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

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

What makes it ironic? I am not the one saying that they cannot be sued.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Correct.

But conservatives are going to repeat that lie often enough in the hope it’s perceived to be true, particularly to fellow ignorant conservatives.

Not nearly as stupid as arguing that religious organizations cannot be sued, which is what you just argued.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And Churches can't be sued. The 1st Amendment guarantees that.

Churches are sued all the time.

And?

That there are those who perceive lawsuits as some sort of de facto ‘weapon’ to use against churches, even though such suits are completely devoid of merit, to ‘intimidate’ churches into marrying same-sex couples in no way mitigates the fact that same-sex couples have an equal protection right to access marriage law.

Prove that they will be devoid of merit. Keep in mind that state public accommodation laws are only subject to rational basis review.

 

[thanatos144]

This thread is proof that homosexual marriage isn't the goal but destroying religion is...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Have any been sued for not performing a homosexual marriage?

Yes.

And, yes, it was successful.

But keep spouting the lie.

That case concerned the church as a secular, commercial property owner only, it had nothing to do with the church’s religious dogma concerning same-sex couples. The church was not consequently compelled to marry same-sex couples per its marriage rituals, or to acknowledge same-sex marriage in the context of its dogma, or to change its religious practices in any manner.

It was a church. The fact that they successfully argued that it wasn't a church for the purpose of the lawsuit does not change the fact that a church was sued for not accommodating a same sex wedding, does it?

 

[Seawytch]

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.

It would not. If life actually worked the way it does in your imagination the suit against the photographer would have been thrown out on the same grounds. Not only was it not thrown out, she lost, even though it clearly violated her 1st Amendment rights in multiple ways.

Try admitting you are wrong for once. Just try it.

No, the suit against the photographer was about Public Accommodation and has NOTHING to do with civil marriage. Public Accommodation laws have been upheld by the same SCOTUS that ruled that a private organization like the BSA has the right to discriminate in its membership.

You're the one that needs to admit you're wrong. No church has ever nor will they ever be forced to perform a religious ceremony to "marry" a couple.

 

[Seawytch]

Yes.

And, yes, it was successful.

But keep spouting the lie.

That case concerned the church as a secular, commercial property owner only, it had nothing to do with the church’s religious dogma concerning same-sex couples. The church was not consequently compelled to marry same-sex couples per its marriage rituals, or to acknowledge same-sex marriage in the context of its dogma, or to change its religious practices in any manner.

It was a church. The fact that they successfully argued that it wasn't a church for the purpose of the lawsuit does not change the fact that a church was sued for not accommodating a same sex wedding, does it?

You need to re-read the particulars of the case. You seem to be missing something...like the part where the clergy had to perform the ceremony. Oh, that's because they didn't.

The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association is not a church. Granted, they have some affiliation with the United Methodist Church, however the controversy was the result of the non-church status of the OGCMA. That organization, because it is not a church, applied for a “Green Acres” tax exemption via the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. The tax exemption required that the OCGMA allow use of its facilities to the public “on an equal basis.”

State of New Jersey

Because the OGCMA allowed the public to use the pavilion for weddings, and because the OGCMA voluntarily agreed to make its facilities open to the public “on an equal basis” in exchange for a tax break, the court ruled that the OCGMA could not exclude same-sex weddings from its pavilion.​

 

[The Rabbi]

And Churches can't be sued. The 1st Amendment guarantees that.

Churches are sued all the time.

And?

That there are those who perceive lawsuits as some sort of de facto ‘weapon’ to use against churches, even though such suits are completely devoid of merit, to ‘intimidate’ churches into marrying same-sex couples in no way mitigates the fact that same-sex couples have an equal protection right to access marriage law.

So the contention that chuches cannot be sued is wrong.
They do not have equal protection, just like incestuous couples or adulterous couples do not have equal protection.

 

[Moonglow]

This thread is proof that homosexual marriage isn't the goal but destroying religion is...

rrrriiiight..

 

[Seawytch]

Churches are sued all the time.

And?

That there are those who perceive lawsuits as some sort of de facto ‘weapon’ to use against churches, even though such suits are completely devoid of merit, to ‘intimidate’ churches into marrying same-sex couples in no way mitigates the fact that same-sex couples have an equal protection right to access marriage law.

So the contention that chuches cannot be sued is wrong.
They do not have equal protection, just like incestuous couples or adulterous couples do not have equal protection.

