Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Go right ahead. Still is not a church being successfully sued to perform a ceremony against their faith.
And no, I never said public accommodation laws wouldn't happen, but public accommodation laws have nothing to do with marriage equality and vary state to state.
Which has also happened, despite your ignorance.
When? Where? What faith? What state? What Court?
When was a church EVER forced to marry a couple.
And Churches can't be sued. The 1st Amendment guarantees that.
Just like the Boy Scouts in Philadelphia can't be sued because of the 1st Amendment?
BSA v Dale
A private organization is allowed, under certain criteria, to exclude a person from membership through their First Amendment right to freedom of association in spite of state antidiscrimination laws.
Which has also happened, despite your ignorance.
When? Where? What faith? What state? What Court?
When was a church EVER forced to marry a couple.
Is there a reason you want me to post it again? Is it because you want to claim it doesn't meet your definition of a church?
The simple fact is that, if you were right that it is impossible to sue churches over this states would not be specifically righting laws to prohibit churches from being sued. Even you should see that, and admit it. Until you do I see no reason to discuss the further ramifications of states not doing that with you.
Just like the Boy Scouts in Philadelphia can't be sued because of the 1st Amendment?
BSA v Dale
A private organization is allowed, under certain criteria, to exclude a person from membership through their First Amendment right to freedom of association in spite of state antidiscrimination laws.
Which brings up the counterpoint that California is trying to rewrite it's laws to make discrimination against the Boy Scouts legal. Once they do that can you explain why they won't allow couples to sue churches, or even specific pastors, who refuse to marry them?
Of course you can't, which is why your argument that it cannot happen is so stupid.
Churches are sued all the time.
It's too bad we can't apply the consumer fraud laws to them.
If Listerene could be forced to stop claiming their product prevented colds when it was proven it didn't, shouldn't churches be forced to stop claiming there's a heaven when they can't prove that?
Can you prove there isn't? No? The STFU.
Which has also happened, despite your ignorance.
When? Where? What faith? What state? What Court?
When was a church EVER forced to marry a couple.
Is there a reason you want me to post it again? Is it because you want to claim it doesn't meet your definition of a church?
The simple fact is that, if you were right that it is impossible to sue churches over this states would not be specifically righting laws to prohibit churches from being sued. Even you should see that, and admit it. Until you do I see no reason to discuss the further ramifications of states not doing that with you.
Just like the Boy Scouts in Philadelphia can't be sued because of the 1st Amendment?
BSA v Dale
A private organization is allowed, under certain criteria, to exclude a person from membership through their First Amendment right to freedom of association in spite of state antidiscrimination laws.
Which brings up the counterpoint that California is trying to rewrite it's laws to make discrimination against the Boy Scouts legal. Once they do that can you explain why they won't allow couples to sue churches, or even specific pastors, who refuse to marry them?
Of course you can't, which is why your argument that it cannot happen is so stupid.
Yes. It's a win/win. But IMO, the family, in the long run, got the better deal tho they may not know it yet.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.
And so is the church. Since people still have the right to congregate with whom they choose, then they have chosen not to include someone who supports something that they oppose. At least for now, freedom of religion is still one of the enumerated rights of the constitution.
And just exactly what is the keystone tenet of christian belief that this group is denying? If you are saying that the church should embrace this member, regardless of her support of a 'sin', then you once again misunderstand the doctrine. The 'sinner' must repent and renounce the sin.
Christ, as well as most churches attempting to follow His teachings, have always said that we love the sinner, but hate the sin. No one that I know of, including in this instance, has ever been turned away because of the sins that they have PREVIOUSLY commited. Those that confess and repent of their sins can be forgiven of those sins and based upon their belief in Christ, will be like new.
When Christ forgave the prostitute and she joined Him, did He say, that's okay you can continue to be a prostitute? No. Did He say to his followers that it was okay to support prostitutes? No again. The sinner is not the issue. It is the sin itself that is the issue. If you confess (to Christ) and repent of your sins, then you have to stop committing the sin, like the prostitute in the bible. If something IS a sin, then likewise you cannot give it tacit approval. To blow it off by saying, someone is genetically predisposed to commit the sin, is illogical and immaterial. As mortal beings with immortal souls, we are not defined by our actions. We are separate from them. And to support a life style that is defined by this group as a sin is also against the tenets of the church. To say otherwise is a total misunderstanding of the church and its teachings.
When? Where? What faith? What state? What Court?
When was a church EVER forced to marry a couple.
Is there a reason you want me to post it again? Is it because you want to claim it doesn't meet your definition of a church?
The simple fact is that, if you were right that it is impossible to sue churches over this states would not be specifically righting laws to prohibit churches from being sued. Even you should see that, and admit it. Until you do I see no reason to discuss the further ramifications of states not doing that with you.
States do a lot of stupid things. Trying to pass laws that are already covered is just one of them.
Churches cannot be forced to marry any couple. There is nothing you've posted that is contrary to that FACT.
BSA v Dale
A private organization is allowed, under certain criteria, to exclude a person from membership through their First Amendment right to freedom of association in spite of state antidiscrimination laws.
