Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The truth was that Immie got it wrong. The lesbian couple was not suing the church. Hate me all you want.
Sorry, but you have it wrong, and I pointed out to you what that case was about long ago.
It was about the right of a religious organization not to offer its facilities to a homosexual couple.
Immie
The association was renting the pavillion to the public 'on an equal basis' and had a tax exempt status to do so. It violated civil rights law. The couple was not suing the church for refusing to marry them, as you previously stated.
Churches have so much power, much more than gay people. You have nothing to fear from us. We're not demons.
You are not demons, most of you are not. But extremists are.
The pro-life movement knows what happens when you don't take threats, even minor threats, seriously.
Immie
The couple in the civil rights lawsuit you cited are not extremists. They were citizens who wanted to use a public facility just like everyone else.
The pro-life movement has some extremists of their own. They kill people.
Sorry, but you have it wrong, and I pointed out to you what that case was about long ago.
It was about the right of a religious organization not to offer its facilities to a homosexual couple.
Immie
The association was renting the pavillion to the public 'on an equal basis' and had a tax exempt status to do so. It violated civil rights law. The couple was not suing the church for refusing to marry them, as you previously stated.
What I said earlier was that they sued the church for not renting them the pavilion on religious grounds. I did not say they sued them for refusing marrying them. I said they did not rent them their facilities and the reason for that was on religious grounds.
Where do you think I said anything differently?
And again, this only goes to prove that first amendment rights can be taken away by the courts.
Immie
Churches have so much power, much more than gay people. You have nothing to fear from us. We're not demons.
You are not demons, most of you are not. But extremists are.
The pro-life movement knows what happens when you don't take threats, even minor threats, seriously.
Immie
The couple in the civil rights lawsuit you cited are not extremists. They were citizens who wanted to use a public facility just like everyone else.
The pro-life movement has some extremists of their own. They kill people.
You are not demons, most of you are not. But extremists are.
The pro-life movement knows what happens when you don't take threats, even minor threats, seriously.
Immie
The couple in the civil rights lawsuit you cited are not extremists. They were citizens who wanted to use a public facility just like everyone else.
The pro-life movement has some extremists of their own. They kill people.
The couple wanted to force a religious organization that does not see things their way to rent them its facilities. That makes that couple extremists.
Any time you attempt to force other groups to do your bidding, that makes you extremists.
If they were not extremists, they would have gone and found another beautiful location and gotten married. Instead they decided to force compliance upon a church owned property. That is extremism in my point of view.
Immie
The NJ Church association changed it's policies so it can continue to discriminate against gays and lesbians.
THE CHURCH WON IMMIE.
The NJ Church association changed it's policies so it can continue to discriminate against gays and lesbians.
THE CHURCH WON IMMIE.
No, it did not. It lost the case and then changed its by-laws to protect itself in the future.
I don't consider having to change its by-laws to be a win.
The issue we have been discussing has nothing to do with winning or losing. The whole thing is a lose/lose situation for the church, if you ask me. Christ's church should not be in this position in the first place.
Let me put it this way, Christ ate with sinners. He didn't go looking for the righteous. I realize Biblical reference mean little to you, but Christ did not go to be with the self-righteous in the temples. He came to bring the Gospel to those people who needed it... sinners.
Being allowed to discriminate is not a win.
Finally, as I have stated several times in this thread, conservatives and conservative churches may "win" early battles because of the Separation of Church and State, but that is not a guarantee that they will win them all... and this case proves that.
Immie
The couple in the civil rights lawsuit you cited are not extremists. They were citizens who wanted to use a public facility just like everyone else.
The pro-life movement has some extremists of their own. They kill people.
The couple wanted to force a religious organization that does not see things their way to rent them its facilities. That makes that couple extremists.
Any time you attempt to force other groups to do your bidding, that makes you extremists.
If they were not extremists, they would have gone and found another beautiful location and gotten married. Instead they decided to force compliance upon a church owned property. That is extremism in my point of view.
Immie
Read about the couple. They aren't extremists. The church owned property had agreed to rent the faciliies to the public equally. They reneged on their agreeement when the lesbian couple tried to rent the facility.
