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

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You are not a saint, you a lying sack of shit.

 

[whitehall]

Intolerance is in the eye of the beholder. Apparently the left sees nothing wrong with Shria law stoning of women to death for adultery but they get all huffy when it comes to the independent decisions of a Christian church regarding sodomy. I can just as easily say it is intolerant to judge a Church regarding it's beliefs.

 

[Gadawg73]

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.

And Judges will dismiss each and every law suit on summary judgment in favor of the church.
Every time.
Who will file these suits and why if they will lose EVERY time?
What you claim is absurd.

 

[Gadawg73]

Intolerance is in the eye of the beholder. Apparently the left sees nothing wrong with Shria law stoning of women to death for adultery but they get all huffy when it comes to the independent decisions of a Christian church regarding sodomy. I can just as easily say it is intolerant to judge a Church regarding it's beliefs.

Show me some evidence of that in this country.
Where is there tolerance for stoning women to death here?
Come on man, get real.

 

[Gadawg73]

Churches have every right to throw out anyone they want to.
There is no law against stupidity.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

And Judges will dismiss each and every law suit on summary judgment in favor of the church.
Every time.
Who will file these suits and why if they will lose EVERY time?
What you claim is absurd.

That argument would be a lot more convincing if I couldn't point to two different lawsuits filed under public accommodation laws that succeeded.

But, by all means, keep saying it.

 

[whitehall]

Intolerance is in the eye of the beholder. Apparently the left sees nothing wrong with Shria law stoning of women to death for adultery but they get all huffy when it comes to the independent decisions of a Christian church regarding sodomy. I can just as easily say it is intolerant to judge a Church regarding it's beliefs.

Show me some evidence of that in this country.
Where is there tolerance for stoning women to death here?
Come on man, get real.

Surely little outrage for some of the stuff in the Koran and the violence associated with Sharia law. That equals tolerance.

 

[Gadawg73]

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.

And Judges will dismiss each and every law suit on summary judgment in favor of the church.
Every time.
Who will file these suits and why if they will lose EVERY time?
What you claim is absurd.

That argument would be a lot more convincing if I couldn't point to two different lawsuits filed under public accommodation laws that succeeded.

But, by all means, keep saying it.

Gays at churches?
Cite those cases here and the rulings.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And Judges will dismiss each and every law suit on summary judgment in favor of the church.
Every time.
Who will file these suits and why if they will lose EVERY time?
What you claim is absurd.

That argument would be a lot more convincing if I couldn't point to two different lawsuits filed under public accommodation laws that succeeded.

But, by all means, keep saying it.

Gays at churches?
Cite those cases here and the rulings.

Read the fucking thread.

 

[Gadawg73]

Intolerance is in the eye of the beholder. Apparently the left sees nothing wrong with Shria law stoning of women to death for adultery but they get all huffy when it comes to the independent decisions of a Christian church regarding sodomy. I can just as easily say it is intolerant to judge a Church regarding it's beliefs.

Show me some evidence of that in this country.
Where is there tolerance for stoning women to death here?
Come on man, get real.

Surely little outrage for some of the stuff in the Koran and the violence associated with Sharia law. That equals tolerance.

WTF business is it of Americans what the fucking Koran says?
Violence is punished here under AMERICAN law.
Where is there tolerance for that?
Where?

 

[Gadawg73]

The Bible is filled with violence.
Guess we need not tolerate that either.

 

[Gadawg73]

That argument would be a lot more convincing if I couldn't point to two different lawsuits filed under public accommodation laws that succeeded.

But, by all means, keep saying it.

Gays at churches?
Cite those cases here and the rulings.

Read the fucking thread.

Cite the cases.
Thought so, you have ZERO cases where churches were forced to marry gays.

 

[Gadawg73]

There HAVE been many states that have attempted to keep these cases in civil rights courts yet ALL of them are pushed into Federal courts on the grounds that the churches have a constitutional right to use their facilities consistent with their beliefs.
Where the churches have lost is when the courts have ruled, and I believe these administrative courts to be wrong, that the properties involved did not constitute a "church".
They are a building used primarily for events and not worship.
And all of those cases are pushed on appeal into the Federal courts.
Where the churches win.

