[Draft] Limiting Religious Discrimination Exemptions

[Maowi]

I think you've done a pretty good job with this. I'd vote for as it stands.

I believe that is fair, but a group should be allowed to chose who they allow into their membership. You don't need to be Christian and as long as Christians aren't actually enforcing their will upon other groups then everything should be dandy. Now you are insisting that Christians be forced to become involved LGBT individuals. Should LGBT groups be forced to allow blatant homophobes and transphobes within their groups? Churches are predicated upon their value system. Another likely outcome is simply the fanes being shut down or abandoned by religious institutions simply because they cannot maintain funds (there is religious debate arguing that should a priest betray their religious principles, they can no longer be considered a valid priest).

Why would a homophobe want to join an LGBT group?

[Arasi Luvasa]

I think you've done a pretty good job with this. I'd vote for as it stands.

I believe that is fair, but a group should be allowed to chose who they allow into their membership. You don't need to be Christian and as long as Christians aren't actually enforcing their will upon other groups then everything should be dandy. Now you are insisting that Christians be forced to become involved LGBT individuals. Should LGBT groups be forced to allow blatant homophobes and transphobes within their groups? Churches are predicated upon their value system. Another likely outcome is simply the fanes being shut down or abandoned by religious institutions simply because they cannot maintain funds (there is religious debate arguing that should a priest betray their religious principles, they can no longer be considered a valid priest).

Why would a homophobe want to join an LGBT group?

Why would a homosexual want to join a religion that is specifically ideologically against them? That was the point of my question, just framing it the other way around.

[Tinfect]

I believe that is fair, but a group should be allowed to chose who they allow into their membership.

OOC:
There's a difference between requirements for entry and discrimination. Don't put words in my mouth.

You don't need to be Christian

Technically no, but I highly suspect that most Christians would say that they do need to be Christian in order to live their lives. That includes having access to Christian services.

and as long as Christians aren't actually enforcing their will upon other groups then everything should be dandy.

Spreading/supporting bigotry and allowing discrimination is pretty not-dandy, even if it technically doesn't fall under the enforcement of will. Hell, I'd argue that they are doing that, but that's besides the point.

Now you are insisting that Christians be forced to become involved LGBT individuals.

I expect them to treat LGBT Christians like any other Christian. It's not hard, plenty of churches do it. Shit, I know Trans-Lesbian hardline Catholics.

Should LGBT groups be forced to allow blatant homophobes and transphobes within their groups?

That's an entirely different thing.

Churches are predicated upon their value system. Another likely outcome is simply the fanes being shut down or abandoned by religious institutions simply because they cannot maintain funds (there is religious debate arguing that should a priest betray their religious principles, they can no longer be considered a valid priest).

I seriously doubt that churches are going to broke because of supporting LGBT people; worst case scenario, throw some taxpayer dollars at them as cultural institutions, they can do a lot of good in communities when they're not spreading bigotry. If homophobic/transphobic priests decide they can't be priests anymore, good. They'll be replaced by better people.

[Tinfect]

Why would a homosexual want to join a religion that is specifically ideologically against them? That was the point of my question, just framing it the other way around.

OOC:
Why would a black person go on a bus that says whites only?

[Maowi]

Why would a homosexual want to join a religion that is specifically ideologically against them? That was the point of my question, just framing it the other way around.

Probably because they believe in that religion in all aspects except the discriminatory, debatable interpretation of their holy text that homosexuality is a sin (if we're talking Christianity here)? A homophobic wouldn't agree with any of the beliefs held by an LGBT group. Not a great comparison in many respects...

[Arasi Luvasa]

I believe that is fair, but a group should be allowed to chose who they allow into their membership.

OOC:
There's a difference between requirements for entry and discrimination. Don't put words in my mouth.

You don't need to be Christian

Technically no, but I highly suspect that most Christians would say that they do need to be Christian in order to live their lives. That includes having access to Christian services.

Which is why I suggest starting a separate denomination that is LGBT friendly instead of forcing the entire religion to abandon its values.

and as long as Christians aren't actually enforcing their will upon other groups then everything should be dandy.

Spreading/supporting bigotry and allowing discrimination is pretty not-dandy, even if it technically doesn't fall under the enforcement of will. Hell, I'd argue that they are doing that, but that's besides the point.

I have rarely heard churches doing that, just desiring to distance themselves from that. I believe they should be allowed to do that distancing.

