are starting to distance themselves from this nutty law that gives for profit corporations religious rights.)
Can someone tell me what OO is? I am not aware.
Joseph: I honestly really don’t see the logic of that claim. What about a party changes their willingness to follow their sexual preference?
The party is overtly and explicitly for the celebration of their being together.
OO = Open Orthodox.
Its run by people who want to charge Halacha.I think its main advocate is Avi Weiss
thank you ZD.
Charlie,
1) Thank you for proving my point so well about OO.
2) The ecoarification being made is that the law is being carried way too far, and that providing protection to groups that classify themselves solely by their perverted proclivities while at the same repressing the rights of actual legitimate groups/classes as defined by the framers of the constitution is obscene and perverted reasoning. Since perverted and obscene (yes the Torah calls it Toeivah, you don’t find thieves being considered a protected class) is the very definition of their class, it explains why they feel it is correct.
The stories you bring are actually proof that the law is being carried to far. That you are now relegating religious beliefs to the back off the bus by making people do things against their wishes.
“Yup. It got rid of the “No Jews or Dogs” signs. It got rid of most of the Judenrein housing developments. It got rid of the Jewish quotas in colleges. It got rid of most of the Judenrein law firms.
Yup. It went too far.”
First, you missed my point. I didn’t say that there was nothing good in the Civil Rights act. I said it went too far.
More importantly, yes I think that putting a sign that says “No Jews or Dogs” is disgusting. I also think that the Westboro Baptist Church coming to Brooklyn and protesting Jews is disgusting. The point is that government should not have the right to compel anyone to say or not say something or to engage in business or not engage in business with anyone just because the government, or even the majority of people, find the practice objectionable. I don’t like the No Jews or Dogs sign, but if a proprietor wants to have such a sign, t should be protected speech. The entire reason we have the First Amendment is to protect unpopular speech or expression. By your logic, a yeshiva should be compelled to host a same-gender wedding.
The Civil Rights Act should have been limited to making it illegal for a government entity to enact laws that directly restrict the rights of minorities. Where I think it went too far is where it compels individuals to not be discriminatory. We all know it’s nasty and disgusting to be discriminatory. That happens to be one of the prices of freedom: people will misuse it.
In addition, of all people who should get this concept, I think minorities like Jews and blacks and gays should get it most. It was not long ago when laws were used to compel each of these groups to do things that they found objectionable simply because they weren’t conforming to what was considered the accepted norm (Blue Laws, Jim Crow and slavery, mandatory chemical treatment, respectively).
Again, does it happen to work to my personal benefit that people can’t refuse service to me because I am Jewish? Sure. But that is a temporary advantage that is outweighed by the long-term effects of such a law. That is why I do not support the compulsion of anyone to do business with anyone whom they do not wish to enter into business with. So if a golf club wants to put up a “No Jews or Dogs sign”, I will find it disgusting. I will NOT demand that the government compel that proprietor to take down the sign. Not only would taking down the sign not help me (the proprietor would still hate my guts and I wouldn’t really want to be using the business anyway), but it would violate the proprietor’s freedoms and that makes the day that my freedoms are violated much closer.
Here’s the issue as I see it: we have certain benefits from freedoms, but certain risks and disadvantages. Any law which takes away freedom has its upside and its downside.
The Indiana Law protects our ability to discriminate against what the Torah calls toeivah (or, against people proudly practicing such, if you wish).
OTOH, it allows others to discriminate against us and claim that their religion wants them to do so.
Which is a bigger risk/disadvantage/benefit?
That’s the million dollar question.
Joseph: The party is celebrating their being together as a couple. It’s not explicitly (or even implicitly, nowadays) celebrating a Maaseh Aveirah. They’re being Oveir without the ability to have a wedding. This isn’t 100 years ago when not being “married” would stop people from performing Maaseh Aveiros. Nowadays, it’s just a huge party and waste of money. I don’t hear it.
Charlie I see you think that localites have the right to demand you open your store on Shabbos.
According to your antisemitic view of how religious liberty should operate if a locality made a law mandating that all pharmacies open up 7 days a week, Jews would have no religious defense from this law.
charlie you are equivalent to the Jewish communists trying to stamp out religion in the name of your utopia of equality.
When the french revolution gave equal rights to Jews as long as they sacrificed their yiddishkiet French Jewery was lossed. Who cares if the French publicly shaved Jews Beards in public, mandated stores being open on Shabbos “that is the price to pay for equality”.
FYI the law does not force a Rabbi to perform a Same gender wedding. If that were the case a Rabbi could be forced to perform a mixed marriage which they are not.
Also it is not legal to force a Yeshiva or Shul to hold a mixed marriage ceremony.
The issue is if someone in a mixed marriage or same gender wedding would want a Glatt Kosher wedding at say the Waldorf Astoria (An event at at neutral location) . I am sure there have been glatt Kosher affairs involving mixed marriages and I am fairly sure Kosher Bakers have made Cakes saying Mazal Tov to Berel and Christine.
I wouldnt be suprised if there have been Glatt Kosher events for mixed marriages, Jewish Flower stores proving flowers for mixed marriages or Kosher Bakers baking the cake saying Mazal tov to Berel and Christine. It has rarely been an issue before.
I’m not so sure there have been too many cakes like that, but that’s not really the point here.
The question is, should the frum bakery be forced to sell such a cake.
DY
The Cake is the issue. Should a Bakery be required to Bake a Cake saying Mazal Tov Reuven and Shimon, Is it really any different than baking a cake Mazal Tov Berel and Christine?
Somone earlier said it would be a chilul Hashem to bake a Mazal tov Reuven and Shimon cake because word of mouth would come out that you baked such a cake. I can almost be 100% sure some frum baker baked a Mazal Tov Reuven and Christine Cake. They probably did it quietly
I think both cakes are probably a chillul Hashem, and it’s possible that a frum baker sold out his values, but we don’t want to be forced to.
I should have made myself clear
The issue is not if a Rabbi or a Yeshiva should have such a wedding , but rather related businesses (The non sectarian parts like Photographer, Baker or Caterer) should be required to preform their business in events they consider abhorant.
zahavasdad
No, that is not the issue. That is a hypothetical case and there is definitely an argument to be made from a frum perspective that one should not bake such a cake.
The issue is whether you feel that the government has the right to compel you to serve someone. It doesn’t matter if either you or the government can prove that your particular religion allows or disallows something. That’s not the business of the government. My answer is that no, the government should not be able to compel you to do something simply because it conforms to their definition of morality. That is the essence of the freedom to practice religion.
And nobody has the right to be served. The only time anyone had the right to be served was during slavery. And anyone who is against the Indiana RFRA would tell you that slavery was wrong (as would I).
sam2: “The party is celebrating their being together as a couple. It’s not explicitly (or even implicitly, nowadays) celebrating a Maaseh Aveirah.”
Sometimes we have to use our common sense. Two men bepharhesya getting married under a chuppa is a public support of toeva. It used to be people were ashamed to do this in public. That’s what they aim to change.
edited
Sam, the institutionalizing of same gender marriage (al shekosvu kesuba) is a big problem, aside from the aveirah itself. A weeding is part of that.
Remember:
Toieva is forbidden for us as Jews. I don’t think OUR Halacha applies to people who are not in OUR religion.
Sheva mitzvos B’nei Noach
DikDukDuck:
Incorrect. It’s ossur for everybody.
Probably the person who wants a Kosher Cake or Kosher Caterer is probably a lapsed frum jew
Closed pending moderator review.
Re-opened. Let’s keep it clean and on topic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.