the_fuckler

you leave my muddah out 'o this!

Maybe this is on me for engaging to the extent I did, then. I definitely had set out to have a conversation about how religious groups should be more welcome on Lemmy.

I’ll consider what you’re saying about it being a choice that shouldn’t be given the same graces as statuses given through birth. There’s something developing there, but I’m going to have to reflect on that for a while.

But you should consider how on one part of your argument you’re saying women are being compelled to wear their garb and then concluding that belonging to religious frameworks is strictly a choice. This is walking right past their autonomy in a very selectively invalidating kind of way. Though I’m going to try to just take the merits of what you’re saying and leave the rest.

To my knowledge religious status is protected by law from discrimination in the US to the same extent all those others are? Laws are a poor measure of morality but it’s saving the jobs of women who need to wear religious garments in professional settings so it seems moral.

But looking at that church’s Wikipedia page it looks like they’re one of the only denominations to be institutionally changing to include LGBTQ. Seems a little curmudgeonly to say they’re outside the scope of inclusion, especially given the resounding victories progressivism is having in the united states lately

Not very inclusive. Do episcopals have some sort of stigma I’m unaware of?

Are you certain these are unique accounts?