You hate this couple? I don't. The lesbian couple being discussed, Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster, are NOT attempting to sue a church. They have merely filed a civil rights complaint against an association that governs a public accommodation with church ties. What happened is the ladies attempted to book the boardwalk pavilion of Ocean Grove, NJ, a popular spot for weddings and ceremonies in the Garden State. The public boardwalk pavilion is controlled by the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, which is governed by a Methodist board of trustees. However, the pavilion is completely open to the public, and to participate in ceremonies on the pavilion, one does not have to be a Methodist. In fact, many locals have no clue about the church ties
They were hurt and surprised when they weren't allowed to rent the public facility.
The NJ Church association changed it's policies so it can continue to discriminate against gays and lesbians.
THE CHURCH WON IMMIE.
No, it did not. It lost the case and then changed its by-laws to protect itself in the future.
I don't consider having to change its by-laws to be a win.
The issue we have been discussing has nothing to do with winning or losing. The whole thing is a lose/lose situation for the church, if you ask me. Christ's church should not be in this position in the first place.
Let me put it this way, Christ ate with sinners. He didn't go looking for the righteous. I realize Biblical reference mean little to you, but Christ did not go to be with the self-righteous in the temples. He came to bring the Gospel to those people who needed it... sinners.
Being allowed to discriminate is not a win.
Finally, as I have stated several times in this thread, conservatives and conservative churches may "win" early battles because of the Separation of Church and State, but that is not a guarantee that they will win them all... and this case proves that.
Immie
They changed their bylaws in order to discriminate better. They won. YOU WIN IMMIE. Churches are allowed to discriminate.
Consider the true legal issue here -- whether a piece of property that's open to public can claim itself to be a religious accommodation when its convenient. They instead present it to their followers in a way that makes it sound as if those damn militant homosexuals are trying to once again circumvent religious freedom.
This lesbian couple were not militant dykes going after the Church.
The couple wanted to force a religious organization that does not see things their way to rent them its facilities. That makes that couple extremists.
Any time you attempt to force other groups to do your bidding, that makes you extremists.
If they were not extremists, they would have gone and found another beautiful location and gotten married. Instead they decided to force compliance upon a church owned property. That is extremism in my point of view.
Immie
Read about the couple. They aren't extremists. The church owned property had agreed to rent the faciliies to the public equally. They reneged on their agreeement when the lesbian couple tried to rent the facility.
You hate this couple? I don't. The lesbian couple being discussed, Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster, are NOT attempting to sue a church. They have merely filed a civil rights complaint against an association that governs a public accommodation with church ties. What happened is the ladies attempted to book the boardwalk pavilion of Ocean Grove, NJ, a popular spot for weddings and ceremonies in the Garden State. The public boardwalk pavilion is controlled by the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, which is governed by a Methodist board of trustees. However, the pavilion is completely open to the public, and to participate in ceremonies on the pavilion, one does not have to be a Methodist. In fact, many locals have no clue about the church ties
They were hurt and surprised when they weren't allowed to rent the public facility.
They were denied access to that property on religious grounds and they forced compliance against church property. To be honest with you it doesn't matter whether it was church property or owned by an atheist that was grossed out by the idea of gay marriage. This couple did not have the right... does not have the right, to force any business to rent a location to them. Neither do I! For any reason!
That is one of the things that I have a problem with liberals. They believe that the consumer has all the rights in the world and businesses have no rights at all. I had a major disagreement with Anguille over the issue of forcing bars to become non-smoking facilities. She supports those laws. I believe them to be an invasion of the property owners rights.
In my humble opinion, it does not even matter that the pavilion was owned by a church. What counts is that this couple felt that they had the right to force a business owner to provide services. Unless, a consumer is in a protected class, and being discriminated upon because of that protected status, then I do not believe that any consumer has the right to insist that a business provide its services to them.
Immie
Read about the couple. They aren't extremists. The church owned property had agreed to rent the faciliies to the public equally. They reneged on their agreeement when the lesbian couple tried to rent the facility.
You hate this couple? I don't. The lesbian couple being discussed, Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster, are NOT attempting to sue a church. They have merely filed a civil rights complaint against an association that governs a public accommodation with church ties. What happened is the ladies attempted to book the boardwalk pavilion of Ocean Grove, NJ, a popular spot for weddings and ceremonies in the Garden State. The public boardwalk pavilion is controlled by the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, which is governed by a Methodist board of trustees. However, the pavilion is completely open to the public, and to participate in ceremonies on the pavilion, one does not have to be a Methodist. In fact, many locals have no clue about the church ties
They were hurt and surprised when they weren't allowed to rent the public facility.