Now you are insisting that Christians be forced to become involved LGBT individuals.

I expect them to treat LGBT Christians like any other Christian. It's not hard, plenty of churches do it. Shit, I know Trans-Lesbian hardline Catholics.

Then they chose to be part of an institution that is not friendly to them, but to protect the minority you force the majority to bend to their will? If one chooses to be part of a group then they should bare those consequences, after all my grandfather refuses to attend Churches that marry homosexuals or where the priest is divorced.

Should LGBT groups be forced to allow blatant homophobes and transphobes within their groups?

That's an entirely different thing.

Why, LGBT groups should be allowed to discriminate against homophobes but homophobic religious groups should not be permitted to do the reverse?

Churches are predicated upon their value system. Another likely outcome is simply the fanes being shut down or abandoned by religious institutions simply because they cannot maintain funds (there is religious debate arguing that should a priest betray their religious principles, they can no longer be considered a valid priest).

I seriously doubt that churches are going to broke because of funding reasons; worst case scenario, throw some taxpayer dollars at them as cultural institutions, they can do a lot of good in communities when they're not spreading bigotry. If homophobic/transphobic priests decide they can't be priests anymore, good. They'll be replaced by better people.

Misunderstanding the statement. It is the congregation that disengages with the priest, not the other way around in the scenario I provided. Again I instead suggest changing the culture through dialouge. The church closes down due to a lack of funds because Christians who actually tithe may decide not to attend said churches.

Also, your solution is to change religious institutions into government funded charities? Why not just begin those secular charities instead.

[Arasi Luvasa]

Why would a homosexual want to join a religion that is specifically ideologically against them? That was the point of my question, just framing it the other way around.

Probably because they believe in that religion in all aspects except the discriminatory, debatable interpretation of their holy text that homosexuality is a sin (if we're talking Christianity here)? A homophobic wouldn't agree with any of the beliefs held by an LGBT group. Not a great comparison in many respects...

Then begin a new denomination, or find a church that isn't homophobic in its values.
I am aware, that is why OOC I am ambivalent on churches allowing or disallowing it. I believe that it should be left to the individual church. The strongest argument I have seen is the passage stating that man lying with man as man lies with women is an abomination. I intend to learn Hebrew one day to read that phrase in its original text, but I won't make a decision either way till then.
Perhaps they have other reason, maybe hitting on bi-wo/men depending on gender. Perhaps they are both a homophobe and homosexual. Perhaps they have other reasons (I have friends who went to gay clubs just for the music despite being straight for example).

[Tinfect]

Which is why I suggest starting a separate denomination that is LGBT friendly instead of forcing the entire religion to abandon its values.

OOC:
Ah, yes, just start your own religion, what a wonderful idea that will surely work. Here, let me just convince a bunch of people to abandon their faith and community for this whole new religion that I just started.

I have rarely heard churches doing that, just desiring to distance themselves from that. I believe they should be allowed to do that distancing.

Distance themselves from what? LGBT Rights? Sorry, human rights don't give you a choice.

Then they chose to be part of an institution that is not friendly to them, but to protect the minority you force the majority to bend to their will?

If that must be how it is, yes. Human Rights are non-optional. If people have a problem with that, that's why there are cops, in an ideal world.

If one chooses to be part of a group then they should bare those consequences, after all my grandfather refuses to attend Churches that marry homosexuals or where the priest is divorced.

Yeah, let's not pretend this is about 'choice'. And, quite frankly, I really don't give a shit about your homophobic grandfather.

It's a matter of basic human rights. Also consider, the paradox of tolerance; it's necessary to be intolerant of intolerance.



Cool. If the homophobes stop going to church, let them. They can go be homophobic in the sanctity of their own homes, where they're not fucking with people.

Good question. Personally, I'd love to see religious institutions close down, I think that religion, particularly christianity, is god-awful. Here's this though, I recognize that religion is incredibly important to a lot of people; I'm happy for people who follow religions that work for them, that's great, that's none of my buisness. They don't get to opt out of recognizing human rights though.

[Prydania]

“Opposed. While the Prydanian delegation supports the advancement of LGBT+ rights we also value religious freedom. These two beliefs can, have, coexisted.”

So let's force churches to marry transgender lesbian couples. OK.

OOC:
Yes, let's! If my future wife wants to get married in a church I damn well expect to be able to go to one like any-damn-body else.

