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

[Stephanie]

ok now what? why do you people post this stuff? what are we suppose to do about it?

or you just like to stir the shit pot and hate?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The point that churches cannot be sued because of the 1st Amendment is a lie, but thanks for sticking to the lie.

Have any been sued for not performing a homosexual marriage?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I had no idea Jesus thought homosexuality was OK. Nothing in the literature would suggest that. But it would be presumptuous of me to speak for Jesus. And presumptuous for anyone else for that matter.

Jesus welcomed sinners all the time.

But he didnt tell them they were just doing fine and to keep on, right?

That's not the point. Would he have kicked them out of the church?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Gay marriage will ultimately be legal in all 50 states as it should be. That's pretty much a foregone conclusion at this point.

That will be after the Second American Civil War since such a decision will over ride the sovereign will of the people in over 30 states. The constutional amendment defining marriage in Tennessee passed with over 80% approval. Do you really think the elected officials and people of TN are going to sit back and let 5 people in Washington DC over ride their decision?

I never said the courts had to do it. It will likely be a combination of court rulings and legislators. The attitude towards homosexuality has changed incredibly just over the past ten years. People have become less apprehensive towards gay marriage and that will only continue in time as the old Baby Boomers die out and my generation and those after me aren't swayed into submission by religious dogma and social bogeymen.

 

[The Rabbi]

Jesus welcomed sinners all the time.

But he didnt tell them they were just doing fine and to keep on, right?

That's not the point. Would he have kicked them out of the church?

He didnt have a church. So the question is silly. Again, if you think Jesus approved of homsexuality then you are positing something that is totally ahistorical. Further you make it sound like Jesus approved of all behavior and basically had no standards. I find that hard to believe.

 

[The Rabbi]

Gay marriage will ultimately be legal in all 50 states as it should be. That's pretty much a foregone conclusion at this point.

That will be after the Second American Civil War since such a decision will over ride the sovereign will of the people in over 30 states. The constutional amendment defining marriage in Tennessee passed with over 80% approval. Do you really think the elected officials and people of TN are going to sit back and let 5 people in Washington DC over ride their decision?

I never said the courts had to do it. It will likely be a combination of court rulings and legislators. The attitude towards homosexuality has changed incredibly just over the past ten years. People have become less apprehensive towards gay marriage and that will only continue in time as the old Baby Boomers die out and my generation and those after me aren't swayed into submission by religious dogma and social bogeymen.

It depends on the region you're in. People who are devoted to traditional values will never countenance state sponsored gay marriage. And those are probably a growing rather than a shrinking number, as the traditional values crowd tends to have children while the secular narcissists go childless.

 

[ClosedCaption]

God hates fags....

no, God hates the sin they are committing.

God hates nothing

 

[ClosedCaption]

So let me guess the implication from the left will be because of the actions of this church every church and every person of faith hates gays is that about it?

No, that's the only way you are able to process it, details and specifics aren't your forte' and makes your head hurt when you cannot generalize

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Gay marriage will ultimately be legal in all 50 states as it should be. That's pretty much a foregone conclusion at this point.

He also told them about their sins, and expected people to repent. This family chose to leave the church rather than adhere to the standards of that church. That was their choice, and does not make the church intolerant anymore than you asking people not to piss on your food makes you intolerant if they insist on pissing on your food.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They can't be sued to make them marry a couple. Don't be intentionally obtuse.

They can't? Why not? If it is impossible for them to be sued for it because of the 1st Amendment, why are so many states writing their laws to specifically exempt churches from being sued over it?

Dayum! Didn't think about that, did you?

Cite any case where a church was successfully sued and forced to marry a couple. You can't because it never happened.

Right after you answer my question about why, if the 1st Amendment prohibits churches from being sued over same sex marriage, states are specifically writing their laws to prohibit anyone from suing a church over them not performing same sex marraige. Ten years ago I wouldn't have been able to provide such an example. I couldn't even come up with an example of a photographer being sued for not attending a same sex commitment ceremony. I can now. What changed? Is it the fact that same sex marraige is now legal, and that states are being forced to deal with the fact that churches can be sued for not performing one?

Alternatively, you could just admit you are wrong. You should try it, you might learn something.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The point that churches cannot be sued because of the 1st Amendment is a lie, but thanks for sticking to the lie.

Have any been sued for not performing a homosexual marriage?

Yes.

And, yes, it was successful.

But keep spouting the lie.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Jesus welcomed sinners all the time.

But he didnt tell them they were just doing fine and to keep on, right?

That's not the point. Would he have kicked them out of the church?

Since the church didn't kick them out I don't see your point.

 

[Seawytch]

The point that churches cannot be sued because of the 1st Amendment is a lie, but thanks for sticking to the lie.

Have any been sued for not performing a homosexual marriage?

Or an interracial or interfaith? No. Ridiculous hyperbole.

 

[Seawytch]

The point that churches cannot be sued because of the 1st Amendment is a lie, but thanks for sticking to the lie.

Have any been sued for not performing a homosexual marriage?

Yes.

And, yes, it was successful.

But keep spouting the lie.

You're the one lying.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The point that churches cannot be sued because of the 1st Amendment is a lie, but thanks for sticking to the lie.

Have any been sued for not performing a homosexual marriage?