They were denied access to that property on religious grounds and they forced compliance against church property. To be honest with you it doesn't matter whether it was church property or owned by an atheist that was grossed out by the idea of gay marriage. This couple did not have the right... does not have the right, to force any business to rent a location to them. Neither do I! For any reason!
That is one of the things that I have a problem with liberals. They believe that the consumer has all the rights in the world and businesses have no rights at all. I had a major disagreement with Anguille over the issue of forcing bars to become non-smoking facilities. She supports those laws. I believe them to be an invasion of the property owners rights.
In my humble opinion, it does not even matter that the pavilion was owned by a church. What counts is that this couple felt that they had the right to force a business owner to provide services. Unless, a consumer is in a protected class, and being discriminated upon because of that protected status, then I do not believe that any consumer has the right to insist that a business provide its services to them.
Immie
The couple were discriminated against by a facility that had been used for years by the public. Many of the townspeople didn't even know about it's church ties. They had every right to ask to use the facility.
These women are NOT extremists. They are not enemies of your church or you, Immie.
The association was renting the pavillion to the public 'on an equal basis' and had a tax exempt status to do so. It violated civil rights law. The couple was not suing the church for refusing to marry them, as you previously stated.
What I said earlier was that they sued the church for not renting them the pavilion on religious grounds. I did not say they sued them for refusing marrying them. I said they did not rent them their facilities and the reason for that was on religious grounds.
Where do you think I said anything differently?
And again, this only goes to prove that first amendment rights can be taken away by the courts.
Immie
Don't worry Immie. You've got your good friends the Alliance Defense Fund on your side.
Inspired by the organizing successes of early anti-gay crusaders like Anita Bryant, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, fundamentalist political activists have turned the anti-gay movement into a virtual industry over the last three decades.
Below are profiles of a dozen of today's most influential anti-gay groups. Groups designated as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center are marked with an asterisk.
Alliance Defense Fund
American Family Association
American Vision*
Chalcedon Foundation*
Christian Action Network
Concerned Women for America
Coral Ridge Ministries/Center for Reclaiming America
Family Research Council
Family Research Institute*
Focus on the Family
Summit Ministries
Traditional Values Coalition
'A Mighty Army' | Southern Poverty Law Center
The couple wanted to force a religious organization that does not see things their way to rent them its facilities. That makes that couple extremists.
Any time you attempt to force other groups to do your bidding, that makes you extremists.
If they were not extremists, they would have gone and found another beautiful location and gotten married. Instead they decided to force compliance upon a church owned property. That is extremism in my point of view.
Immie
Read about the couple. They aren't extremists. The church owned property had agreed to rent the faciliies to the public equally. They reneged on their agreeement when the lesbian couple tried to rent the facility.
You hate this couple? I don't. The lesbian couple being discussed, Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster, are NOT attempting to sue a church. They have merely filed a civil rights complaint against an association that governs a public accommodation with church ties. What happened is the ladies attempted to book the boardwalk pavilion of Ocean Grove, NJ, a popular spot for weddings and ceremonies in the Garden State. The public boardwalk pavilion is controlled by the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, which is governed by a Methodist board of trustees. However, the pavilion is completely open to the public, and to participate in ceremonies on the pavilion, one does not have to be a Methodist. In fact, many locals have no clue about the church ties
They were hurt and surprised when they weren't allowed to rent the public facility.
They were denied access to that property on religious grounds and they forced compliance against church property. To be honest with you it doesn't matter whether it was church property or owned by an atheist that was grossed out by the idea of gay marriage. This couple did not have the right... does not have the right, to force any business to rent a location to them. Neither do I! For any reason!
That is one of the things that I have a problem with liberals. They believe that the consumer has all the rights in the world and businesses have no rights at all. I had a major disagreement with Anguille over the issue of forcing bars to become non-smoking facilities. She supports those laws. I believe them to be an invasion of the property owners rights.
In my humble opinion, it does not even matter that the pavilion was owned by a church. What counts is that this couple felt that they had the right to force a business owner to provide services. Unless, a consumer is in a protected class, and being discriminated upon because of that protected status, then I do not believe that any consumer has the right to insist that a business provide its services to them.
Immie