OOC:
Um...you don’t need a resolution like this to do that. Let’s look at the US. Same-sex marriage is legalized. Yet religions still have the right to refuse to marry anyone this wish. And this isn’t limited to the same-sex marriage issue. The Catholic Church has, for the longest time, refused to marry couples if one or both parties have been divorced.

That being said...you can still get married in a church! See that’s the wonderful thing about religion. It’s not a monolithic block. Same-sex marriage is legal in the US, which means any church, mosque, synagogue, etc... can choose to marry same-sex couples if they decide to. And low and behold...many do! If you and your future wife want to marry in a church, in a Christian ceremony? You can find a church that will hold such a service. Sure, it won’t be a Catholic Church, but you will find churches ready and willing to marry you and any other same-sex couple that asks.
As an aside? I happen to know for a fact that at least one of Tampa’s three major synagogues marries same-sex couples.

So you don’t need to impose anything on entire religious groups to ensure that same-sex couples are afforded religious marriages if they so desire them. Religious institutions have always held the right to refuse to marry people, beyond the scope of the same-sex marriage debate.

So while I’m all for the cause of expanding LGBT+ rights? I don’t feel it’s appropriate to impose anything on what amounts to private religious organizations. Legalized same-sex marriage- which is enshrined now in the WA thanks to GA 457- will naturally lead to houses of worship across all WA member states willing to accommodate LGBT+ couples on their own accord.

[Arasi Luvasa]

I believe that is fair, but a group should be allowed to chose who they allow into their membership.

OOC:
There's a difference between requirements for entry and discrimination. Don't put words in my mouth.

So if the church states that to be a member you must not be (or intend to be) a practising homosexual? Again my point is that this would mean that the church cannot choose it's membership if that is one of it's criteria. For the Arasi-Luvasan Church, that is officially one of the requirements (though many churches ignore that at present, more still follow it) along with the strictly adhered to rules against abortion and divorce (which lead to excommunication).

[Wallenburg]

Give me an example.

Sure. GAR #457, clause 5:"CLARIFIES that religious organizations and their internal discrimination do not fall under this resolution..." and
GAR #35, which allows discrimination when there is a clear compelling and practical reason to do so.
There are probably many more, those are just the first things that I could find.

There is no contradiction here. #457 merely clarifies that its mandates do not apply to religious organizations. This has no effect on the mandates of CoCR. Another example please.

[New Bremerton]

"Opposed, vehemently so. This would not help Arasi-Luvasa's gay community at all if we were to accept such legislation, likely just inciting a civil war instead. The dragons, in particular, tend to fall more to traditionalism within the church.

If Arasi Luvasa is so concerned about a civil war, New Bremerton can offer to deploy troops to quell the anti-LGBT violence and pogroms. Our country has a track record of averting genocides around the world, including anti-LGBT genocides. We have also conducted airstrikes against Muslim terror groups in the Middle East and supplied arms and intel to the Kurds and other moderate, secular rebel groups fighting for their freedom and dignity. We can aid you in your attempt to quell theocratic religious intolerance and extremism in your country. Sometimes, it is better to win outright than to compromise with violent, genocidal bigots. (OOC: E.g. The United States only managed to abolish slavery nationwide after the Confederate States were completely and utterly defeated.)

Aside from that, the basis of this is undermining religious individuals rights to their religion by essentially destroying the institution in question.

Preachers will still be free to preach homophobia and transphobia, and congregants will still be free to privately disapprove of homosexuality. But any church, mosque or synagogue that opts to discriminate against same-sex couples by refusing to marry them doesn't deserve any special recognition, just like that cockroach-infested pizza parlor down the road doesn't deserve to be patronized. If you want your nation's religious institutions to remain intact, encourage them to be more inclusive. Religious institutions don't deserve to be treated any differently than any other private entity. Any private entity, be it commercial or religious, that discriminates against those who patronize their services (i.e. customers, passengers, laymen etc.) ought to be fined and/or shut down by the government, in this delegation's opinion. Freedom of belief is no excuse.

Suppose not a single church or any other place of worship in your country is prepared to marry same-sex couples? We cannot rule out such a possibility in your nation or elsewhere. We consider it unacceptable that in some countries, homosexual couples are forced to smuggle themselves out of their home country not only in order to get married, but also to avoid being murdered by their own families just for loving the wrong person. This is often the case in some of the nations New Bremerton has intervened in and leveled sanctions against.

