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

[Syriusly]

I wouldn't think the government can tell a church who they must marry at all. Seems a clear breach of separation of church and state. If the state(s) can compel a church to go against it's theology then there is no separation any more.

There really is no question on that- the government cannot tell any church whom they must marry.

However, the government can tell business's that they cannot discriminate against people.

A church is not a business and doesn't follow the same rules.

 

[Nosmo King]

Why are folks trying so hard to make out as if this wedding chapel is a church and the proprietors are ministers? It's a wedding chapel, not St. Peter's. It's more like Vegas, not Vatican Square. And the folks running this going concern are homophobes hiding behind the skirts of sectarianism. They are Capitalists dressing in ecumenical costumes.

Who gives a shit?

What kind of fucking pathetic loser do you have to be to try to force others to do business with you? They don't like you, why would you insist they take your money? Duh!!

A business open to the public must be...get ready for it....OPEN TO THE PUBLIC!!!

Otherwise, you set up a two or three or four tier class system, depending on how vast your irrational hatred extends. You comment is analogous to 'if you don't like drinking from this public fountain, there's one set up just for you on the other side of town.'

Public accommodations are, indeed, PUBLIC.

Just one of the bitter lessons under another hate driven social code: Jim Crow.

 

[pinqy]

Actually, no. The Hitching Post explicitly states that they can and will perform non-religious ceremonies in purely secular services.
They're not a church, they're officially open for everyone regardless of religion.

They are still ordained ministers and cannot be compelled to act against their morals.

So if they claim as 'ordained ministers' that their moral beliefs state that they cannot pay income taxes- they can't be compelled to pay income taxes?

I'm pretty sure pastors themselves pay income tax.

Not the point.

So if they claim as 'ordained ministers' that their moral beliefs state that they cannot pay income taxes- they can't be compelled to pay income taxes?

Care to name one religion that is against paying income tax? Because I will join that religion

Kent Bovine, aka "Dr Dino", is serving a 10 year sentence on multiple counts of tax offenses, obstruction, and shady financial transactions involving his Creationist theme park. He claims that as a minister of God, he should be exempt from taxes.Kent Hovind - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I wouldn't think the government can tell a church who they must marry at all. Seems a clear breach of separation of church and state. If the state(s) can compel a church to go against it's theology then there is no separation any more.

There really is no question on that- the government cannot tell any church whom they must marry.

However, the government can tell business's that they cannot discriminate against people.

A church is not a business and doesn't follow the same rules.

Ya, but if it's some specialty thing that does nothing but marriages whether it's a "church" per se' is probably why it's a thing.

 

[Nosmo King]

Why are folks trying so hard to make out as if this wedding chapel is a church and the proprietors are ministers? It's a wedding chapel, not St. Peter's. It's more like Vegas, not Vatican Square. And the folks running this going concern are homophobes hiding behind the skirts of sectarianism. They are Capitalists dressing in ecumenical costumes.

Who gives a shit?

What kind of fucking pathetic loser do you have to be to try to force others to do business with you? They don't like you, why would you insist they take your money? Duh!!

I know they call them homophobic bigots, but then demand they take their money. Proof positive being queer is a mental disorder.

So being a hater is a protected class? Conservatism displays so much more dysfunction than any other ideology.

 

[Valerie]

hmm so this couple who lives across the street from the county clerks office decided to start a business...

 

[Seawytch]

hmm so this couple who lives across the street from the county clerks office decided to start a business...

Yes...they want all that $$$ that comes with being a business open to the public, but don't want to adhere to the laws that govern businesses.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

"After the Supreme Court struck down the central provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act last year, President Obama called for the equal treatment of Americans under the law, as well as a commitment to religious freedom.

“How religious institutions define and consecrate marriage has always been up to those institutions,” Obama said. “Nothing about this decision — which applies only to civil marriages — changes that.”"
Idaho ministers sue to prevent gay weddings at for-profit wedding chapel - Religion News Service

Article speculates the chapel will get an exemption since state law allows religious businesses to be exempt from anti-discrimination laws.

Think it's time then we acknowledge religion is discriminatory and incompatible with America and outlaw all discriminatory religions.

 

[Derideo_Te]

They are running a business, not a religion.

Hence they fall under business law and must not discriminate.

Where in the 1st amendment does freedom of religion go away when you are part of a business?

Your ignorance of the 14th Amendment is obvious to all!

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

Just keep moving those goalposts you miserable fascist hack.

That all you have is spurious insults says volumes about the vacuousness of your mind.

 

[Derideo_Te]

And now we see the way they might go after churches...since churches charge fees...

Nope!

If it was registered as a church it would be exempt. But according to the city it is registered as a for profit business.

So if a Church loses its tax exempt status for political advocacy it has to perform gay marriages?

Non sequitur!

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I wouldn't think the government can tell a church who they must marry at all. Seems a clear breach of separation of church and state. If the state(s) can compel a church to go against it's theology then there is no separation any more.

There really is no question on that- the government cannot tell any church whom they must marry.

However, the government can tell business's that they cannot discriminate against people.