 

[Gadawg73]

This is the law and it is pretty clear:
If a church owns a separate building and they rent that out to the public for private ceremonies of any kind; Lodge meetings, graduations, birthday parties, whatever to the GENERAL PUBLIC where this is not a church event then they DO have to rent to anyone that applies legally.
BUT for worship ceremonies OR any religious ceremony THEY NEVER have to perform anything for anyone as that IS religious in nature for their own building THEY DO NOT rent to the general public
And NEVER are preachers ever forced to perform ceremonies.
Renting a building to anyone is not religious in any way.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Are people being sued for not bowing to the religious, gender, race or country of origin "agenda" too? That's what most Public Accommodation laws cover. Only a few added "the gheys" to the list for protection against discrimination in Public Accommodation. Don't like 'em, repeal them all...but don't be upset when they stop discrimination against gays too.

People can sue churches all they want to...they won't win if they sue to have a ceremony performed...because the 1st Amendment guarantees their right to discriminate.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

And Judges will dismiss each and every law suit on summary judgment in favor of the church.
Every time.
Who will file these suits and why if they will lose EVERY time?
What you claim is absurd.

That argument would be a lot more convincing if I couldn't point to two different lawsuits filed under public accommodation laws that succeeded.

But, by all means, keep saying it.

Public Accommodation, not a religious ceremony performed by clergy. Repeal all Public Accommodation laws if you want to...it has nothing to do with marriage equality.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There HAVE been many states that have attempted to keep these cases in civil rights courts yet ALL of them are pushed into Federal courts on the grounds that the churches have a constitutional right to use their facilities consistent with their beliefs.
Where the churches have lost is when the courts have ruled, and I believe these administrative courts to be wrong, that the properties involved did not constitute a "church".
They are a building used primarily for events and not worship.
And all of those cases are pushed on appeal into the Federal courts.
Where the churches win.

All of them? Every single one? I know of at least one where that did not happen, does that make you a lying sack of shit, or are you going to claim you were using hyperbole?

Asshole.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This is the law and it is pretty clear:
If a church owns a separate building and they rent that out to the public for private ceremonies of any kind; Lodge meetings, graduations, birthday parties, whatever to the GENERAL PUBLIC where this is not a church event then they DO have to rent to anyone that applies legally.
BUT for worship ceremonies OR any religious ceremony THEY NEVER have to perform anything for anyone as that IS religious in nature for their own building THEY DO NOT rent to the general public
And NEVER are preachers ever forced to perform ceremonies.
Renting a building to anyone is not religious in any way.

Yes, the law is clear, churches can be sued for not allowing same sex marraige. That makes your earlier claim that they cannot wrong.

End of discussion.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Are people being sued for not bowing to the religious, gender, race or country of origin "agenda" too? That's what most Public Accommodation laws cover. Only a few added "the gheys" to the list for protection against discrimination in Public Accommodation. Don't like 'em, repeal them all...but don't be upset when they stop discrimination against gays too.

People can sue churches all they want to...they won't win if they sue to have a ceremony performed...because the 1st Amendment guarantees their right to discriminate.

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.

And, yes, some of the people that file suit on other grounds have an agenda. Most of them do not, but some of them do. For example, there is George Louie, who has filed hundreds of different lawsuits under the ADA, and is quite happy to explain his agenda to anyone that listens.

Yuba City pays man not to file any disability suits - Yolo County News - The Sacramento Bee

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And Judges will dismiss each and every law suit on summary judgment in favor of the church.
Every time.
Who will file these suits and why if they will lose EVERY time?
What you claim is absurd.

That argument would be a lot more convincing if I couldn't point to two different lawsuits filed under public accommodation laws that succeeded.

But, by all means, keep saying it.

Public Accommodation, not a religious ceremony performed by clergy. Repeal all Public Accommodation laws if you want to...it has nothing to do with marriage equality.

Why did you suddenly change your argument to clergy instead of churches? Is it so you wouldn't have to admit you are wrong? What makes you think that clergy will not be subject to the same laws?