Many of our citizens do not view a priest who has married a homosexual couple as any longer being a priest.

Too bad for them. They can leave if that's what they want. Perhaps you need to work on your citizens' attitudes toward LGBT people.

Frankly I am appaled that one would attempt to uproot an entire culture for a group that likely is not even affiliated with it

Ms. Ambassador, we believe that some cultures are superior to others. For instance, a culture that promotes stoning to death for adultery, flogging for premarital fornication, throwing gays off rooftops, marrying nine-year-old girls to older, bearded men, terror attacks for drawing blasphemous cartoons of a certain prophet, and female (and male) genital mutilation is vastly inferior to and beneath a culture that practices none of those things and seeks to protect the rights of minorities, including LGBT minorities. Not saying your culture does all of these things of course. We believe that such barbaric practices need to be stamped out at all costs. The WA is the avenue through which to accomplish this.

perhaps you believe that a group non-existent within a sect should dictate what that sect believes or is able to act upon.

I'm pretty sure there are closet homosexuals within your sects who are too afraid to come out for fear of being excommunicated by the clergy and shunned by their own friends and family, many of whom were inducted as full members of their congregations from birth by their parents, with absolutely no say in the matter. It wouldn't be unreasonable of me to suspect that some of the most vehement critics of homosexuality in your nation, the ones who believe that being gay is a choice, are themselves closet bisexuals. Should life-long LGBT members of a sect be discriminated against? This delegation certainly doesn't think so.

Do not forget that doing wrong is against Christian faith, and if Christians believe that marrying homosexuals is wrong then you are forcing said individuals to sin."

I'm sure there is a verse in your Holy Book that would grant your followers some leeway on the matter. In Islam, for instance, it is not considered haram for a Muslim in the North Pole to consume pork and alcohol during Ramadan in the middle of summer when the sun never sets and there is nothing to drink besides alcohol and nothing to slaughter and cook than pigs in the vicinity, or when he is forced to do so at knifepoint by an infidel. Would it be asking too much if your citizens were to consider themselves to be "under duress" and therefore blameless if they are forced to marry same-sex couples? Surely your God is understanding enough to grant his followers mercy?

All in all, opposition to this proposal on religious grounds amounts to nothing more than offended feelings based on faith rather than hard, scientific evidence. As a certain social media personality would say: facts don't care about your feelings.

[THX1138]

Sure. GAR #457, clause 5:"CLARIFIES that religious organizations and their internal discrimination do not fall under this resolution..." and
GAR #35, which allows discrimination when there is a clear compelling and practical reason to do so.
There are probably many more, those are just the first things that I could find.

There is no contradiction here. #457 merely clarifies that its mandates do not apply to religious organizations. This has no effect on the mandates of CoCR. Another example please.

OOC: And the next resolution of this nature that comes with a clause 5 that merely clarifies that it's non discrimination mandates do not apply to say, white supremacist organizations, will have no effect on the mandates of CoCR either, right?
Attempting to rationalize away the very evident problems, because the result in one case is more palatable to you than in the other, doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist.

[THX1138]

So while I’m all for the cause of expanding LGBT+ rights? I don’t feel it’s appropriate to impose anything on what amounts to private religious organizations. Legalized same-sex marriage- which is enshrined now in the WA thanks to GA 457- will naturally lead to houses of worship across all WA member states willing to accommodate LGBT+ couples on their own accord.

OOC: My take on it was always that religious marriage ceremonies would already have been covered by FoR, since they have a lengthy history of a religious practice in creating hetero-normative unions under the deity, exclusively. That some churches have evolved is good progress, indeed, but I never believed 457 needed to make the concessions it did, to achieve its aims. In the case of 457 it was just designed to make it passable, not to protect religious freedom.

[Arasi Luvasa]

"Opposed, vehemently so. This would not help Arasi-Luvasa's gay community at all if we were to accept such legislation, likely just inciting a civil war instead. The dragons, in particular, tend to fall more to traditionalism within the church.

If Arasi Luvasa is so concerned about a civil war, New Bremerton can offer to deploy troops to quell the anti-LGBT violence and pogroms. Our country has a track record of averting genocides around the world, including anti-LGBT genocides. We have also conducted airstrikes against Muslim terror groups in the Middle East and supplied arms and intel to the Kurds and other moderate, secular rebel groups fighting for their freedom and dignity. We can aid you in your attempt to quell theocratic religious intolerance and extremism in your country. Sometimes, it is better to win outright than to compromise with violent, genocidal bigots. (OOC: E.g. The United States only managed to abolish slavery nationwide after the Confederate States were completely and utterly defeated.)

