Hmmm...I thought churches didn't have to worry about performing gay marriages...what about this...

[Jarlaxle]

I should have known this story was pretty much complete bullshit.

Legal hitch at Hitching Post - Coeur d Alene Press Local News

Let's go down the list of lies in the Todd Starnes piece in the OP:

1. The city hasn't taken any legal action whatsoever against the Knapps.
2. No complaints against them have been filed.
3. The "Alliance for Defending Freedom" is suing the city, not defending the Knapps.
4. The Knapps don't even know who the ADF lawyers are.
5. The Hitching Post chapel is registered as a for-profit LLC, not a "religious organization".

The best defense is a good offense. and again, why does the tax code trump 1st amendment rights?

Why don't you tell us? It's not like PA laws haven't gone before the SCOTUS before. Were those not 1st Amendment issues? How come they lost?

Because the Courts have been using the Constitution as toilet paper for a very long time.

 

[ChrisL]

That is not true. Two adult humans should be able to enter into any legally binding contract that they so wish. Your personal views should not matter on another person's personal decisions on how they will live their lives. That is just arrogant to think that you SHOULD have any say at all.

You should be able to marry your father?

Although I find that disgusting personally, if two consenting adults want to marry one another, it's not my business, nor is it your business. This is supposed to be a free country after all. Just because we find something yucky doesn't mean it should be against the law.

And that's the crux of the issue. When liberals destroy society the people in the society have no standards to which they can use to guide their lives so they retreat to toxic individualism. This only accelerates the destruction of society for now society has even less connective tissues binding people together. Now fathers can marry their daughters because people didn't have the backbone to declare "No, that's something that is not right and we don't do that:"

You being afraid of being judgmental means that no standards are upheld and when there are no standards upheld that means that there is no society, it's just a bunch of people living alongside each other and withdrawing into a cocoon world in order to cope with the lack of civilization that greats them outside of their cocoon.

I can realize that just because I think something is wrong does not mean it is wrong to another person, or couple. It is not up to ME to choose for others.

 

[Rikurzhen]

That is not true. Two adult humans should be able to enter into any legally binding contract that they so wish.

I should be able to sell you my home and we both agree that I will put a restrictive covenant on the deed which cannot be voided which will prohibit you from selling the home, which you now own, to a black person? Remember, you and I can agree to this legally binding contract, so why does the law not allow us to do that?

Quit being ridiculous. That would also be against the law, as discriminatory business practice.

Why does that matter? We, two adult humans, should be able to enter into any legally binding contract that we wish.

Look at what you wrote. This meets that condition.

You pointing to discriminatory business practices is the same as me pointing to a law which bans two men from "marrying" each other depsite them being two adult humans who should be able to enter into any legally binding contract.

Want another example? Can you legally sell yourself to be my slave? If not, why not, when both you and I are two adult humans and we enter into this legally binding contract with open eyes and understanding the implications?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Anyone who opens a trendy restaurant in SLC advertising that Christians are not welcome, watch all hell bust loose.

They should be allowed to do that. They won't stay open long, but go for it.

 

[ChrisL]

That is not true. Two adult humans should be able to enter into any legally binding contract that they so wish.

I should be able to sell you my home and we both agree that I will put a restrictive covenant on the deed which cannot be voided which will prohibit you from selling the home, which you now own, to a black person? Remember, you and I can agree to this legally binding contract, so why does the law not allow us to do that?

Quit being ridiculous. That would also be against the law, as discriminatory business practice.

Why does that matter? We, two adult humans, should be able to enter into any legally binding contract that we wish.

Look at what you wrote. This meets that condition.

You pointing to discriminatory business practices is the same as me pointing to a law which bans two men from "marrying" each other depsite them being two adult humans who should be able to enter into any legally binding contract.

Want another example? Can you legally sell yourself to be my slave? If not, why not, when both you and I are two adult humans and we enter into this legally binding contract with open eyes and understanding the implications?

