Religious Tolerance: Church kicks whole family out for supporting their gay daughter

[Seawytch]

Are you trying to tell me that the couple who sued a photographer for not photographing their commitment ceremony do not have an agenda? How else do you explain their insistence on making someone who did not want to attend their wedding to show up and take pictures?


Unless you are going to try and argue that no one has an agenda, I suggest you shut the fuck up. Even if I assume that you don't have an agenda, which would mean I have to assume you are dumber than dog shit, that does not prove that no one has one.

Yes, their "agenda" is to be treated equally. The law in their state requires that services be provided regardless of race, gender, religion and sexual orientation. 13 states have them. If you object to offering services to "the gheys", don't open a business in those states.

A Unique Religious Exemption From Antidiscrimination Laws in the Case of Gays? Putting the Call for Exemptions for Those Who Discriminate Against Married or Marrying Gays in Context

Let me get this straight, you are defending your position that the Constitution makes it impossible to sue clergy for not marrying gays by linking to column that argues that it doesn't?

Assume a state law bans discrimination based on sexual orientation, as well as based on race and gender, in housing, employment, and public accommodations. If gays were discriminated against based on sexual orientation in one of these areas, in violation of the state law, should those with religious objections be exempt from civil damages or injunctions for their violation of the law? If so, when? Should the exemption be constitutionally required? Under the rule in Employment Division v. Smith, the answer to the constitutional question is no.
Since a federal constitutional exemption from state laws is not available (and the RFRA could not constitutionally be applied to the states), should the legislature engraft a religious or moral exemption onto its antidiscrimination statutes solely in the case of discrimination based on sexual orientation? Should it pass state constitutional amendments doing the same thing?
In connection with gay marriage, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty answers this question, “Yes.” The Fund’s examples of conflict with sincere religious beliefs include religious objectors who decide not to hire people in same-sex marriages, who refuse to extend spousal benefits to same-sex couples, and who refuse to provide otherwise available housing to same-sex couples.[52] After listing these examples, the Fund advocates legislation to provide “robust” accommodation to religious objectors to same-sex marriage.[53] It also would expand the exemption to other “conscientious” objectors.[54] Since the Fund also lists gay couples,[55] it seems its plan may end up going beyond gay marriage. As a matter of logic it is hard to see why it should stop at married gays and not include gays living with their partners and single gays.
Assuming the state has a general antidiscrimination law and the legislature passes a religious or moral exemption only in cases of sexual orientation, what should be the dimensions of the claimed religiously or morally justified right to discriminate against gays? Should the right to discriminate be limited only to immediately facilitating the gay marriage itself—baking the wedding cake, providing the flowers, supplying the hotel for the receptions, and so on? Should it, as the Fund apparently advocates, include the right to discriminate against married gays after the marriage? Should it, as the Fund advocates, cover housing, employment, and spousal benefits such as health insurance? What about gays living with partners and unmarried gays?
If the Fund is correct about exemptions for discrimination against married and marrying gays, and if the right to discriminate expands to cover unmarried as well as married gays (why not, by this logic?), should the state or Congress also, as a matter of sound policy, provide religious or moral exemptions in cases of racial, religious, and gender discrimination? Here we look at legislative policy decisions in commercial transactions, not at what the Constitution requires or provides.
If discrimination based on sexual orientation is closely analogous to discrimination based on race and gender, the policy answer to the questions should be the same: exemptions should be allowed to religious discriminators in race, gender, and sexual orientation cases or exemptions should be denied to religious discriminators in each case. Should religiously motivated objectors to laws banning race (and gender) discrimination in employment and discrimination in public accommodations, for example, have been exempt from the strictures of the laws? As a matter of public policy, should the 1964 Civil Rights Act—which banned discrimination based on race, religion, national origin, or sex in employment—have allowed religiously motivated objectors to discriminate against blacks or women or Buddhists? Should those with religious or moral motivations have been exempt from the ban on discrimination in public accommodations under the 1964 Civil Rights Act?
At the moment, those who advocate exemptions focus on gay marriage. Should religious objectors to interracial marriage now be allowed to (and, after Loving v. Virginia, should they in the past have been allowed to) discriminate against interracial couples in employment, housing, spousal benefits, and the rest? If not, why is gay marriage unique? More broadly, why is discrimination against gays unique?
Since I think discrimination based on sexual orientation is closely analogous to racial and gender discrimination, I turn next to that question.

Did you even read the link you posted?

When are you going to admit you are wrong?

No it didn't. Read it again.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes, their "agenda" is to be treated equally. The law in their state requires that services be provided regardless of race, gender, religion and sexual orientation. 13 states have them. If you object to offering services to "the gheys", don't open a business in those states.

