Army Chaplain in trouble

[NightSG]

...for declining to participate in a marriage retreat that included a lesbian couple.  Even though participating would have violated the rules of his sponsoring organization, which the Army requires him to follow.

http://www.bpnews.net/50721/army-chaplain-fights-charge-of-unlawful-discrimination

https://www.armytimes.com/news/2018/04/19/army-chaplain-faces-same-sex-discrimination-claim-lawyer-says-he-was-following-army-guidance/

 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, NightSG said:

...for declining to participate in a marriage retreat that included a lesbian couple.  Even though participating would have violated the rules of his sponsoring organization, which the Army requires him to follow.

http://www.bpnews.net/50721/army-chaplain-fights-charge-of-unlawful-discrimination

https://www.armytimes.com/news/2018/04/19/army-chaplain-faces-same-sex-discrimination-claim-lawyer-says-he-was-following-army-guidance/

 

But gay marriage legislation was supposed to exempt religious organizations, right?  Right?

And people wonder how I can oppose gay marriage as a libertarian.  Sheesh!

[NightSG]

23 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

But gay marriage legislation was supposed to exempt religious organizations, right?  Right?

They found an easy way in.  Fairly standard tactic; attack the weakest links to establish precedent, then gradually expand that precedent until you can force it on everybody else.

Basically, Army's claim is that a chaplain can't refuse anyone any service on grounds of any of the protected categories...which includes religious affiliation.  AFAICT, a Catholic chaplain wouldn't be allowed to deny anyone the Eucharist just because they're not Catholic.

I'm thinking someone in the military needs to arrange a religious ceremony that includes a pig roast and then put a Muslim chaplain in charge of it.

[person0]

29 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

people wonder how I can oppose gay marriage as a libertarian.

If that is the case, those people should seek to better understand the libertarian perspective on marriage.  A person who is in favor of gay marriage, and another who is opposed, might both be libertarian.  Where their views would align as libertarians is in the idea that the government should have no role in the marriage contract, excepting only in the event of dissolution.

[NightSG]

7 minutes ago, person0 said:

Where their views would align as libertarians is in the idea that the government should have no role in the marriage contract, excepting only in the event of dissolution.

Not necessarily no role, but a lot less of a role.  There are still a number of rights and privileges of immediate family that would need to be considered; making medical decisions on behalf of an incapacitated spouse, for example.  Also, the default control of property not explicitly held jointly could be come an issue, (my cousin wasn't on the deed to his wife's land until her father died and they inherited more, as they'd never seen a need to deal with the paperwork until then) or even picking up a prescription medication for one's spouse.

[person0]

7 hours ago, NightSG said:

There are still a number of rights and privileges of immediate family that would need to be considered; making medical decisions on behalf of an incapacitated spouse, for example.  Also, the default control of property not explicitly held jointly could be come an issue, (my cousin wasn't on the deed to his wife's land until her father died and they inherited more, as they'd never seen a need to deal with the paperwork until then) or even picking up a prescription medication for one's spouse.

Yes, true.  By 'no role' I primarily meant that in the context of the start of the marriage.  Also, except for the event of dissolution/divorce, the laws would be passive defaults that would be followed on a tier basis such as: 1 - Does the decision to this type of event already exist within the couple's marriage contract?  If not, 2 - Does the institution where they have chosen to receive service have a policy to effect the decision?  If not, 3 - What is the government default for this type of circumstance?  Something along those lines.

The defaults would be there, but no one would be deciding whether or not to get married based upon the government defaults, because anyone could easily produce their own customized contract of union to do and be as they saw fit.  In our modern digital age, there could even be open source printable contracts online, with addendum templates and everything.  Really, you wouldn't even need the government for divorce in situations of agreement between parties.

[NightSG]

On 4/20/2018 at 8:17 AM, person0 said:

The defaults would be there, but no one would be deciding whether or not to get married based upon the government defaults, because anyone could easily produce their own customized contract of union to do and be as they saw fit.  In our modern digital age, there could even be open source printable contracts online, with addendum templates and everything.  Really, you wouldn't even need the government for divorce in situations of agreement between parties.

Think about the unintended consequences, though; millions of lawyers suddenly having no divorces to handle would have to go seek out frivolous lawsuits to fill their time.  Like suing clergy for remaining true to the Bible.

Edited April 23, 2018 by NightSG

[NightSG]

And now there's another one to watch, though I haven't yet found an appropriate story to link to...and I'm not sure if it's possible for a news story to give an adequate amount of detail to be considered proper reporting without being pretty inappropriate.

