same sex Marriage question

[PJC]

I have a challenge for you, try to think.

The question was not whether a government would force them to perform a marriage, it was could they be sued?

Want to back up and actually answer the question that was asked, or do you prefer to act like an pompous ass?

Any person can sue any other person for any reason they want, whether someone can file a lawsuit is not the question - whether such action would be successful is the question.

Have interracial couples ever sued a Church or Pastor for not performing an interracial marriage? Don't know, don't care. The fact is that such suit was never won.

Have interfaith couples ever sued a Church or Pastor for not performing an interfaith marriage? Don't know, don't care. The fact is that such suit was never won.

Have divorced couples ever sued a Church or Pastor for not performing an divorced marriage? Don't know, don't care. The fact is that such suit was never won.

Have same-sex couples ever sued a Church or Pastor for not performing an same-sex marriage? Don't know, don't care. The fact is that such suit was never won.


>>>>

Can you prove your assertions, or are they simply based on your arrogant belief that you know everything?

Note, I agree with you that such suit should, and probably will, lose. I just doubt that, in this country, that it always happens that way.

In fact, I can imagine some circumstances where I might actually come down on the side of the couples who filed the suit.

One can't prove a negative; therefore the burden of proof lies on you to show where there has been any suit which was successful.

so far all you've given us is grade school retorts , erroneous assertions, evidence that you have a hard time understanding others, and mindless bunk.

Care to provide facts or logic now?

 

[PJC]

The fact that you don't think the group is a church does not mean they do not think of themselves as a church. And, as you yourself pointed out, marriages are religious ceremonies in the eyes of churches. I don't give a fuck what the law says they agreed to, just like I don't give a fuck that the law used to make slavery legal. The law is wrong.

Feel free to justify the law in an stupid attempt to prove that you are right.

The pavilion was open for public accommodation and therefore did not have religious exemption. They were not forced to perform any religious ceremony whatsoever. It was strictly about the use of the pavilion that had been open to the public with unfettered access until that one time.

As far as not giving a fuck what the law says they agreed to, hmmmm; I see. So if an associate of yours borrows $10,000 from you and agrees in a written contract to repay you, but later reneges and refused to pay you back; you have no problem with that, now do you?

‘Cause you don’t give a fuck what the law says your associate agreed to, just like you don’t give a fuck that the law used to make slavery legal; and your associate can say he’s not gonna pay you back cause…as you said… “The law is wrong.”

Or perhaps you would have a problem, cause then it would affect you, right? People like you seem to only care about the law when it affects them; but feel like they don’t actually have to abide by the law themselves.

Face it, bruh; you’re one hell of a hypocrite. Tsk tsk.

Furthermore, it is not a church, regardless of your lie. The court docket proves this.
“The investigation disclosed that Respondent is a non-profit organization governed by a Board of Trustees. As provided by Respondent’s charter, all of the Trustees must be members of the United Methodist Church; at least ten must be clergy and at least ten non-clergy. In addition, Respondent appoints Associate Trustees, who need not be members of the United Methodist Church, but may belong to any Christian denomination.”

Can’t be a church when some of the trustees have to be members of a church and some trustees are not even in the same denomination.

Furthermore, the LifeSite news article you supplied said: “Scott Hoffman, chief administrative officer of the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association told LifeSiteNews.com on July 10, that the particular part of the grounds the two women wanted to use, “is a facility we have used exclusively for our camp mission meeting and worship celebrations since 1869.”

He lied. It was not used exclusively for their camp mission meeting and worship celebrations.

The beach and Boardwalk Pavilion were open to the public and the Camp Meeting Association had accepted public funds for their maintenance and repairs. The Association also had an application to the State of New Jersey for monies under the state's Green Acres Program, which encourages the use of private property for public recreation and provides a $500,000 annual property tax exemption. In their application for these funds, the Camp Meeting Association stated that the disputed areas were open to the public. U.S. Representative Frank Pallone, Jr., in whose Congressional district Ocean Grove is located, stated "they've taken state, federal and local funds by representing that they are open to the public."

The court docket itself proves that the pavilion was open to the public:
“The investigation disclosed that, every three years after the initial tax exemption, and most recently on or about March 2, 2007, Respondent applied to NJDEP for renewal of Green Acres tax exemptions it had previously received, including the exemption for the Boardwalk Pavilion. In completing NJDEP’s recertification forms, Respondent wrote that, regarding the properties last designated as Green Acres tax exempt, “all segments [are] open to all public.”

Then, when faced with having to allow lesbians access to that pavilion, they lied and claimed that it is not open to the public.

Proof that they lied their little asses off. For shame. Who woulda thunk it, eh? Good Christian folk…..lying??!!! Gasp, and golly even. What’s next; white sheets and burning crosses in the name of God?

I’m shocked…nay, appalled mind you!

Yuk yuk yuk.