YOU: One principal is the first amendment. For instance, if homosexuals marriage was protected BY LAW would churches be allowed to deny employment, benefits, etc. to homosexuals? One instance of this is laws proposed to FORCE Catholic pro-life hospitals and Catholic pro-life medical professionals to perform abortions if they receive any government money, even in the form of medicare payments.
Judith: What is the CURRENT status of law with respect to employment of homosexuals by churches?
If I understand your position correctly, you are suggesting that employers (including churches) should have the right to deny employment based upon what they perceive to be the sexual orientation of a prospective employee. Consequently, for example, if I am Catholic and gay, and I apply for a job at a church or church-operated facility, I should be rejected solely based upon being gay and have no recourse because churches should have the right under the First Amendment to associate with whomever they want--or exclude whomever they want.
And THAT behavior is what YOU want society to affirm as proper, decent, pro-family, behavior.
OK---once we establish THAT as the underlying principle of our law regarding employment, then OTHER non-church employers should be allowed to follow the same rules---correct? If so, what happens when large numbers of gays or bi-sexuals can no longer find gainful employment---because as several persons in this thread have said, the "majority" of Americans don't approve of homosexuals?
Furthermore, once we affirm the principle you have suggested, will gays and bi-sexuals still be required to pay taxes? Why should they pay full tax if they don't have access to the same opportunities as you do? Should gays be allowed to vote? If so, why? Allowed to teach children? Allowed to seek employment in any profession where they might be portrayed as a role model?
Why permit diseased, immoral, perverted, promiscuous, disgusting persons to have ANY rights? What example does that set for our children?
Unless one can separate the person from the activity one can set NO examples as examples are based upon universal truth and or ideals NOT people which all have flaws or all may be prone to 'bad' behavior.
Your arguments on this thread are all flawed as they are all morally relative...
Another straw man. The hospitals I worked at, as a nurse, were forbidden to question as to sexuality, HIV positive, etc. Which means that you could eat food prepared by an HIV positive homosexual who has a compulsion to give the "gift" or given an IV by such a person, or even be operated on by such a person. Hope you don't mind. That is current law, btw.
Consequently, for example, if I am Catholic and gay, and I apply for a job at a church or church-operated facility, I should be rejected solely based upon being gay and have no recourse because churches should have the right under the First Amendment to associate with whomever they want--or exclude whomever they want.
Exactly. As for the rest of your post, you're getting hysterical.