A Unique Religious Exemption From Antidiscrimination Laws in the Case of Gays? Putting the Call for Exemptions for Those Who Discriminate Against Married or Marrying Gays in Context

Let me get this straight, you are defending your position that the Constitution makes it impossible to sue clergy for not marrying gays by linking to column that argues that it doesn't?

Assume a state law bans discrimination based on sexual orientation, as well as based on race and gender, in housing, employment, and public accommodations. If gays were discriminated against based on sexual orientation in one of these areas, in violation of the state law, should those with religious objections be exempt from civil damages or injunctions for their violation of the law? If so, when? Should the exemption be constitutionally required? Under the rule in Employment Division v. Smith, the answer to the constitutional question is no.
Since a federal constitutional exemption from state laws is not available (and the RFRA could not constitutionally be applied to the states), should the legislature engraft a religious or moral exemption onto its antidiscrimination statutes solely in the case of discrimination based on sexual orientation? Should it pass state constitutional amendments doing the same thing?
In connection with gay marriage, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty answers this question, “Yes.” The Fund’s examples of conflict with sincere religious beliefs include religious objectors who decide not to hire people in same-sex marriages, who refuse to extend spousal benefits to same-sex couples, and who refuse to provide otherwise available housing to same-sex couples.[52] After listing these examples, the Fund advocates legislation to provide “robust” accommodation to religious objectors to same-sex marriage.[53] It also would expand the exemption to other “conscientious” objectors.[54] Since the Fund also lists gay couples,[55] it seems its plan may end up going beyond gay marriage. As a matter of logic it is hard to see why it should stop at married gays and not include gays living with their partners and single gays.
Assuming the state has a general antidiscrimination law and the legislature passes a religious or moral exemption only in cases of sexual orientation, what should be the dimensions of the claimed religiously or morally justified right to discriminate against gays? Should the right to discriminate be limited only to immediately facilitating the gay marriage itself—baking the wedding cake, providing the flowers, supplying the hotel for the receptions, and so on? Should it, as the Fund apparently advocates, include the right to discriminate against married gays after the marriage? Should it, as the Fund advocates, cover housing, employment, and spousal benefits such as health insurance? What about gays living with partners and unmarried gays?
If the Fund is correct about exemptions for discrimination against married and marrying gays, and if the right to discriminate expands to cover unmarried as well as married gays (why not, by this logic?), should the state or Congress also, as a matter of sound policy, provide religious or moral exemptions in cases of racial, religious, and gender discrimination? Here we look at legislative policy decisions in commercial transactions, not at what the Constitution requires or provides.
If discrimination based on sexual orientation is closely analogous to discrimination based on race and gender, the policy answer to the questions should be the same: exemptions should be allowed to religious discriminators in race, gender, and sexual orientation cases or exemptions should be denied to religious discriminators in each case. Should religiously motivated objectors to laws banning race (and gender) discrimination in employment and discrimination in public accommodations, for example, have been exempt from the strictures of the laws? As a matter of public policy, should the 1964 Civil Rights Act—which banned discrimination based on race, religion, national origin, or sex in employment—have allowed religiously motivated objectors to discriminate against blacks or women or Buddhists? Should those with religious or moral motivations have been exempt from the ban on discrimination in public accommodations under the 1964 Civil Rights Act?
At the moment, those who advocate exemptions focus on gay marriage. Should religious objectors to interracial marriage now be allowed to (and, after Loving v. Virginia, should they in the past have been allowed to) discriminate against interracial couples in employment, housing, spousal benefits, and the rest? If not, why is gay marriage unique? More broadly, why is discrimination against gays unique?
Since I think discrimination based on sexual orientation is closely analogous to racial and gender discrimination, I turn next to that question.

Did you even read the link you posted?

When are you going to admit you are wrong?

No it didn't. Read it again.

Yes it did.

 

[thanatos144]

Yes, their "agenda" is to be treated equally. The law in their state requires that services be provided regardless of race, gender, religion and sexual orientation. 13 states have them. If you object to offering services to "the gheys", don't open a business in those states.

A Unique Religious Exemption From Antidiscrimination Laws in the Case of Gays? Putting the Call for Exemptions for Those Who Discriminate Against Married or Marrying Gays in Context

If that was remotely true they would agree to civil unions

‘Separate but equal’ is just as un-Constitutional as denying same-sex couples access to marriage law. Why would anyone ‘agree’ to be discriminated against.

Bullshit

 

[Osomir]

Except the family left they were not ejected

An interesting interpretation of their ultimatum. Since when does one have to first repent publicly of all of their sins and perceived sins (as judged upon by another human and not god) before they are allowed to worship God?

They were asked to comply with the rules of the church that they set in place themselves. They chose to leave rather than do so, how is that an ultimatum? Are you aware that, even if they refused to repent, they could still have gone to services every time the doors were open? Or did you think the church would post an armed guard at the door and shoot them if they tried to enter?