The two homosexuals' legally binding marital contract is no different from yours. Slavery is against the law. I do think that prostitution should be legalized though. Gosh, what a sinner I must be!

 

[Rikurzhen]

The best way to put all this bullshit behind us is to have the states stop recognizing church weddings as legal.

You can get married in a church if you want but for legal purposes only civil marriages would be recognized by the state.

I like it...but I bet you'll get resistance (and not from "the gheys")

So the rest of us have to go through two ceremonies (in my case three) because 1-2% of the population are a bunch of butthurt assholes? No thanks.

Personally, the easiest fix would be to simply remove the word "marriage" from all laws. Any two consenting adults should be free to join in a civil union...if, after filling out the paperwork, you want to have yours done by a minister instead of a justice of the peace, that's your business.

Then again...how hard is is to become a JP?

But marriage is something that the state rewards because when men and women marry it produces beneficial effects for all of society. That's not the case with homosexuals. So in order to avoid a.) fighting to protect society and b.) not insulting homosexuals, your proposal concedes that society should flush a valuable institution down the toilet and harm us all.

 

[Rikurzhen]

That is not true. Two adult humans should be able to enter into any legally binding contract that they so wish.

I should be able to sell you my home and we both agree that I will put a restrictive covenant on the deed which cannot be voided which will prohibit you from selling the home, which you now own, to a black person? Remember, you and I can agree to this legally binding contract, so why does the law not allow us to do that?

Quit being ridiculous. That would also be against the law, as discriminatory business practice.

Why does that matter? We, two adult humans, should be able to enter into any legally binding contract that we wish.

Look at what you wrote. This meets that condition.

You pointing to discriminatory business practices is the same as me pointing to a law which bans two men from "marrying" each other depsite them being two adult humans who should be able to enter into any legally binding contract.

Want another example? Can you legally sell yourself to be my slave? If not, why not, when both you and I are two adult humans and we enter into this legally binding contract with open eyes and understanding the implications?

The two homosexuals' legally binding marital contract is no different from yours. Slavery is against the law.

Homosexuals marrying each other was against the law. Declaring something is against the law isn't an argument.

 

[ChrisL]

The best way to put all this bullshit behind us is to have the states stop recognizing church weddings as legal.

You can get married in a church if you want but for legal purposes only civil marriages would be recognized by the state.

I like it...but I bet you'll get resistance (and not from "the gheys")

So the rest of us have to go through two ceremonies (in my case three) because 1-2% of the population are a bunch of butthurt assholes? No thanks.

Personally, the easiest fix would be to simply remove the word "marriage" from all laws. Any two consenting adults should be free to join in a civil union...if, after filling out the paperwork, you want to have yours done by a minister instead of a justice of the peace, that's your business.

Then again...how hard is is to become a JP?

But marriage is something that the state rewards because when men and women marry it produces beneficial effects for all of society. That's not the case with homosexuals. So in order to avoid a.) fighting to protect society and b.) not insulting homosexuals, your proposal concedes that society should flush a valuable institution down the toilet and harm us all.

It doesn't harm YOU in any way, drama queen.

 

[Rikurzhen]

I can realize that just because I think something is wrong does not mean it is wrong to another person, or couple. It is not up to ME to choose for others.

Why can't you capture stray dogs, butcher them and have them for dinner? If you think this is a good way for you to eat, then why should other people stop you?

 

[ChrisL]

That is not true. Two adult humans should be able to enter into any legally binding contract that they so wish.

I should be able to sell you my home and we both agree that I will put a restrictive covenant on the deed which cannot be voided which will prohibit you from selling the home, which you now own, to a black person? Remember, you and I can agree to this legally binding contract, so why does the law not allow us to do that?

Quit being ridiculous. That would also be against the law, as discriminatory business practice.

Why does that matter? We, two adult humans, should be able to enter into any legally binding contract that we wish.

Look at what you wrote. This meets that condition.

You pointing to discriminatory business practices is the same as me pointing to a law which bans two men from "marrying" each other depsite them being two adult humans who should be able to enter into any legally binding contract.

