I created the following hypothetical to combat the ridiculous argument that gays have equal rights because they have the same right as everyone else (the right to marry a person of the opposite sex).

I have incuded it in many posts where people have claimed that gays already have equal rights and EVERYONE to whom I directed it has decided to ignore it. For that reason, I am giving it its own thread so, perhaps, people would confront it. It reads:

Let's assume the legislature passed a law that recognized the importance of the christian faith to the country and provided that a person fired because he or she refused to work on Sunday would not be disqualified from collecting unemployment (this would change the law because refusing to work normally disqualifies a person from collecting). Should Jews or Muslims have the right to demand equal rights (to be able to refuse to work their sabbaths without being disqualified from receiving unemployment), or do they not have a valid complaint since they already have the same right to refuse to work on Sunday as the Christians?

__________________
"George W. Bush surrounds himself with smart people the way a hole surrounds itself with a donut." —Dennis Miller

In the respect for their own religion, they should be able to refuse work on their sabbaths.

PJO34, I have to be honest. I'm very confused as to whats going on. I'm for gay marriage, and I voted for the second option. Plus, i'm a reformed jew. Maybe I'm a little bit dumb, could you help me understand your point a little better?

First, when you read something and it doesn't make sense to you, it is probably because the writer (i.e. me, in this case) didn't make the point clear enough. Second, the fact that you realize you don't understand the point makes you far more intelligent than people who mistakenly believe they do.

I created this hypothetical because some Americans don't support gay rights because they believe (honestly or not) that gays already have equal rights because they have the same right as heterosexuals (i.e. the right to marry a person of the opposite sex). Arguing that a person has equal rights when the person doesn't have the equal right of choice makes no sense.

Giving gays the "equal right" of marriage because they have the "right" to marry a person from a class they aren't attracted to and don't love is no right at all. In the hypothetical, Jews and Muslims have the same type of "equal right" (i.e. the right to refuse to work Sunday without being disqualified from unemployment benefits). The problem for the Jews and Muslims in the hypothetical is identical to the problem for the gays in the argument that "the gays already have the equal right to marry a person of the opposite sex" (i.e. that the gays (like the Jews and Muslims in the hypothetical) are getting "rights" that they can't reasonably use).

Allowing a Jew or a Muslim to refuse to work Sunday without losing their right to collect unemployment means little to them while it means very much to a christian (since the Christian will have the benefit of refusing to work his or her sabbath while a Jew and Muslim will have only the right to refuse to work a day that means little (or nothing) to their faith. Likewise, allowing a gay to marry a person of the opposite sex means very little to them. In both cases, the law is giving a valuable right to one class of people while ignoring the obvious, and important, differences between the favored class and the disfavored class.

__________________
"George W. Bush surrounds himself with smart people the way a hole surrounds itself with a donut." —Dennis Miller

You're right on this one, PJ, but good luck on convincing the anti-gay crowd. This is one of those issues where majority rule is to be upheld and where materialism (the third definition of this word I've used on this forum in the past few days- in this case, the belief that material is of higher importance than ideology, specifically, the belief that a set day off or the right to marry a particular kind of person is fair regardless of the particular substance of the day to the given person).
If you were talking about pulling out of the war, they'd quickly remind you that this country is not to be run on majority rule. If you bring up removing the word "God" from a pledge, ideology somehow becomes extremely important.
There is no consistency in politics.

I see a problem with your hypothetical, PJ. In the case of a private employer, they now have a right to fire someone with just cause without being subject to an increase in their unemployment rates. Your hypothetical simply takes away one of the legitimate reasons they might have for firing someone. In fact, that would give many employers reason to not hire Christians in the first place. While you may see it as giving special rights to Christians, I see it as taking rights away from employers.

Most religions have certain tenets which are known to the employee before seeking employment. Do you think cities are discriminatory (against certain religions) because they require policemen to work any day of the year including all religious holidays?

Find a way to give gays all the rights you want. If it affects no one else's rights, then there will be only token opposition.

__________________
"Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves." ~Ronald Reagan

That's isn't a problem with my hypothetical since it is about governmentally conferred rights and the class of people who enjoy them. I specifically didn't mention what effect, if any, the rights would have on third persons.

Not at all. But if the state legislature drafted the statute in my hypothetical, it would absolutely be acting discriminatory even though Christians, Jews, and Muslims would have the same "right" to refuse to work on Sundays. My thesis is that granting equal rights to different people can result in discrimination. Arguing that Jews and Muslims (in my hypo) have no complaint for unequal treatment would be, in my opinion, absurd yet that is the precise argument people (including people I respect like Rebellion and Sinanju) make regarding the right of gays to marry.

Well, that's not true. Gay marriage doesn't adversely affect anyone. Of course, some people may be troubled by the thought of gays sharing the right to marry, but being offended can't be a basis for the exclusion of a group from equal rights. After all, I think most people would be offended by a pro-KKK rally, but that doesn't mean we should have the right to refuse the group a permit to hold one.

People oppose gay marriage for two main reasons: (1) tradition, and (2) religious beliefs. In my opinion, the fact that we have a tradition of denying equal rights shouldn't bolster the argument for continuing that discrimination. Arguments from religion are even sillier. We know that the people, and not God were responsible for the law concerning divorce so we can't definitively say that they weren't responsible for other laws. We also know that even if God was responsible for the law -- which seems unlikely -- eating unclean animals, like homosexuality, is considered an abomination and I have never seen a religious group protest in front of a seafood restaurant. I guess such groups have the right to "choose their battles," but considering ow much pork is consumed in the Christian south and how much shellfish is consumed in the Roman Catholic New England area, I believe we have many hypocrites among us.

__________________
"George W. Bush surrounds himself with smart people the way a hole surrounds itself with a donut." —Dennis Miller

I would appreciate it if people voting "No" would state their reasons.

__________________
"George W. Bush surrounds himself with smart people the way a hole surrounds itself with a donut." —Dennis Miller

I see no reason why private employers should be forced to make unreasonable accomodation of an employee's religious beliefs. Allowing some employees to have the right to dictate certain days of the week that they will not work seems unreasonable to me, regardless of the faith of the religious adherent.

But then, I'm not in favor of religious entities being tax exempt, either.

They use services, they cost money, they ought to pay into the common pot.
And I think if an employer is open on sunday and needs employees to work, he/she should have the right to fire someone who refuses to work when needed.


Catz

__________________
I'll get nicer when you get smarter.

In your example I take Catz's position. No special accomodations. If we are open on Sunday and you can talk other people into covering for you, cool. If not, find another job.

On the gay rights angle, my position has always been clear. It's none of my business who marries whom (of age, sane and consenting).

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.