One doesn't need to post an armed guard to make someone feel unwelcome.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

An interesting interpretation of their ultimatum. Since when does one have to first repent publicly of all of their sins and perceived sins (as judged upon by another human and not god) before they are allowed to worship God?

They were asked to comply with the rules of the church that they set in place themselves. They chose to leave rather than do so, how is that an ultimatum? Are you aware that, even if they refused to repent, they could still have gone to services every time the doors were open? Or did you think the church would post an armed guard at the door and shoot them if they tried to enter?

One doesn't need to post an armed guard to make someone feel unwelcome.

They chose to leave, the consequences of that decision rest on them, not the church.

 

[bodecea]

They were asked to comply with the rules of the church that they set in place themselves. They chose to leave rather than do so, how is that an ultimatum? Are you aware that, even if they refused to repent, they could still have gone to services every time the doors were open? Or did you think the church would post an armed guard at the door and shoot them if they tried to enter?

One doesn't need to post an armed guard to make someone feel unwelcome.

They chose to leave, the consequences of that decision rest on them, not the church.

And they are the better for it and the "church" is the poorer for it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

One doesn't need to post an armed guard to make someone feel unwelcome.

They chose to leave, the consequences of that decision rest on them, not the church.

And they are the better for it and the "church" is the poorer for it.

Maybe yes, maybe no. Unlike you, I am not omniscient, and I won't pretend to know the answer to questions like that.

 

[Seawytch]

Let me get this straight, you are defending your position that the Constitution makes it impossible to sue clergy for not marrying gays by linking to column that argues that it doesn't?

Did you even read the link you posted?

When are you going to admit you are wrong?

No it didn't. Read it again.

Yes it did.

Where? Point out the exact paragraph where it talks about forcing churches and clergy to marry people.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No it didn't. Read it again.

Yes it did.

Where? Point out the exact paragraph where it talks about forcing churches and clergy to marry people.

Funny, I don't recall saying it said that, I said it clearly argues that the Constitution does not prevent churches, or clergy, from being sued over violations of public accommodation laws. I even quoted the section that explained it.

Yet you insist on changing what I said, and then arguing a new position.

 

[Seawytch]

Yes it did.

Where? Point out the exact paragraph where it talks about forcing churches and clergy to marry people.

Funny, I don't recall saying it said that, I said it clearly argues that the Constitution does not prevent churches, or clergy, from being sued over violations of public accommodation laws. I even quoted the section that explained it.

Yet you insist on changing what I said, and then arguing a new position.

I never claimed they couldn't be sued under public accommodation laws. My claim remains that churches and/or clergy cannot be forced to perform ceremonies for any couple they don't want to.

 

[thanatos144]

what is it about homosexuals that they need to force of others into accepting their lifestyle? all homosexuals need to grow the f*** up and stop trying to ambush churches with their bigotry

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Where? Point out the exact paragraph where it talks about forcing churches and clergy to marry people.

Funny, I don't recall saying it said that, I said it clearly argues that the Constitution does not prevent churches, or clergy, from being sued over violations of public accommodation laws. I even quoted the section that explained it.

Yet you insist on changing what I said, and then arguing a new position.

I never claimed they couldn't be sued under public accommodation laws. My claim remains that churches and/or clergy cannot be forced to perform ceremonies for any couple they don't want to.

Correct.

Churches can be sued under public accommodation laws as secular property owners. Churches are also subject to secular health and safety laws, zoning laws, and employment wage and working condition laws.

No church, however, can be compelled by the state to change its religious doctrine or dogma with regard to marriage to accommodate same-sex couples, to argue otherwise is to be willfully ignorant.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

what is it about homosexuals that they need to force of others into accepting their lifestyle? all homosexuals need to grow the f*** up and stop trying to ambush churches with their bigotry

Nonsense.

Seeking one’s civil liberties is not ‘forcing’ anything on anyone.

And the only bigotry exhibited is by churches, individuals, and any other entity that seeks to deny homosexuals their civil liberties.

 

[thanatos144]

what is it about homosexuals that they need to force of others into accepting their lifestyle? all homosexuals need to grow the f*** up and stop trying to ambush churches with their bigotry

Nonsense.

Seeking one’s civil liberties is not ‘forcing’ anything on anyone.

And the only bigotry exhibited is by churches, individuals, and any other entity that seeks to deny homosexuals their civil liberties.

there is no civil liberties you are losing. if you can't marry your homosexual lover in your state then move to another state where you can. this is why we live in the United States of America not the United Federation of America

 

[LittleNipper]

Its funny...they cry about how churches will be sued for gay marriage, and yet this happens...
Barbarians are more civilized than these religious people.

