Business SUES Oregon church over refusal to allow homosexual event

[ABikerSailor]

You know, here is how I feel about this..................

The preacher is basically the head of the church he preaches at. If the preacher themselves have a thing against homosexuality because of their religious beliefs, then the building shouldn't be rented to anyone who goes against the churches dogma.

In this case, I'm on the side of the church, because it's on church grounds, and it could be considered a violation of their spiritual principles to allow things to go on that are against their beliefs.

If it was a public bakery on the other hand? Then I go in favor of the gays.

 

[BULLDOG]

Even if their reasoning is homophobic religious bigotry? A dress code is perfectly legal.

Yes. It’s their property. Don’t like it? Don’t become a member of their church or rent any of their venues. Problem solved.

They tried telling those black folk the same thing at Woolworth's lunch counter. That was another business open to the public that didn't think they had to follow the rules. It didn't work out that well for them. It's not a part of the church used for worsip. It's a seperate business owned and run by the church.

 

[mdk]

Even if their reasoning is homophobic religious bigotry? A dress code is perfectly legal.

Yes. It’s their property. Don’t like it? Don’t become a member of their church or rent any of their venues. Problem solved.

They tried telling those black folk the same thing at Woolworth's lunch counter. That was another business open to the public that didn't think they had to follow the rules. It didn't work out that well for them. It's not a part of the church used for worsip. It's a seperate business owned and run by the church.

I wouldn’t run my business in that fashion, but it’s not my business. The free market will decide if those practices should be rewarded or shunned. I also think public accommodation laws are bullshit.

 

[BULLDOG]

Even if their reasoning is homophobic religious bigotry? A dress code is perfectly legal.

Yes. It’s their property. Don’t like it? Don’t become a member of their church or rent any of their venues. Problem solved.

They tried telling those black folk the same thing at Woolworth's lunch counter. That was another business open to the public that didn't think they had to follow the rules. It didn't work out that well for them. It's not a part of the church used for worsip. It's a seperate business owned and run by the church.

I wouldn’t run my business in that fashion, but it’s not my business. The free market will decide if those practices should be rewarded or shunned. I also think public accommodation laws are bullshit.

Doesn't matter if you think they are bullshit. They exist. It all comes down to whether the venue is a part of the church, or a seperate business owned by the church. I don't think anybody would have much chance forcing them to rent their actual worship center, and that falls under a completely different category.

 

[westwall]

Here is a case where the separation of church and state takes precedence. You lose.

No it doesn't.

Yeah, it does. The First Amendment expressly forbids the government from passing any law that abridges the free exercise of religion. Don't like it, move to one of your socialist shitholes you love so much.

You are ignorant. Renting a building DOES NOT effect/affect free exercise of religion.

Yes it does. Demanding that a religious group provide a service for ANYONE that they disapprove of, is a direct assault on their freedom to express themselves. As usual, you are flat wrong.

How is renting a building providing a religious service?

Because it is up to them how their property is used, that's why. Your anti religious, secular attacks not withstanding. Private Property means PRIVATE PROPERTY!

 

[MaryL]

Excuse me, but why does it always seem like one Constitutional law being brought against another Constitutional law, and it always comes down to which side can afford the best lawyers, as if a it's pay to win scenario. Really? Perhaps to solve such conundrums, we just flip a bloody coin or draw straws? I would rather depend on random chance than any of the smartest Jurists or lawyers, that's how dodgy this issue is.

 

[Preacher]

'Morals clause' prevented them from hosting LGBT event. They're suing the church

We all knew it was coming folks! Give these cultural marxists an inch they will take the ENTIRE THING! Just like with gun control give an inch they will not stop until they have taken EVERY gun...they won't stop here until EVERYONE business,church,person abides by their definition of what's right and allowed.

If you're in business to serve the public, you have to follow the laws regulating that. Rent the place to the people, and while they are at it, they need to get in the kitchen and bake a damn cake too.

Church owns it. Church is NOT a business which is why it isn't taxed and the same rules don't apply. Just like with religious schools.

That's odd. They advertise it as an event center. Looks like it's a business owned by a church, but it's still a business. They have to follow the rules.
Weddings at Ambridge Event Center in Portland, OR - Wedding Spot

Nope. They don't. Just like schools run by churches don't.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

If the business, the building, and the land that the building sits on are all property of the church, then I can't see the lawsuit getting anywhere.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

 

[OnePercenter]

Even if their reasoning is homophobic religious bigotry? A dress code is perfectly legal.

Yes. It’s their property. Don’t like it? Don’t become a member of their church or rent any of their venues. Problem solved.

A business can lawfully discriminate against a protected class?

 

[OnePercenter]

You know, here is how I feel about this..................

The preacher is basically the head of the church he preaches at. If the preacher themselves have a thing against homosexuality because of their religious beliefs, then the building shouldn't be rented to anyone who goes against the churches dogma.

In this case, I'm on the side of the church, because it's on church grounds, and it could be considered a violation of their spiritual principles to allow things to go on that are against their beliefs.

If it was a public bakery on the other hand? Then I go in favor of the gays.

Are you saying that churches AREN'T public?

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know, devout people are kinda funny about how they view things. Many of them think that if you allow something "evil" (and they consider homosexuality evil), into church property, it will somehow taint the aura of the place.

And.................because that belief is pretty pervasive among Christians, I don't think that the gays will have much success in their lawsuit.

Like I said........................I actually support the church on this issue.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know, here is how I feel about this..................

The preacher is basically the head of the church he preaches at. If the preacher themselves have a thing against homosexuality because of their religious beliefs, then the building shouldn't be rented to anyone who goes against the churches dogma.