It was never meant to contend they can't be sued, but that they cannot be successfully sued to perform a marriage ceremony.

 

[thanatos144]

This thread is proof that homosexual marriage isn't the goal but destroying religion is...

rrrriiiight..

You would fist be able to have a brain to see it so I dont expect you to be able.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

It would not. If life actually worked the way it does in your imagination the suit against the photographer would have been thrown out on the same grounds. Not only was it not thrown out, she lost, even though it clearly violated her 1st Amendment rights in multiple ways.

Try admitting you are wrong for once. Just try it.

No, the suit against the photographer was about Public Accommodation and has NOTHING to do with civil marriage. Public Accommodation laws have been upheld by the same SCOTUS that ruled that a private organization like the BSA has the right to discriminate in its membership.

You're the one that needs to admit you're wrong. No church has ever nor will they ever be forced to perform a religious ceremony to "marry" a couple.

You want me to admit I am wrong? I can do that, you convinced me.

I thought you were intelligent, I was wrong.

Feel free to live in you delusional world, just don't expect me to let your delusions affect the reality I live in.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That case concerned the church as a secular, commercial property owner only, it had nothing to do with the church’s religious dogma concerning same-sex couples. The church was not consequently compelled to marry same-sex couples per its marriage rituals, or to acknowledge same-sex marriage in the context of its dogma, or to change its religious practices in any manner.

It was a church. The fact that they successfully argued that it wasn't a church for the purpose of the lawsuit does not change the fact that a church was sued for not accommodating a same sex wedding, does it?

You need to re-read the particulars of the case. You seem to be missing something...like the part where the clergy had to perform the ceremony. Oh, that's because they didn't.

The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association is not a church. Granted, they have some affiliation with the United Methodist Church, however the controversy was the result of the non-church status of the OGCMA. That organization, because it is not a church, applied for a “Green Acres” tax exemption via the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. The tax exemption required that the OCGMA allow use of its facilities to the public “on an equal basis.”

State of New Jersey

Because the OGCMA allowed the public to use the pavilion for weddings, and because the OGCMA voluntarily agreed to make its facilities open to the public “on an equal basis” in exchange for a tax break, the court ruled that the OCGMA could not exclude same-sex weddings from its pavilion.​

A church was sued because they refused to allow a same sex marraige. You claimed that would never happen, it did. You don't get to argue that you didn't mean what you said now.

 

[Seawytch]

It was a church. The fact that they successfully argued that it wasn't a church for the purpose of the lawsuit does not change the fact that a church was sued for not accommodating a same sex wedding, does it?

You need to re-read the particulars of the case. You seem to be missing something...like the part where the clergy had to perform the ceremony. Oh, that's because they didn't.

The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association is not a church. Granted, they have some affiliation with the United Methodist Church, however the controversy was the result of the non-church status of the OGCMA. That organization, because it is not a church, applied for a “Green Acres” tax exemption via the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. The tax exemption required that the OCGMA allow use of its facilities to the public “on an equal basis.”

State of New Jersey

Because the OGCMA allowed the public to use the pavilion for weddings, and because the OGCMA voluntarily agreed to make its facilities open to the public “on an equal basis” in exchange for a tax break, the court ruled that the OCGMA could not exclude same-sex weddings from its pavilion.​

A church was sued because they refused to allow a same sex marraige. You claimed that would never happen, it did. You don't get to argue that you didn't mean what you said now.

Why do you insist on telling an untruth? What purpose does it serve? They were not sued to perform the ceremony. No church has ever been successfully sued to perform a wedding ceremony.

 

[theword]

After same-sex couple victory in Collegedale, church ousts gay detective's family | timesfreepress.com

Collegedale's decision to grant benefits to same-sex couples was a victory for Kat Cooper, a gay detective who championed the months-long effort that made the Chattanooga suburb the first city in Tennessee to offer benefits to same-sex spouses of its government employees.

Cooper's mother, Linda, stood by her side throughout the process. She held tight to her daughter's hand at a July meeting over the issue. And the two embraced after the City Council's 4-1 vote on Aug. 5.

But those small acts of support translated into collateral damage that left Linda Cooper and other relatives separated from their church family of more than 60 years. And one local advocate for gay families says the church's stance was the most extreme he's heard of in years.

Leaders at Ridgedale Church of Christ met in private with Kat Cooper's mother, aunt and uncle on Sunday after the regular worship service. They were given an ultimatum: They could repent for their sins and ask forgiveness in front of the congregation. Or leave the church.