<<EDIT: Found one, right where I should have expected it: https://www.christianpost.com/news/transgender-woman-sues-waxing-spa-after-muslim-employee-declined-service-for-religious-reasons-224110/  Obviously, venture into the comments at your own risk, though I didn't see anything tasteless there yet.>>

So, as gently as it can be stated, in Windsor Ontario, a transgender (i.e. still having all the male parts, but "identifying as a woman") is suing a Muslim woman who refused to give him a Brazilian wax, due to religious restrictions.  I hope you can see from that, why I'm unable to find a link I'm willing to share here, and why I'm trying to be as vague as possible while making the below points, and as clinical as possible when vagueness doesn't work.

Now, touching the genitals of a man she's not related to is about as clear and serious a violation of Sharia law as having a kegger in the temple would be for LDS.  So, not only is the suit attempting to extort $50,000 for adhering to her religious beliefs, but also force her (and any other person) to pretend that male genitalia isn't really male genitalia because the person it's attached to "identifies as" a woman. (And presumably vice versa in the case of women "identifying as" men.)

So, let's look at this in terms of how it could affect the LDS Church; (and, for that matter, any church with a strong opinion on such things as an omniscient deity actually knowing what parts a person is supposed to have, and how that relates to who they should marry) clearly a person born and raised in the Church wouldn't be able to slip such a thing by the recordkeeping, but the adult baptismal interview questions, to the best of my recollection, only cover "have you ever been in a homosexual relationship?" and "have you had gender reassignment surgery?"  So, the former being somewhat open to interpretation from the transgender point of view, the latter clearly wouldn't apply to the plaintiff in the above suit.  I don't recall anyone doing a Crocodile Dundee to me at any point during the process, (though we did all have to change for the actual baptisms in a rather small men's room - even with the instinctive "don't look there" imprinted on the male psyche, I'm reasonably certain it would be hard not to notice someone just plain not having what they're supposed to have - but even that wouldn't apply to one being baptized as a woman, especially as the only woman in a particular session, and thus likely alone in the women's room) so it's entirely possible, AFAIK, that such a person could, as an adult, join the Church as the gender they "identify as," without anyone finding out otherwise, and even pass a TR interview, without (in their own mind) having lied at any point during the whole process. (As I recall, one of the locals was able to get his birth certificate legally changed before the surgery, too, so even checking government records might not reveal the truth.)  And then, still without (to their belief) lying, entice some faithful member with the same sort of genitals into marriage, without said faithful member knowing until it's too late.

Now, that used to be just about the most solid grounds one could have for an annulment anywhere, but who knows with the current mess?  The transgender might even be able to successfully sue for breach of promise and emotional distress, among other things, claiming the "incorrect" genitals are simply a deformity.

It's starting to sound like the baptismal interviews are going to have to get a lot more direct in asking precisely what you have in your pants right now, in addition to the surgery question.

Edited May 23, 2018 by NightSG
Updated information

[Guest]

1 hour ago, NightSG said:

And now there's another one to watch, though I haven't yet found an appropriate story to link to...and I'm not sure if it's possible for a news story to give an adequate amount of detail to be considered proper reporting without being pretty inappropriate.

<<EDIT: Found one, right where I should have expected it: https://www.christianpost.com/news/transgender-woman-sues-waxing-spa-after-muslim-employee-declined-service-for-religious-reasons-224110/  Obviously, venture into the comments at your own risk, though I didn't see anything tasteless there yet.>>

So, as gently as it can be stated, in Windsor Ontario, a transgender (i.e. still having all the male parts, but "identifying as a woman") is suing a Muslim woman who refused to give him a Brazilian wax, due to religious restrictions.  I hope you can see from that, why I'm unable to find a link I'm willing to share here, and why I'm trying to be as vague as possible while making the below points, and as clinical as possible when vagueness doesn't work.

Now, touching the genitals of a man she's not related to is about as clear and serious a violation of Sharia law as having a kegger in the temple would be for LDS.  So, not only is the suit attempting to extort $50,000 for adhering to her religious beliefs, but also force her (and any other person) to pretend that male genitalia isn't really male genitalia because the person it's attached to "identifies as" a woman. (And presumably vice versa in the case of women "identifying as" men.)

So, let's look at this in terms of how it could affect the LDS Church; (and, for that matter, any church with a strong opinion on such things as an omniscient deity actually knowing what parts a person is supposed to have, and how that relates to who they should marry) clearly a person born and raised in the Church wouldn't be able to slip such a thing by the recordkeeping, but the adult baptismal interview questions, to the best of my recollection, only cover "have you ever been in a homosexual relationship?" and "have you had gender reassignment surgery?"  So, the former being somewhat open to interpretation from the transgender point of view, the latter clearly wouldn't apply to the plaintiff in the above suit.  I don't recall anyone doing a Crocodile Dundee to me at any point during the process, (though we did all have to change for the actual baptisms in a rather small men's room - even with the instinctive "don't look there" imprinted on the male psyche, I'm reasonably certain it would be hard not to notice someone just plain not having what they're supposed to have - but even that wouldn't apply to one being baptized as a woman, especially as the only woman in a particular session, and thus likely alone in the women's room) so it's entirely possible, AFAIK, that such a person could, as an adult, join the Church as the gender they "identify as," without anyone finding out otherwise, and even pass a TR interview, without (in their own mind) having lied at any point during the whole process. (As I recall, one of the locals was able to get his birth certificate legally changed before the surgery, too, so even checking government records might not reveal the truth.)  And then, still without (to their belief) lying, entice some faithful member with the same sort of genitals into marriage, without said faithful member knowing until it's too late.