A church is not a business and doesn't follow the same rules.

Some churches ARE businesses.

 

[bodecea]

hmm so this couple who lives across the street from the county clerks office decided to start a business...

Yes...they want all that $$$ that comes with being a business open to the public, but don't want to adhere to the laws that govern businesses.

All we have to do is see if they have a tax-exempt status. If they do....they are a church. If they do not, why not? Don't churches have a tax exempt status?

 

[Syriusly]

I wouldn't think the government can tell a church who they must marry at all. Seems a clear breach of separation of church and state. If the state(s) can compel a church to go against it's theology then there is no separation any more.

There really is no question on that- the government cannot tell any church whom they must marry.

However, the government can tell business's that they cannot discriminate against people.

A church is not a business and doesn't follow the same rules.

Some churches ARE businesses.

If Churches want the benefits of being considered a church- and there are many tax benefits to being a church- then they cannot be a business also.

If a Church is a business- i.e. a profit seeking entity- then its primary mission is making money, not saving souls.

 

[Nosmo King]

I wouldn't think the government can tell a church who they must marry at all. Seems a clear breach of separation of church and state. If the state(s) can compel a church to go against it's theology then there is no separation any more.

There really is no question on that- the government cannot tell any church whom they must marry.

However, the government can tell business's that they cannot discriminate against people.

A church is not a business and doesn't follow the same rules.

Some churches ARE businesses.

If Churches want the benefits of being considered a church- and there are many tax benefits to being a church- then they cannot be a business also.

If a Church is a business- i.e. a profit seeking entity- then its primary mission is making money, not saving souls.

Let's make an educated guess and say these wedding chapel owners consider themselves to be Christians. What purpose, other than wedding venue does this establishment have? Are there congregants? Do they have community outreach programs, charities, causes (other than turning a profit)?

If the proprietors are required by Idaho law to be ordained in order to perform weddings, which denomination were they ordained?

How much churchin' has to be done to get that tax waiver?
Leave it to Conservatives to see a church where the Free Market is calling the shots!

 

[Katzndogz]

How does making money remove your 1st amendment rights?

I think it's because there are laws that require equality when it comes to business.

That said, I'm no expert on the law.

If I'm an RN, I can't choose to not care for someone because they're gay. Personally, as with the issue of the cake-maker, I feel he should have been allowed to not make gay wedding cakes if it didn't jive with his beliefs.

I need a better understanding of each side on this particular issue.

There is nothing in providing nursing care that changes based on the sexual orientation of the person. A heart attack is a heart attack, AIDS is AIDS, and broken arm is a broken arm. Here the state is compelling a minister to perform an act outside of their religious base, in a religous act.

Actually, no. The Hitching Post explicitly states that they can and will perform non-religious ceremonies in purely secular services.
They're not a church, they're officially open for everyone regardless of religion.

They are still ordained ministers and cannot be compelled to act against their morals.

So if they claim as 'ordained ministers' that their moral beliefs state that they cannot pay income taxes- they can't be compelled to pay income taxes?

Another way of saying that if your religion compels you to behead your daughter for dishonor you cannot be prohibited from beheading your dsughter. Correct?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I wouldn't think the government can tell a church who they must marry at all. Seems a clear breach of separation of church and state. If the state(s) can compel a church to go against it's theology then there is no separation any more.

There really is no question on that- the government cannot tell any church whom they must marry.

However, the government can tell business's that they cannot discriminate against people.

A church is not a business and doesn't follow the same rules.

Some churches ARE businesses.

If Churches want the benefits of being considered a church- and there are many tax benefits to being a church- then they cannot be a business also.

If a Church is a business- i.e. a profit seeking entity- then its primary mission is making money, not saving souls.

well personally, I don't even care, because the "pubic accommodation" laws are unconstitutional anyway.

Our government isn't empowered to make people be nice.

 

[Katzndogz]

The business is renting the chapel. They should be required to rent the chapel to anyone. The function of the minister is entirely religious. He should not be compelled to conduct the ceremony. Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act he won't have to.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

The business is renting the chapel. They should be required to rent the chapel to anyone. The function of the minister is entirely religious. He should not be compelled to conduct the ceremony. Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act he won't have to.

I honestly don't see how these people get caught by these laws though.

"Oh , gay wedding, sure the law says we have to but I'm afraid I'm booked until 2025"

 

[Syriusly]

I wouldn't think the government can tell a church who they must marry at all. Seems a clear breach of separation of church and state. If the state(s) can compel a church to go against it's theology then there is no separation any more.

There really is no question on that- the government cannot tell any church whom they must marry.

However, the government can tell business's that they cannot discriminate against people.

A church is not a business and doesn't follow the same rules.

Some churches ARE businesses.

If Churches want the benefits of being considered a church- and there are many tax benefits to being a church- then they cannot be a business also.

If a Church is a business- i.e. a profit seeking entity- then its primary mission is making money, not saving souls.

well personally, I don't even care, because the "pubic accommodation" laws are unconstitutional anyway.
.

I guess I missed that Supreme Court decision.......