Or an interracial or interfaith? No. Ridiculous hyperbole.

Let me guess, it is also a baseless claim that any couple would sue a photographer who doesn't want to go to their wedding.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Have any been sued for not performing a homosexual marriage?

Yes.

And, yes, it was successful.

But keep spouting the lie.

You're the one lying.

Do you intend to answer my question?

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

A group of people get together and decide that they share a belief. In this case, it is a religious belief. They believe that homosexuality is a sin and that supporting it is wrong. A member of their congregation openly takes action to support same-sex benefits directly in opposition to their previously shared beliefs. The question here is whether or not this group has the right to decide the beliefs of it's group.

Suppose this member now decides that Jesus Christ is NOT the son of God and never even existed? In public, this member actively supports an activity that reflects that new belief. And is this group then supposed to be 'tolerant' of this new belief of one member. Suppose it involves incest, or rape, or the fact that Adolf Hitler was just a misunderstood momma's boy and the holocaust was a lie?

Christianity loves the sinner but hates the sin. If homosexuality is a sin to this church group, then being tolerant of a member that supports the activity is hypocritical at best. If the member now supports the activity, after knowing all along that the group does not and will not, then I believe that the member is incredibly self-centered if they foolishly believe that the group should change their views to accomodate the single member.

I see on this forum all the time people that attempt to quote repeatedly that 'Christians should not judge other people.' What a load of crap and nothing is further from the tenets of Christianity. A single passage of the bible, taken out of context, does not relinquish people from the fact that we are called by Christ to see the evil in the world for exactly what it is and to refrain from it. My friends, THAT by its very definition is judging. To this group, homosexuality is a sin. They are called to see it for what it is and to refrain from it. By allowing a member to support it is in itself a tacit approval of the sin. As a Christian, the type of Christian that I believe we should be, we MUST see activities for what they are and then judge if they are sinful or not. Letting everybody do their own thing is a saying on a poster from the 60's, NOT a tenet of Christianity.

If the member changes their belief then the reasonable expectation is that the member should join a congregation that does not believe that homsexuality is a sin. To believe, even for an instant, that the Church your family has attended for 60 years is going to change just because you want it to is ridiculous and idiotic. I believe there are a number of Unification churches that even accept gay clergy. They should go there.

 

[bodecea]

The point that churches cannot be sued because of the 1st Amendment is a lie, but thanks for sticking to the lie.

Have any been sued for not performing a homosexual marriage?

Yes.

And, yes, it was successful.

But keep spouting the lie.

Link to that. TIA

 

[bodecea]

A group of people get together and decide that they share a belief. In this case, it is a religious belief. They believe that homosexuality is a sin and that supporting it is wrong. A member of their congregation openly takes action to support same-sex benefits directly in opposition to their previously shared beliefs. The question here is whether or not this group has the right to decide the beliefs of it's group.

Suppose this member now decides that Jesus Christ is NOT the son of God and never even existed? In public, this member actively supports an activity that reflects that new belief. And is this group then supposed to be 'tolerant' of this new belief of one member. Suppose it involves incest, or rape, or the fact that Adolf Hitler was just a misunderstood momma's boy and the holocaust was a lie?

Christianity loves the sinner but hates the sin. If homosexuality is a sin to this church group, then being tolerant of a member that supports the activity is hypocritical at best. If the member now supports the activity, after knowing all along that the group does not and will not, then I believe that the member is incredibly self-centered if they foolishly believe that the group should change their views to accomodate the single member.

I see on this forum all the time people that attempt to quote repeatedly that 'Christians should not judge other people.' What a load of crap and nothing is further from the tenets of Christianity. A single passage of the bible, taken out of context, does not relinquish people from the fact that we are called by Christ to see the evil in the world for exactly what it is and to refrain from it. My friends, THAT by its very definition is judging. To this group, homosexuality is a sin. They are called to see it for what it is and to refrain from it. By allowing a member to support it is in itself a tacit approval of the sin. As a Christian, the type of Christian that I believe we should be, we MUST see activities for what they are and then judge if they are sinful or not. Letting everybody do their own thing is a saying on a poster from the 60's, NOT a tenet of Christianity.

If the member changes their belief then the reasonable expectation is that the member should join a congregation that does not believe that homsexuality is a sin. To believe, even for an instant, that the Church your family has attended for 60 years is going to change just because you want it to is ridiculous and idiotic. I believe there are a number of Unification churches that even accept gay clergy. They should go there.

Because supporting your gay daughter in pursuit of her equal rights IS THE SAME as denying the keystone of christian belief.





As I said before, this family is better off now.

 

[Caroljo]

But he didnt tell them they were just doing fine and to keep on, right?

That's not the point. Would he have kicked them out of the church?

Since the church didn't kick them out I don't see your point.

I think the church knew that giving them a choice, they would be leaving, then people wouldn't have a reason to complain that they kicked them out.

Christians know homosexuality is a sin....
as is hundreds of other sins that people do every day.

Who really NEEDS to be in church more? A sinner! This is why Jesus hung around with criminals too....they need him just as much or more than some others.

I don't believe Jesus would have done what this church did. There is not one person in this world that are not sinners in some way. The church doesn't have to "approve" of what your sin is....it's there to help you stop the sinning. How are they going to help people that need help by turning their backs on them??