Which brings up the counterpoint that California is trying to rewrite it's laws to make discrimination against the Boy Scouts legal. Once they do that can you explain why they won't allow couples to sue churches, or even specific pastors, who refuse to marry them?
Of course you can't, which is why your argument that it cannot happen is so stupid.
They are attempting to take away their tax exempt status, for their discriminatory practices, that is all.
BSA v Dale
A private organization is allowed, under certain criteria, to exclude a person from membership through their First Amendment right to freedom of association in spite of state antidiscrimination laws.
Which brings up the counterpoint that California is trying to rewrite it's laws to make discrimination against the Boy Scouts legal. Once they do that can you explain why they won't allow couples to sue churches, or even specific pastors, who refuse to marry them?
Of course you can't, which is why your argument that it cannot happen is so stupid.
The BSA lost their tax exempt status due to discrimination....which is totally legal for them to do, but they no longer get the sweetheart deals with government they used to enjoy. Sucks, I guess. But it is what they wanted. The BSA does not get to have their cake and eat it too.
Is there a reason you want me to post it again? Is it because you want to claim it doesn't meet your definition of a church?
The simple fact is that, if you were right that it is impossible to sue churches over this states would not be specifically righting laws to prohibit churches from being sued. Even you should see that, and admit it. Until you do I see no reason to discuss the further ramifications of states not doing that with you.
States do a lot of stupid things. Trying to pass laws that are already covered is just one of them.
Churches cannot be forced to marry any couple. There is nothing you've posted that is contrary to that FACT.
Tell you what, why don't you explain why the 1st Amendment, which applies to the federal government, would stop anyone from suing a church.
There is that annoying alternative you have of admitting you were wrong. Seriously, you might learn something.
Which brings up the counterpoint that California is trying to rewrite it's laws to make discrimination against the Boy Scouts legal. Once they do that can you explain why they won't allow couples to sue churches, or even specific pastors, who refuse to marry them?
Of course you can't, which is why your argument that it cannot happen is so stupid.
The BSA lost their tax exempt status due to discrimination....which is totally legal for them to do, but they no longer get the sweetheart deals with government they used to enjoy. Sucks, I guess. But it is what they wanted. The BSA does not get to have their cake and eat it too.
The BSA is a religious organization, aka church. According to SeaWytch they cannot be sued, or have their tax exempt status taken away.
By the way, thanks for making my point.
Ironically, in order to get their special status, the BSA did the suing.Which brings up the counterpoint that California is trying to rewrite it's laws to make discrimination against the Boy Scouts legal. Once they do that can you explain why they won't allow couples to sue churches, or even specific pastors, who refuse to marry them?
Of course you can't, which is why your argument that it cannot happen is so stupid.
The BSA lost their tax exempt status due to discrimination....which is totally legal for them to do, but they no longer get the sweetheart deals with government they used to enjoy. Sucks, I guess. But it is what they wanted. The BSA does not get to have their cake and eat it too.
The BSA is a religious organization, aka church. According to SeaWytch they cannot be sued, or have their tax exempt status taken away.
By the way, thanks for making my point.
When? Where? What faith? What state? What Court?
When was a church EVER forced to marry a couple.
Is there a reason you want me to post it again? Is it because you want to claim it doesn't meet your definition of a church?
The simple fact is that, if you were right that it is impossible to sue churches over this states would not be specifically righting laws to prohibit churches from being sued. Even you should see that, and admit it. Until you do I see no reason to discuss the further ramifications of states not doing that with you.
States do a lot of stupid things. Trying to pass laws that are already covered is just one of them.
Churches cannot be forced to marry any couple. There is nothing you've posted that is contrary to that FACT.
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.
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.
And Churches can't be sued. The 1st Amendment guarantees that.
Churches are sued all the time.
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.
States do a lot of stupid things. Trying to pass laws that are already covered is just one of them.
Churches cannot be forced to marry any couple. There is nothing you've posted that is contrary to that FACT.
Tell you what, why don't you explain why the 1st Amendment, which applies to the federal government, would stop anyone from suing a church.
There is that annoying alternative you have of admitting you were wrong. Seriously, you might learn something.
It doesn't prevent them from being sued to marry someone (the futility and stupidity of the lawsuits didn't stop Orly Taitz)but the case would would be dismissed on 1st Amendment grounds. No Church has ever been successfully sued to require them to perform a religious ceremony for ANY couple they have a religious objection to. Churches aren't required to marry anyone, nor will they be. Churches will adapt on their own or die, but it won't be legislatively.
The BSA lost their tax exempt status due to discrimination....which is totally legal for them to do, but they no longer get the sweetheart deals with government they used to enjoy. Sucks, I guess. But it is what they wanted. The BSA does not get to have their cake and eat it too.
The BSA is a religious organization, aka church. According to SeaWytch they cannot be sued, or have their tax exempt status taken away.
By the way, thanks for making my point.
It is not a church or religion...despite the fervor of some of its members. The BSA won its SCOTUS case on 1st Amendment grounds.