In this case, I'm on the side of the church, because it's on church grounds, and it could be considered a violation of their spiritual principles to allow things to go on that are against their beliefs.

If it was a public bakery on the other hand? Then I go in favor of the gays.

Are you saying that churches AREN'T public?

They are half and half. I know that I have been to churches that told me if I didn't change my beliefs (foster care, got shipped around a bit) to be what theirs were, I was going to hell and couldn't attend services. Baptists are especially funny about that.

 

[OnePercenter]

If the business, the building, and the land that the building sits on are all property of the church, then I can't see the lawsuit getting anywhere.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

If it was a private club you might have a point.

 

[OnePercenter]

You know, here is how I feel about this..................

The preacher is basically the head of the church he preaches at. If the preacher themselves have a thing against homosexuality because of their religious beliefs, then the building shouldn't be rented to anyone who goes against the churches dogma.

In this case, I'm on the side of the church, because it's on church grounds, and it could be considered a violation of their spiritual principles to allow things to go on that are against their beliefs.

If it was a public bakery on the other hand? Then I go in favor of the gays.

Are you saying that churches AREN'T public?

They are half and half. I know that I have been to churches that told me if I didn't change my beliefs (foster care, got shipped around a bit) to be what theirs were, I was going to hell and couldn't attend services. Baptists are especially funny about that.

Throw a 'c' note in the collection plate. They'll make an exception for you.

 

[OnePercenter]

You know, devout people are kinda funny about how they view things. Many of them think that if you allow something "evil" (and they consider homosexuality evil), into church property, it will somehow taint the aura of the place.

And.................because that belief is pretty pervasive among Christians, I don't think that the gays will have much success in their lawsuit.

Like I said........................I actually support the church on this issue.

From my observations, the devout tend to be the biggest hypocrites.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know, here is how I feel about this..................

The preacher is basically the head of the church he preaches at. If the preacher themselves have a thing against homosexuality because of their religious beliefs, then the building shouldn't be rented to anyone who goes against the churches dogma.

In this case, I'm on the side of the church, because it's on church grounds, and it could be considered a violation of their spiritual principles to allow things to go on that are against their beliefs.

If it was a public bakery on the other hand? Then I go in favor of the gays.

Are you saying that churches AREN'T public?

They are half and half. I know that I have been to churches that told me if I didn't change my beliefs (foster care, got shipped around a bit) to be what theirs were, I was going to hell and couldn't attend services. Baptists are especially funny about that.

Throw a 'c' note in the collection plate. They'll make an exception for you.

Not the Baptist church I was forced to go to in Montana. Them folks was NUTZ!

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know, devout people are kinda funny about how they view things. Many of them think that if you allow something "evil" (and they consider homosexuality evil), into church property, it will somehow taint the aura of the place.

And.................because that belief is pretty pervasive among Christians, I don't think that the gays will have much success in their lawsuit.

Like I said........................I actually support the church on this issue.

From my observations, the devout tend to be the biggest hypocrites.

You are absolutely correct. It seems that the really devout are concerned about how they look to everyone else, but in their private lives? They are total hypocrites.

A good example of that is the foster family I lived with. They were devout Baptists, and would pray at the drop of a hat. The older sister was a slut of the first degree, she'd sleep with anyone on the second date. The son? He was a bit of a kleptomaniac, and liked to steal things. Matter of fact, out of the whole family, the only one I had any kind of respect for was the father Bob. He was a straight shooter and was always honest with me.

Another place where I saw the seamy underbelly of devout Christians was when I was living in the South. Did you know that in many of those communities there are secret swinger clubs? Shocked the crap out of me when I first saw one in a place that I thought would NEVER have one.

 

[MindWars]

'Morals clause' prevented them from hosting LGBT event. They're suing the church

We all knew it was coming folks! Give these cultural marxists an inch they will take the ENTIRE THING! Just like with gun control give an inch they will not stop until they have taken EVERY gun...they won't stop here until EVERYONE business,church,person abides by their definition of what's right and allowed.

Yet you have a.h . who say " oh it's not forced".

But wait As long as you anything but " christian" you can get away with NOT DOING anything they want you to. It's all legal to do.

But gawd forbid a Christian say NO and the leftist pos scum act like rabid dogs on cracks.

 

[Andylusion]

I think everyone should be able to be sued.

Bigots must pay the piper also.

So we should be able to sue everyone who tries to prevent our free practice of religion? I can't wait. Religion organization have hundreds of millions of people to sue the tiny 2% that are LGBT. And hundreds of millions of dollar to back it.

By all means. If you want a legal free for all, we can do that, and you will lose. Freedom of religion is in the constitution. LGBT is not. Be careful what you wish for honey. You may not like the results of what you ask.

How is renting a building contrary to freedom of practicing religion?

You have to ask that?

The building as a sanctuary, is for the purpose of being used for actions that fit the religious conduct of the organization that owns it.

Thus they can rent it out in accordance with their beliefs. Using a church building, for evil actions, would be in violation of those religious standards.

It's that simple.

 

[Andylusion]

'Morals clause' prevented them from hosting LGBT event. They're suing the church

We all knew it was coming folks! Give these cultural marxists an inch they will take the ENTIRE THING! Just like with gun control give an inch they will not stop until they have taken EVERY gun...they won't stop here until EVERYONE business,church,person abides by their definition of what's right and allowed.

If you're in business to serve the public, you have to follow the laws regulating that. Rent the place to the people, and while they are at it, they need to get in the kitchen and bake a damn cake too.

Liberals say it’s ok to ban conservatives on social media because it’s a private company, but now bakeries and churches can’t do it. How does that work?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because conservatives are piranha's.

And there you go. Fascism defined. We don't like the other side, so we can deny them rights.