If a person doesn't wish to abide by the policies of any given organization, that person has the liberty to go to another organization that they find more agreeable. Sorry, people are entitled to believe anything they wish; however, they are not entitled to expect anyone else to accept it... There is a church by me that allows homeless people to live in their shelter. I asked if any of them attended the church services there. They said most do not even go to church. Now, does that seem fair? We seem to live in a society that actually believes that people are entitled -------- and are of no obligation whatsoever.

I can respect this family for standing by their daughter; however, I also respect that church for sticking to what they believe and not bending to what seems to be "popular" trends....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Where? Point out the exact paragraph where it talks about forcing churches and clergy to marry people.

Funny, I don't recall saying it said that, I said it clearly argues that the Constitution does not prevent churches, or clergy, from being sued over violations of public accommodation laws. I even quoted the section that explained it.

Yet you insist on changing what I said, and then arguing a new position.

I never claimed they couldn't be sued under public accommodation laws. My claim remains that churches and/or clergy cannot be forced to perform ceremonies for any couple they don't want to.

No, you claimed that the Constitution prohibits churches being sued. You are now pretending that was not your claim rather than admit you were wrong. II can't force you to admit you were wrong, but I have actually forced you to lie about what you said. Small victory, but I will take it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Funny, I don't recall saying it said that, I said it clearly argues that the Constitution does not prevent churches, or clergy, from being sued over violations of public accommodation laws. I even quoted the section that explained it.

Yet you insist on changing what I said, and then arguing a new position.

I never claimed they couldn't be sued under public accommodation laws. My claim remains that churches and/or clergy cannot be forced to perform ceremonies for any couple they don't want to.

Correct.

Churches can be sued under public accommodation laws as secular property owners. Churches are also subject to secular health and safety laws, zoning laws, and employment wage and working condition laws.

No church, however, can be compelled by the state to change its religious doctrine or dogma with regard to marriage to accommodate same-sex couples, to argue otherwise is to be willfully ignorant.

There is nothing secular about a church, ever. It is actually impossible, by definition. Even Secular Humanism is not secular when they organize as a church.

The obvious aside, there is nothing in the Constitution, or federal law, that is going to prevent states from requiring churches to preform weddings under public accommodation laws. The proof of that is the article Seawycth posted that explains how it works, and why states shouldn't allow religious exemptions to same sex marraige.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

what is it about homosexuals that they need to force of others into accepting their lifestyle? all homosexuals need to grow the f*** up and stop trying to ambush churches with their bigotry

Nonsense.

Seeking one’s civil liberties is not ‘forcing’ anything on anyone.

And the only bigotry exhibited is by churches, individuals, and any other entity that seeks to deny homosexuals their civil liberties.

There is no liberty of any type that requires a photographer to attend a wedding, that is the antithesis of liberty.

 

[Gadawg73]

I never claimed they couldn't be sued under public accommodation laws. My claim remains that churches and/or clergy cannot be forced to perform ceremonies for any couple they don't want to.

Correct.

Churches can be sued under public accommodation laws as secular property owners. Churches are also subject to secular health and safety laws, zoning laws, and employment wage and working condition laws.

No church, however, can be compelled by the state to change its religious doctrine or dogma with regard to marriage to accommodate same-sex couples, to argue otherwise is to be willfully ignorant.

There is nothing secular about a church, ever. It is actually impossible, by definition. Even Secular Humanism is not secular when they organize as a church.

The obvious aside, there is nothing in the Constitution, or federal law, that is going to prevent states from requiring churches to preform weddings under public accommodation laws. The proof of that is the article Seawycth posted that explains how it works, and why states shouldn't allow religious exemptions to same sex marraige.

Churches have to obey secular laws, rules, regulations, ordinances and many other societal secular mores everyday. Zoning, environmental and impact studies, construction codes, parking lot regulations; dozens of secular things. Most are MANDATORY for the church.
First you claim there are now rulings that force churches to do things.
And we prove that false you now run with another curve ball stating that since The Constitution has nothing in it preventing states from requiring churches to perform weddings then it may/will happen.
What is next? Since nothing in The Constitution prevents states from requiring churches to perform topless weddings then there will be?
You have a wild imagination, have to give you that.
None of what you claim will happen. No church will ever be required to marry anyone they do not want to.

 

[whitehall]

Tolerance goes both ways. Get some perspective lefties. Agnostics used the modern version of "separation/church/state" majority opinion from a former KKK member of the Supreme Court to sledge hammer the Ten Commandments off the wall of a Court House when nobody noticed them after a hundred years and order the demolition of a half century old memorial to Korean War Veterans because it had a 40 ft Cross. All the Christian group in this case did was to deal with the issue of sodomy within their own doors. Get a life sissies.