"I am sorry, but massacring the majority of our population is not going to work. This proposal is attacking their way of life."

Aside from that, the basis of this is undermining religious individuals rights to their religion by essentially destroying the institution in question.

Preachers will still be free to preach homophobia and transphobia, and congregants will still be free to privately disapprove of homosexuality. But any church, mosque or synagogue that opts to discriminate against same-sex couples by refusing to marry them doesn't deserve any special recognition, just like that cockroach-infested pizza parlor down the road doesn't deserve to be patronized. If you want your nation's religious institutions to remain intact, encourage them to be more inclusive. Religious institutions don't deserve to be treated any differently than any other private entity. Any private entity, be it commercial or religious, that discriminates against those who patronize their services (i.e. customers, passengers, laymen etc.) ought to be fined and/or shut down by the government, in this delegation's opinion. Freedom of belief is no excuse.

Suppose not a single church or any other place of worship in your country is prepared to marry same-sex couples? We cannot rule out such a possibility in your nation or elsewhere. We consider it unacceptable that in some countries, homosexual couples are forced to smuggle themselves out of their home country not only in order to get married, but also to avoid being murdered by their own families just for loving the wrong person. This is often the case in some of the nations New Bremerton has intervened in and leveled sanctions against.

"Perhaps I wasn't clear, but I am arguing that you are insisting that Churches cater to a group that doesn't patronise them. As for your other point, there are a number of churches that do so and homosexuals are always permitted a civil marriage within Arasi-Luvasa. We do not see religious marriages as a right, only that one has the right to marriage at all."

Many of our citizens do not view a priest who has married a homosexual couple as any longer being a priest.

Too bad for them. They can leave if that's what they want. Perhaps you need to work on your citizens' attitudes toward LGBT people.

"So what makes their right, the majorities for that matter, to practice their religion worth any less than homosexuals? Again there are Churches that do support homosexual marriage, just far fewer. Under this resolution, there would be none for the other group. We are also working on our citizens' attitudes, however, that is a slow and arduous process which this resolution will completely undo. One cannot force a person to be understanding, only encourage it. Attempting to force these individuals to accept those who they view as unrepentant sinners into holy places will not help them view those individuals in any more favourable a manner. I have discussed that the World Assembly mandating programs to help adjust the viewpoints of societies will be far more practical than taking a hammer to a social issue."

Frankly I am appaled that one would attempt to uproot an entire culture for a group that likely is not even affiliated with it

Ms. Ambassador, we believe that some cultures are superior to others. For instance, a culture that promotes stoning to death for adultery, flogging for premarital fornication, throwing gays off rooftops, marrying nine-year-old girls to older, bearded men, terror attacks for drawing blasphemous cartoons of a certain prophet, and female (and male) genital mutilation is vastly inferior to and beneath a culture that practices none of those things and seeks to protect the rights of minorities, including LGBT minorities. Not saying your culture does all of these things of course. We believe that such barbaric practices need to be stamped out at all costs. The WA is the avenue through which to accomplish this.

"What an unscientific approach. Regardless Arasi-Luvasa does not hold any culture as superior, such policies were used to justify the oppression of many indigenous cultures and cultural minorities."

perhaps you believe that a group non-existent within a sect should dictate what that sect believes or is able to act upon.

I'm pretty sure there are closet homosexuals within your sects who are too afraid to come out for fear of being excommunicated by the clergy and shunned by their own friends and family, many of whom were inducted as full members of their congregations from birth by their parents, with absolutely no say in the matter. It wouldn't be unreasonable of me to suspect that some of the most vehement critics of homosexuality in your nation, the ones who believe that being gay is a choice, are themselves closet bisexuals. Should life-long LGBT members of a sect be discriminated against? This delegation certainly doesn't think so.

"They would be shunned by their friends regardless, why would this resolution change that? Once again, one cannot change a culture by implementing laws. Programs to adjust the peoples view through understanding will be far more effective. Also you seem to have a very poor understanding of how the church works, one does not become a full member of the church until they have their confirmation. The confirmation does not occur until one is able to decide to join the Church themselves, which is usually as an adult but does occur as a late teen as well. Confirmation almost never takes place with young teens and never with children as they are not viewed as being able to give any modicum of legitimate consent."