Now, that used to be just about the most solid grounds one could have for an annulment anywhere, but who knows with the current mess?  The transgender might even be able to successfully sue for breach of promise and emotional distress, among other things, claiming the "incorrect" genitals are simply a deformity.

It's starting to sound like the baptismal interviews are going to have to get a lot more direct in asking precisely what you have in your pants right now, in addition to the surgery question.

We all knew it was coming.  Moving the goal posts.

[Grunt]

On 4/20/2018 at 12:57 AM, NightSG said:

Not necessarily no role, but a lot less of a role.  There are still a number of rights and privileges of immediate family that would need to be considered; making medical decisions on behalf of an incapacitated spouse, for example.  Also, the default control of property not explicitly held jointly could be come an issue, (my cousin wasn't on the deed to his wife's land until her father died and they inherited more, as they'd never seen a need to deal with the paperwork until then) or even picking up a prescription medication for one's spouse.

Absolutely no role.  All of the situations you describe should be cured with a civil contract that doesn’t consider relation.  

[prisonchaplain]

The chaplain is likely safe. The advocacy group representing the LGBT soldier claiming discrimination has said the problem is with the endorsing agency (Southern Baptists). Their goal is that the military will no longer accept chaplains for service if they come from faith endorsers who do not permit same-sex counseling/marriage officiant work, etc. It's a long-shot for the LGBT folk, but they will keep at it until they win. In their mind this is "human rights" vs. "religious rights," and they believe most Americans, including some in religious communities, are on their side. So, trial balloon after trial balloon, until the long shot becomes a possibility, becomes a probability, becomes a win.

[NightSG]

And now, while it hasn't escalated to the point of a lawsuit or proper proposal of a new law yet, there are apparently some lesbians in the UK pushing for some sort of regulation to stop them being shamed for ending relationships when they found out the "women" they were romantically involved with had male genitals.

I really think we've reached the point where The Onion can't write satire more idiotic than reality.

Edited May 23, 2018 by NightSG

[unixknight]

17 hours ago, NightSG said:

So, as gently as it can be stated, in Windsor Ontario, a transgender (i.e. still having all the male parts, but "identifying as a woman") is suing a Muslim woman who refused to give him a Brazilian wax, due to religious restrictions.  I hope you can see from that, why I'm unable to find a link I'm willing to share here, and why I'm trying to be as vague as possible while making the below points, and as clinical as possible when vagueness doesn't work.

Now we find out which group ranks higher in intersectionality.

In one corner, we have a Muslim woman.

In the other corner, we have a self-identifying trans woman. 

"What do you think, George?  The contestants stack up pretty even, wouldn't you say?"

"I sure would, Mike.  I sure would but you know, this is Canada and right now Canadians are very much in favor of trans people, plus this Muslim woman is working for a private business and you know, Capitalism will cost her some points.

"Great point, George, great point.  Not to mention that even though Islam is favored by the victimhood Olympics, it IS still a mainstream religion and that's really gonna cost her too."

"It sure is. Well, let's go over to the Twitter feed and see where the early SJW rants are headed...."

 

[Still_Small_Voice]

I pray almost everyday for our freedoms and liberties in America.  It seems the First and Second Amendments are being attacked continually presently.  I would encourage everyone to also pray continually for our liberties.

 It is wrong to try to make a Christian do something that is completely against God's design for marriage.  We believe marriage is between a man and a woman.

[Grunt]

This is a problem the Army created for itself.  Chaplains are supposed to serve all Soldiers and mostly do.  However, they are also required to have their education and endorsement before becoming chaplains.  Requiring that they maintain their endorsement causes them to serve two masters.  In today's climate, that's impossible.  Many religions are so far removed from what's accepted in "the world" (and the government) that they can't mix.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, NightSG said:

And now, while it hasn't escalated to the point of a lawsuit or proper proposal of a new law yet, there are apparently some lesbians in the UK pushing for some sort of regulation to stop them being shamed for ending relationships when they found out the "women" they were romantically involved with had male genitals.

I really think we've reached the point where The Onion can't write satire more idiotic than reality.

What can I say?  Every once in a while, your brand of unfiltered statements are the pinnacle of truth telling.