Want another example? Can you legally sell yourself to be my slave? If not, why not, when both you and I are two adult humans and we enter into this legally binding contract with open eyes and understanding the implications?

The two homosexuals' legally binding marital contract is no different from yours. Slavery is against the law.

Homosexuals marrying each other was against the law. Declaring something is against the law isn't an argument.

What do you care if two homosexuals marry one another? Why do you care so much? It does NOT affect your vows to your wife and the seriousness in which you take them. Plenty of heterosexual people have managed to make a mockery of marriage as well, if you want to look at it in that light, but you are just wrong and being judgmental about something that is absolutely none of your business and effects you in no way whatsoever. Baby.

 

[ChrisL]

I can realize that just because I think something is wrong does not mean it is wrong to another person, or couple. It is not up to ME to choose for others.

Why can't you capture stray dogs, butcher them and have them for dinner? If you think this is a good way for you to eat, then why should other people stop you?

Marrying another person is not equal to your silly comparison. No one is harmed by a marriage. Only those of you nosy old biddies that want to stick your noses into everyone's business. Mind yours and it matters naught to you and your life.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Okay, you see, this is why I don't take these kinds of arguments seriously.

There are a lot more serious immorality in this society- poverty, racism, sexism - than who is having the butt sex with other dudes.

You don't gave to take it seriously, I do.

There are greater immorality issues in society. Things like Social Welfare spending, Globalism, and Affirmative Action. The LGBT community gets the wrath because they won't do the easy thing and keep their disgusting perversions in private where they belong.

You need to have a neutral third party examine your computer for evidence of lesbian pornography.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I seriously can't wait for you to die.

oh my how pro life of you...

I'm not prolife at all...I'm prodeath

Then OFF YOURSELF already and put us out of your misery!

 

[Jarlaxle]

By that rule my a gun permit in Virginia should be valid in New York city.

And it SHOULD..I truly wish I had the time and funds to take this to the Supreme Court.

 

[Syriusly]

The best way to put all this bullshit behind us is to have the states stop recognizing church weddings as legal.

You can get married in a church if you want but for legal purposes only civil marriages would be recognized by the state.

I like it...but I bet you'll get resistance (and not from "the gheys")

So the rest of us have to go through two ceremonies (in my case three) because 1-2% of the population are a bunch of butthurt assholes? No thanks.

Personally, the easiest fix would be to simply remove the word "marriage" from all laws. Any two consenting adults should be free to join in a civil union...if, after filling out the paperwork, you want to have yours done by a minister instead of a justice of the peace, that's your business.

Then again...how hard is is to become a JP?

But marriage is something that the state rewards because when men and women marry it produces beneficial effects for all of society. That's not the case with homosexuals..

The problem the States have- and the problem with your claim- is that neither the States or yourself have articulated what those beneficial 'effects for all of society' are that occurs when men and women marry- that do not occur when two men or two women marry.

Children occur whether women and men marry.
Men and women marry whether they can have children or not.

What you have been unable to articulate is why States would encourage sterile heterosexual couples to marry- but not sterile homosexual couples.

Other than just preventing homosexuals from marrying.

 

[Syriusly]

By that rule my a gun permit in Virginia should be valid in New York city.

And it SHOULD..I truly wish I had the time and funds to take this to the Supreme Court.

Contact the NRA- it does have the time and funds.

I don't have any bone in that dog fight- but if you think you should be able to- the NRA would not hesitate to go to court over that issue- IF they thought they could win.

 

[Andylusion]

They are running a business, not a religion.

Hence they fall under business law and must not discriminate.

I disagree. They're a church that performs weddings. I don't see how they must be forced to perform gay weddings, when it directly violates freedom of religion.

Not according to the City.

Additionally, city officials say the chapel is a for-profit business meaning the owners must comply with local non-discrimination ordinances.