Do not forget that doing wrong is against Christian faith, and if Christians believe that marrying homosexuals is wrong then you are forcing said individuals to sin."

I'm sure there is a verse in your Holy Book that would grant your followers some leeway on the matter. In Islam, for instance, it is not considered haram for a Muslim in the North Pole to consume pork and alcohol during Ramadan in the middle of summer when the sun never sets and there is nothing to drink besides alcohol and nothing to slaughter and cook than pigs in the vicinity, or when he is forced to do so at knifepoint by an infidel. Would it be asking too much if your citizens were to consider themselves to be "under duress" and therefore blameless if they are forced to marry same-sex couples? Surely your God is understanding enough to grant his followers mercy?

All in all, opposition to this proposal on religious grounds amounts to nothing more than offended feelings based on faith rather than hard, scientific evidence. As a certain social media personality would say: facts don't care about your feelings.[/quote]

"Christianity doesn't operate in the same way as Islam. Especially not if there is no direct threat on one's life, such as a gunman literally holding a priest at gunpoint and forcing them to marry the individual, then there is no leeway within Christianity to sin. Some even argue that Christ commands us to stand against sin even when our lives are on the line, this is quite well backed theologically when one considers the Apostles along with individuals like Daniel and his friends. Mercy is granted to those who repent, not those who continue to live in sin. Please do try to understand that beliefs do not falter for secular laws.

No, but let's bring in the fact that this is also based on your feelings that religious institutions should not have the right to act on their faith. There is no scientific impetus on that, just as there is no scientific proclamation as to whether God exists. Science is agnostic as far as discussions on whether any god exists. Laws should be aimed at improving the overall quality of life for the entire populace, this resolution favours a minority and sacrifices the majority in the process. It is flawed at its conceptual base as far as utilitarian and libertarian principles are concerned."

[Kyoki Chudoku]

Tokiko cleared her throat before she began to speak, knowing that this was going to be a difficult conversation. ”The only prominent religion in Kyoki Chudoku is a tengokutankyuism, a belief system which is not permitted on the grounds of being a dangerous cultist organisation dedicated related to past enemies of the Supreme Ultimate Country. We have no particular love for religion, and do not believe that religion should be a justified reason for exemption from various other restrictions. This proposal is a minor step in that regard, from my perspective. I can understand that some are hesitant to demand such changes. The simple fact is that if longstanding ideological perspectives cannot be given as justification for discrimination, then unproven and unprovable theological perspectives should not be considered any greater reason for discrimination. For us, this law favours majority by sacrificing a minority. I understand this isn’t the case in some other nations, but I ask you, why should religious organisations be exempt from discrimination? It’s always baffled me why this is even a thing in many nations. I’m gonna be honest, it’s perplexing. I feel as though religion is a poor justification for discrimination, and the ability for people to assume that that it can justify these things makes no sense to me. If I claim that we are restricting rights of people within our government, based upon ideology, people will shout at me and even threaten war in some cases. So why would it be any more acceptable if theology is the excuse for such discrimination?”

“In case you couldn’t tell, we support this proposal due to the fact if it progresses in a favourable direction from our perspective.”

[American Pere Housh]

So let's force churches to marry transgender lesbian couples. OK.

OOC:
Yes, let's! If my future wife wants to get married in a church I damn well expect to be able to go to one like any-damn-body else.

OOC: A priest has every right to say no if he or she wants too. The left doesn't have the right to force their beliefs on people that disagree with them. Just because I disagree with homosexuality doesn't mean I hate them. Phobe or Phobia means fear not hate.

[Tinfect]

OOC: Just because I disagree with homosexuality doesn't mean I hate them. Phobe or Phobia means fear not hate.

OOC:
Homophobia uses the term in the same sense as Hydrophobia, not Arachnophobia.

Oh, and, uh, yes, 'disagreeing' with someone's sexuality is hatred, sorry, that's the reality of it. You don't get to 'disagree' with someone's existence. You don't get to 'disagree' that a gay couple should be allowed to get Married and still absolve yourself of bigotry.

If getting people to respect human rights means 'forcing' it on them, than you're goddamn right I'll force it on them. Human-Fucking-Rights are non-negotiable, period. You don't get to 'opt-out' of respecting them.

[THX1138]

If getting people to respect human rights means 'forcing' it on them, than you're goddamn right I'll force it on them. Human-Fucking-Rights are non-negotiable, period. You don't get to 'opt-out' of respecting them.