Copyright violation edited.

God hates fags....

Worse yet, most Christian churches won't even allow God's last saint to step on their property without having them send their security guards after him.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You need to re-read the particulars of the case. You seem to be missing something...like the part where the clergy had to perform the ceremony. Oh, that's because they didn't.

The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association is not a church. Granted, they have some affiliation with the United Methodist Church, however the controversy was the result of the non-church status of the OGCMA. That organization, because it is not a church, applied for a “Green Acres” tax exemption via the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. The tax exemption required that the OCGMA allow use of its facilities to the public “on an equal basis.”

State of New Jersey

Because the OGCMA allowed the public to use the pavilion for weddings, and because the OGCMA voluntarily agreed to make its facilities open to the public “on an equal basis” in exchange for a tax break, the court ruled that the OCGMA could not exclude same-sex weddings from its pavilion.​

A church was sued because they refused to allow a same sex marraige. You claimed that would never happen, it did. You don't get to argue that you didn't mean what you said now.

Why do you insist on telling an untruth? What purpose does it serve? They were not sued to perform the ceremony. No church has ever been successfully sued to perform a wedding ceremony.

Yet.

 

[DisturbedDelenn]

God hates fags....

no, God hates the sin they are committing.

Do they plan on kicking every sinner out of the church, or just the gay ones?

The thing about Christianity, is that we all know we are all sinners. However, we repent and try not to commit the sin again. OF course we all falter from time to time, we're only human. In the case of people who openly commit the same sin over and over without repenting, well, they get kicked out of certain churches. And it is their right to do so. Just like, if someone in your life keeps on doing things against you, something that you consider to be egregious, and you ask them not to. They may apologize, but then they continue to do it and expect you to be tolerant. How long before you "kick" that person out of your life? Or are you going to continue to let them be in your life even though they continue the same thing over and over, obviously unrepentant and not caring how it affects you?

 

[Seawytch]

A church was sued because they refused to allow a same sex marraige. You claimed that would never happen, it did. You don't get to argue that you didn't mean what you said now.

Why do you insist on telling an untruth? What purpose does it serve? They were not sued to perform the ceremony. No church has ever been successfully sued to perform a wedding ceremony.

Yet.

Oh please. Gays didn't put the Public Accommodation laws in place, most of those protect other minorities.

No interfaith or interracial couple was ever successful in requiring a church to 1) admit them as members or 2) marry them in a ceremony. Why? Because the 1st Amendment prohibits it. It will be no different with gays. Churches will change due to societal, not judicial, pressure just as they always have.

 

[theword]

no, God hates the sin they are committing.

Do they plan on kicking every sinner out of the church, or just the gay ones?

The thing about Christianity, is that we all know we are all sinners. However, we repent and try not to commit the sin again. OF course we all falter from time to time, we're only human. In the case of people who openly commit the same sin over and over without repenting, well, they get kicked out of certain churches. And it is their right to do so. Just like, if someone in your life keeps on doing things against you, something that you consider to be egregious, and you ask them not to. They may apologize, but then they continue to do it and expect you to be tolerant. How long before you "kick" that person out of your life? Or are you going to continue to let them be in your life even though they continue the same thing over and over, obviously unrepentant and not caring how it affects you?

The real reason you can't obey the commandments of God is because God made you a sinner and keeps you that way until your flesh perishes.

Only us saints were changed by God through His process of confession, repentance, justification and then born again into His invisible Kingdom to begin speaking for Him for the rest of eternity.

1 John 2:
4: He who says "I know him" but disobeys his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him;

1 John 3:
4: Every one who commits sin is guilty of lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.

6: No one who abides in him sins; no one who sins has either seen him or known him.

8: He who commits sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.


Like I said, the sinful flesh of man has to perish before waking up to the Truth of who God is and who they are in Him.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why do you insist on telling an untruth? What purpose does it serve? They were not sued to perform the ceremony. No church has ever been successfully sued to perform a wedding ceremony.

Yet.

Oh please. Gays didn't put the Public Accommodation laws in place, most of those protect other minorities.

No interfaith or interracial couple was ever successful in requiring a church to 1) admit them as members or 2) marry them in a ceremony. Why? Because the 1st Amendment prohibits it. It will be no different with gays. Churches will change due to societal, not judicial, pressure just as they always have.

What the fuck difference does it make who wrote the laws? As long as they exist people are going to be sued for not bowing down to the gay agenda.