Accepting Diversity: Gay Marriage vs. Christmas Culture

[emilynghiem]

Please tell me this story is hyped up and isn't true, that it was rumors to create a media backlash:

School Considered Canceling Nutcracker Trip to Protect Kids From Christmas Tree Exposure

Belmont school reverses decision to cancel Nutcracker trip - 7News Boston WHDH-TV


??? Only in America:
Gay marriage should be pushed through public institutions because people should be tolerant and INCLUDE people and beliefs different from their own.

But then, when it comes to a Christmas tree, the field trip should be cancelled
to prevent from exposing children to it?

But gay marriage is accepting diversity? And the Christmas culture isn't? What the ???

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

Establishment Clause Jurisprudence has nothing whatsoever to do with the equal protection rights of same-sex couples.

Moreover, gay Americans seeking their comprehensive civil liberties is not ‘pushing’ anything on anyone.

why aren't both sides considered equal beliefs?

There are people who believe that homosexuality is born and not made or chosen.
There are people who believe that homosexuality is a choice of behavior and not a trait like race.

Until this is proven scientifically it is faith based.
how are these both not treated equally as beliefs,
and thus the arguments for or against gay marriage "through the state" not taking sides of one set over theother

now CCJones
i have no issue with church and religious functions doing whatever they want

but when it comes to govt policy there has to be agreement on anything that is religiously held beliefs
or else it shojld be kept out by the first and fourteenth amendment,
find some way to separate it out from public policy where peopel DO have equal religious freedom

I have no problem as long as the public agrees to the policy on gay marriage
but it has to be by informed consent, and it cannot be forced by law because beliefs aer involved.

Just like Christianity, prayer, spiritual healing: people have equal right to practice their beliefs.
but when it comes to govt, no, these cannot be imposed by law unless all people consent to make it public policy

One solution that might work is to make the state/civil marriage laws completely void of language that either limits or promotes gender references. jsut make them all civil unions or domestic partnerships and leave gender and orienttion out of it, so it stays neutral.

that will prevent from either banning or imposing one set of beliefs over others.
keep the rest of the marriage business in private where people have full religious freedom.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“why aren't both sides considered equal beliefs?”

Because Establishment Clause jurisprudence doesn’t ‘violate’ religious expression, where seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in does violate the equal protection rights of gay Americans.

You’re seeking to conflate two completely unrelated issues, one having nothing to do with the other.

 

[emilynghiem]

“why aren't both sides considered equal beliefs?”

Because Establishment Clause jurisprudence doesn’t ‘violate’ religious expression, where seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in does violate the equal protection rights of gay Americans.

You’re seeking to conflate two completely unrelated issues, one having nothing to do with the other.

Hi CCJones
do you distinguish the right to practice marriage in church as a religious practice
separate from civil marriage through govt that should neither impose nor deny religious beliefs.

I have no problem removing bans that would otherwise prohibit religious practices by individuals in private.

the problem is the language of the public laws cannot impose nonneutral language.

So this thread was asking IN GENERAL (not specific because these are not the same issues or contexts):
why are Christmas trees considered nonneutral and to be shunned to "prevent offense by those of other beliefs"
but marriage laws that cross the line from neutral to imposing beliefs
(so in your case you can argue the other way, too, nonneutral as in EITHER imposing
straight marriage or gay marriage) are not to be shunned but should ACTIVELY be pursued and established

I am asking INGENERAL why the discrimination and rush to avoid Christmas references as nonneutral
but with marriage, it's okay to impose progay language that is not neutral and thus creates conflicts with other beliefs.

why are Christmas trees AVOIDED to prevent the conflict
but in the case of gay marriage the language is "pushed anyway"

again CCJ I have no problem with NEUTRAL state laws
that can allow civil unions or domestic partnerships without references at all.

since the marriage laws being pushed are not neutral
it causes a conflict either way: either the bias swings too far progay and imposes beliefs on the other side,
or the traditional marriage bias pushes beliefs by not being neutral enough to accommodate the progay/equal marriage
rights.

why isn't the neutral position being endorsed as constitutional
why is it only posed as one way vs. the other

 

[WinterBorn]

How does the PTA control school events?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Emily, the Constitution protects both beliefs. There is no conflict with marriage equality, and traditional marriage in not infringed upon.