Hear, hear.

[Maowi]

Oh, and, uh, yes, 'disagreeing' with someone's sexuality is hatred, sorry, that's the reality of it. You don't get to 'disagree' with someone's existence. You don't get to 'disagree' that a gay couple should be allowed to get Married and still absolve yourself of bigotry.

Exactly. Disagreeing with someone's homosexuality is basically saying you don't recognise their sexuality, and that's oppressive and discriminatory.

[THX1138]

Exactly. Disagreeing with someone's homosexuality is basically saying you don't recognize their sexuality, and that's oppressive and discriminatory.

OOC; Then why enable that? Honestly, this has been the most baffling part of this whole exercise for me. To the point where it's made me question the veracity of everything we do here, and ask what kind of organization would give a tacit green light to bigotry just because it suits a short-term goal? Some have suggested that that's me feeling the legislation didn't go far enough (or, inexplicably, me being homophobic). I see it as the legislation not meeting the minimum threshold of human rights as intended under the charter, because it acquiesced from its responsibility to the charter and human rights.
Perhaps I should own this outright as my problem, but I simply don't have a compartment for that kind of double standard in my understanding of human rights and how they are supposed to apply across society.

[Eastern Tatarstan]

This proposal treats all religions equally, but unlike people, religions are not equal, some are more discriminating than others. Saying that Islam should accept women as equal members of society, or to acknowledge that a rape isn't a damage to a man's possession, but rather a damage to the person being raped, is good. However, restricting religions from saying that having sex with a person of the same sex and making up various genders is not the way how people are supposed to live and behave, is more authoritarian rather than liberating. By doing this you will grant great liberties to the LGBTQI+etc. minority, but you will also severely restrain the liberties of religious people, who are a vast majority. And what about the so called "discrimination based on gender"? Well, telling obese or anorectic people that they aren't healthy isn't a discrimination based on weight, so why confronting transvestites with the fact that they are a little wrong in their heads and that the way they act is in contradiction to the dogma of the local religion should be perceived as a form of discrimination? Last, but not least, the definition of religion in this proposal is so broad, that it would also count cults and perhaps even NSDAP as religions.

[New Udonia]

Good luck promoting flamboyant queerness in a conservative Islamic state's mosque.
I mean, they already had to give quite the concession before, this is going to be quite interesting to watch unfold.

[THX1138]

This proposal treats all religions equally, but unlike people, religions are not equal, some are more discriminating than others. Saying that Islam should accept women as equal members of society, or to acknowledge that a rape isn't a damage to a man's possession, but rather a damage to the person being raped, is good. However, restricting religions from saying that having sex with a person of the same sex and making up various genders is not the way how people are supposed to live and behave, is more authoritarian rather than liberating. By doing this you will grant great liberties to the LGBTQI+etc. minority, but you will also severely restrain the liberties of religious people, who are a vast majority. And what about the so called "discrimination based on gender"? Well, telling obese or anorectic people that they aren't healthy isn't a discrimination based on weight, so why confronting transvestites with the fact that they are a little wrong in their heads and that the way they act is in contradiction to the dogma of the local religion should be perceived as a form of discrimination? Last, but not least, the definition of religion in this proposal is so broad, that it would also count cults and perhaps even NSDAP as religions.

What you are suggesting here seems to be a gerrymandering of legislative boundaries of societal coverage to accommodate some anti-human-rights religious beliefs but not other anti-human-rights religious beliefs, based on the popularity of the religion, or some arbitrary notion of what is and isn't acceptable discrimination based in a personally held set of beliefs.
Those boundaries are always going to be moving depending on which is the prevailing set of ideological beliefs (religious or not) in any given jurisdiction, so that kind of approach isn't sustainable in this multiverse, or in law. One person's horrible crime against humanity is always going to be another person's interpretation of their deity's will.

[Bears Armed]

"Blatant theophobia, again?"
*<sighs>*
"Look, it's simple enough, if you don't want to follow a major tenet in a religion's moral code -- which many of that religion's members might believe to have been decreed by a deity, and thus not changeable by mortals -- then don't claim membership in that religion. If you care enough to want a religious ceremony then you should care enough to follow that religion's moral code. If you believe that there must be some supernatural principle worthy of worship, but you can't bring yourself to follow a specific religion's moral code, then look for a different religion whose teachings are more to your liking."

Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.