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

[Syriusly]

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?

No- it means just the opposite.

 

[Nosmo King]

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.

The function of the 'minister' at a pay-to-play wedding chapel is not entirely religious. "Now by the power vested in me by the State of Idaho, I pronounce you husband and wife.'

He's as 'entirely religious' as a Justice of the Peace.

 

[Seawytch]

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.......

No, you didn't miss it. The SCOTUS decision was actually the opposite of what he stated...

 

[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.

The function of the 'minister' at a pay-to-play wedding chapel is not entirely religious. "Now by the power vested in me by the State of Idaho, I pronounce you husband and wife.'

He's as 'entirely religious' as a Justice of the Peace.

Not for an ordained minister. A justice of the peace is a legal office. Like a judge or any clerk in the county recorders office. All of whom are empowered to perform marriages. They are not empowered to conduct religious services. A minister is a religious office who is legally empowered to perform marriages. He may conduct religious services but is not required to do so. In this case the minister is not an employee of the chapel. Is not an independent contractor and does not charge a fee for his services. Instead a gratuity is encouraged with no amount stated. The minister is a volunteer who may really not be paid at all.

The city has nothing. The minister is protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The only thing the chapel must do is allow the premises to be used as a wedding chapel for same sex couples.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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.......

No, you didn't miss it. The SCOTUS decision was actually the opposite of what he stated...

Yes, and at one time SCOTUS declared slavery constitutional , then reversed.

It happens. You stupid queers are going to fuck yourselves over here and get PA laws reversed to.

 

[Luissa]

It is all supposed to be about tolerance of other people...except when that means leaving religious people alone...the first attempts to go after churches are happening and are being beaten back...but this is just the start...like when the lawyers wanted the sermons of ministers...but then they backed off...for now...how about this threat...?

The PJ Tatler Idaho City Threatens to Jail Ministers for Not Performing Gay Weddings

Coeur d’Alene officials told the Knapps privately and also publicly stated that the couple would violate the city’s public accommodations statute once same-sex marriage became legal in Idaho if they declined to perform a same-sex ceremony at their chapel. On Friday, the Knapps respectfully declined such a ceremony and now face up to 180 days in jail and up to $1,000 in fines for each day they decline to perform that ceremony.

“The city somehow expects ordained pastors to flip a switch and turn off all faithfulness to their God and their vows,” explained ADF Legal Counsel Jonathan Scruggs. “The U.S. Constitution as well as federal and state law clearly stand against that. The city cannot mandate across-the-board conformity to its interpretation of a city ordinance in utter disregard for the guaranteed freedoms Americans treasure in our society.”

Read the article, idiot. The city has threatened anything, the man is filing a lawsuit before anyone has attempted to marry there..... Plus the Hitching Post isn't a church, it is a private FOR PROFIT business. And I doubt many gays want to get married at that dive.
It is where many people from Washington go to elope in Idaho, which is pretty funny if you consider he worried about the traditional marriage. For one, of the many couples I know who were married there are now divorced.

Next time read the whole article.

 

[Luissa]

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"

I doubt any gays have even tried. They have more class.

 

[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"

I doubt any gays have even tried. They have more class.

Oh, I agree it is low class to force someone to do business with you, but you can't possibly believe all gays are too high class for that.

 

[Katzndogz]

Before they are done gays will be invading high mass and demanding a catholic wedding.

 

[Luissa]

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"

I doubt any gays have even tried. They have more class.

Oh, I agree it is low class to force someone to do business with you, but you can't possibly believe all gays are too high class for that.

I have personally seen the place, thank god only to witness a marriage. I believe 90% of people outside Northern Idaho are to high class.
The wedding I went to there, the bride wore white jeans shorts and some tacky tank top. Of course, that is why I went. I wanted to witness the shit show.

 

[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"

I doubt any gays have even tried. They have more class.

Oh, I agree it is low class to force someone to do business with you, but you can't possibly believe all gays are too high class for that.

I have personally seen the place, thank god only to witness a marriage. I believe 90% of people outside Northern Idaho are to high class.
The wedding I went to there, the bride wore white jeans shorts and some tacky tank top. Of course, that is why I went. I wanted to witness the shit show.

LOL I would have went to that wedding to.

I went to one where the bride wore a camo wedding gown. I was like WTF? My wife was like "umm yeah we're out of here"

 

[Luissa]

This picture sums it up perfectly. Lol

 

[Luissa]

I love how he is putting in a Dip. Haha

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I love how he is putting in a Dip. Haha

Chances are she probably put one in to, that's a fine looking couple right there

 

[Dana7360]

It is all supposed to be about tolerance of other people...except when that means leaving religious people alone...the first attempts to go after churches are happening and are being beaten back...but this is just the start...like when the lawyers wanted the sermons of ministers...but then they backed off...for now...how about this threat...?

The PJ Tatler Idaho City Threatens to Jail Ministers for Not Performing Gay Weddings

Coeur d’Alene officials told the Knapps privately and also publicly stated that the couple would violate the city’s public accommodations statute once same-sex marriage became legal in Idaho if they declined to perform a same-sex ceremony at their chapel. On Friday, the Knapps respectfully declined such a ceremony and now face up to 180 days in jail and up to $1,000 in fines for each day they decline to perform that ceremony.

“The city somehow expects ordained pastors to flip a switch and turn off all faithfulness to their God and their vows,” explained ADF Legal Counsel Jonathan Scruggs. “The U.S. Constitution as well as federal and state law clearly stand against that. The city cannot mandate across-the-board conformity to its interpretation of a city ordinance in utter disregard for the guaranteed freedoms Americans treasure in our society.”

This isn't a church.

It's a wedding chapel which is a place of business.

If they're not willing to serve all of the public then they shouldn't be in business.

I support the law of Idaho and hope that these business people either start obeying the law or go to jail.

 

[Dana7360]

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.

It's chapel that performs weddings. They don't do church services. It's not any specific denomination of christianity and they have a business license to perform weddings.

When you have a business license you agree to serve the public. There are no exceptions.

If they want to discriminate then they shouldn't be in business.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

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.......

No, you didn't miss it. The SCOTUS decision was actually the opposite of what he stated...

Yes, and at one time SCOTUS declared slavery constitutional , then reversed.

It happens. You stupid queers are going to fuck yourselves over here and get PA laws reversed to.

'Stupid queers...'

That's the sort of thing men too ugly to even have a gay man hit on them say. No woman will have you, and you're too ugly and stupid to even have a go with a gay guy so you hate on them. Would hate on women too and do I expect. Put the beer down, lose a hundred pounds, and get yourself laid.

 

[Seawytch]

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.......

No, you didn't miss it. The SCOTUS decision was actually the opposite of what he stated...

Yes, and at one time SCOTUS declared slavery constitutional , then reversed.

It happens. You stupid queers are going to fuck yourselves over here and get PA laws reversed to.

Us "stupid queers" are fine with that. We aren't protected in most places by them anyway...Can't wait to toss the crazy eyed religious freaks out of my establishment.

 

[martybegan]

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.

I notice you did not deny being a fascist hack.

 

[martybegan]

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!

I.e, I made a good point and you have nothing to refute it with.