In 2013, the city passed an ordinance prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. That ordinance applied to housing, employment and “public accommodation” and exempted religious entities. But city attorney Warren Wilson said in May the Hitching Post would likely be required to follow the ordinance.

Idaho ministers face arrest jail for refusing to perform same-sex weddings - Spokane Conservative Examiner.com

If they were a religious entity they would have been exempted but since they are running a for profit business they have violated the law.

I don't care what the city says. I don't care what you say. We're not going to perform gay marriage.... Period. Jail us. Attack us. Smear us. Whatever you want.

We have a right to run business. We have a right to our religion and beliefs. You don't have a say in the matter.

We're not doing it. Period. You'll have to jail millions of Christians across this country. We're not going away, and we're not going to follow your laws. Sucks to be you.

It's not a "church" Androw. It's a wedding chapel which is a business that marries people. IF gay marriage is legal there, then they are using discriminatory business practices which is illegal.

Don't care. I said that the first time, and I'll say it every time here after.

Church, business, hobby. It's mine. My hobby... my business.. my church. Not yours. You don't have a right to tell me what to do with it.

"well that law says..."

Don't care.

"but it's not a church..."

Don't care.

"but discrimination...."

I DO NOT CARE.

I have a religious view, and it's not up for debate. That's what freedom of religion means. I can believe the moon is full of hamsters, and Obama is an alien hamster controlling the government, if I so desire to have a such a view.

We are not going to do gay marriage, those of use who believe in the Biblical Christian faith. We not doing it. PERIOD.

Not doing it. PERIOD. Not up for debate, I don't care about your reasons. Not happening.

 

[Syriusly]

I should have known this story was pretty much complete bullshit.

Legal hitch at Hitching Post - Coeur d Alene Press Local News

Let's go down the list of lies in the Todd Starnes piece in the OP:

1. The city hasn't taken any legal action whatsoever against the Knapps.
2. No complaints against them have been filed.
3. The "Alliance for Defending Freedom" is suing the city, not defending the Knapps.
4. The Knapps don't even know who the ADF lawyers are.
5. The Hitching Post chapel is registered as a for-profit LLC, not a "religious organization".

The best defense is a good offense. and again, why does the tax code trump 1st amendment rights?

Why don't you tell us? It's not like PA laws haven't gone before the SCOTUS before. Were those not 1st Amendment issues? How come they lost?

Because the Courts have been using the Constitution as toilet paper for a very long time.

Conservatives say that when the Court makes decisions it doesn't agree with.

Yet applauds the same Courts when they rule against gun laws.

Ironic eh?

Me- I think Court has the right to rule on both issues.

 

[Syriusly]

Are there religious gay people? I don't think I've ever met a religious gay person. I wonder why "marriage" is SO important to them. Isn't marriage (the ceremony part anyway), a religious ceremony? Joining two souls in "holy matrimony?" The rings have religious implications, as does the entire marriage ceremony.

That is what marriage has always meant to me, the joining of two souls in the eyes of the Lord/God. This is why I don't understand why the gays put up such a stink about "civil unions" because, in reality, if they aren't religious, then that is EXACTLY what a marriage is, a civil union, a contract between two human beings. If you aren't religious, then the "ceremony" should be of no consequence to you.

This homosexual "marriage" crusade has never been about marriage, it's always been about normalizing homosexuals. You WILL be made to love homosexuals and you WILL be made to THINK that they are normal. That's what all of this compulsion on resisters is all about.

The opposition to gay marriage equality has never been about marriage, its always been about wanting discrimination against homosexuals. The opposition despises homosexuals and the opposition will do what it can to flame hatred against homosexuals. Thats what all of this propaganda against homosexuals is all about.

 

[Jarlaxle]

But marriage is something that the state rewards because when men and women marry it produces beneficial effects for all of society. That's not the case with homosexuals. So in order to avoid a.) fighting to protect society and b.) not insulting homosexuals, your proposal concedes that society should flush a valuable institution down the toilet and harm us all.

It is customary to read a quoted post before replying to it. Not mandatory, you understand, but customary.