Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[JakeStarkey]

RMK, quit it while you are only five miles behind.

Should Churches be forced to accommodate for homosexual weddings? I am sure that everyone on this board probably agrees that only the "force" of violated public accommodation laws should be considered about the OP.

Yes, well when it comes to restrictions on what liberties we can have, the civil rights act has enshrined that public accommodations cannot be prohibited by the people. This of course does not apply to the government. The government can take your civil rights at will for any reason they want be it race, religion, creed, sexual preference etc.. It used to be the Constitution restricted government action. Now it has been twisted by the 14th, 16th, and commerce clause to restrict our liberties instead. Turned completely upside down the constitution is.

The Constitution prevents you and your podjos from victimizing folks of their civil and personal liberties is what you don't like.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, you are right. Almost no one wants to force any type of anyone's marriage into a church or synagogue or mosque or whatever where it is not wanted.

Which has nothing to do with the marriage equality issue, which is about folks being allowed to marry the person of his or her choice.

 

[Silhouette]

Sil, you are right. Almost no one wants to force any type of anyone's marriage into a church or synagogue or mosque or whatever where it is not wanted.

Which has nothing to do with the marriage equality issue, which is about folks being allowed to marry the person of his or her choice.

If person "A" doesn't believe gays should be married in a church that doesn't want to perform a gay marriage, what does that say about any alleged vehemence that person "A" might have in their "support for gay marriage"?

85% is a large number muchacho. Spin away.

 

[RKMBrown]

RMK, quit it while you are only five miles behind.

Should Churches be forced to accommodate for homosexual weddings? I am sure that everyone on this board probably agrees that only the "force" of violated public accommodation laws should be considered about the OP.

Yes, well when it comes to restrictions on what liberties we can have, the civil rights act has enshrined that public accommodations cannot be prohibited by the people. This of course does not apply to the government. The government can take your civil rights at will for any reason they want be it race, religion, creed, sexual preference etc.. It used to be the Constitution restricted government action. Now it has been twisted by the 14th, 16th, and commerce clause to restrict our liberties instead. Turned completely upside down the constitution is.

The Constitution prevents you and your podjos from victimizing folks of their civil and personal liberties is what you don't like.

You are a lying piece of shit.

 

[RKMBrown]

I still think the real importance of this thread, diversions aside, is that 85% of the very large turnout on the poll [largest ever at USMB?] believe gay marriage should not be forced upon people who don't want it in the building. You have to assume that if they don't believe it should be performed in churches that don't want it there, that they also are behind states choosing if they or polygamists etc behaviors can marry there.

Adjust your political platform accordingly..

You know what they say about assuming right?

 

[WorldWatcher]

I still think the real importance of this thread, diversions aside, is that 85% of the very large turnout on the poll [largest ever at USMB?] believe gay marriage should not be forced upon people who don't want it in the building. You have to assume that if they don't believe it should be performed in churches that don't want it there, that they also are behind states choosing if they or polygamists etc behaviors can marry there.

That of course is a wrong assumption.

There is a difference between a private entity that qualifies as a private organization (See Boy Scouts of America v. Dale) which restricts access to internal use based on private club membership (which legally is what a Church congregation is) and government entities discriminating against it's own Citizens (potentially) in violation of the 14th Amendment.



So my opinions, unlike your "assumptions", is that...

1. Government entities should not discriminate against it's citizens without a compelling government interests and in the case of SSCM there is none.

2. Public Accommodation laws which restrict the property and free association rights of private entities, such as for profit businesses and non-profit entities (which would include Churches) should be free to refuse service on whatever criteria they choose. Be it race, ethnicity, national origin, age, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, parental status, or veteran's status.



>>>>

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, well when it comes to restrictions on what liberties we can have, the civil rights act has enshrined that public accommodations cannot be prohibited by the people. This of course does not apply to the government. The government can take your civil rights at will for any reason they want be it race, religion, creed, sexual preference etc.. It used to be the Constitution restricted government action. Now it has been twisted by the 14th, 16th, and commerce clause to restrict our liberties instead. Turned completely upside down the constitution is.

The Constitution prevents you and your podjos from victimizing folks of their civil and personal liberties is what you don't like.

You are a lying piece of shit.

Your display here why we have and requires the use of the 14th Amendment to protect personal and civil liberty.

 

[Gadawg73]

I still think the real importance of this thread, diversions aside, is that 85% of the very large turnout on the poll [largest ever at USMB?] believe gay marriage should not be forced upon people who don't want it in the building. You have to assume that if they don't believe it should be performed in churches that don't want it there, that they also are behind states choosing if they or polygamists etc behaviors can marry there.

Adjust your political platform accordingly..

We do not live in a majority rule country.
Something about the Constitution which tells GOVERNMENT what GOVERNMENT can not do.
The Constitution NEVER tells what a minority can not do because of what the majority may want.
The Constitution is an interesting document. I strongly suggest you read it.
I highly recommend it.

 

[Andylusion]

I still think the real importance of this thread, diversions aside, is that 85% of the very large turnout on the poll [largest ever at USMB?] believe gay marriage should not be forced upon people who don't want it in the building. You have to assume that if they don't believe it should be performed in churches that don't want it there, that they also are behind states choosing if they or polygamists etc behaviors can marry there.

Adjust your political platform accordingly..

We do not live in a majority rule country.
Something about the Constitution which tells GOVERNMENT what GOVERNMENT can not do.
The Constitution NEVER tells what a minority can not do because of what the majority may want.
The Constitution is an interesting document. I strongly suggest you read it.
I highly recommend it.

Funny how quickly the left flip flops on this arugment.

When Obama wins the election, everyone is supposed to shut up and do whatever the left wants, because we're a Democracy, and the majority rules with an iron fist.

Then when the majority is against the left on any particular topic, suddenly 'oh wait... there's a constitution, and the majority doesn't rule'.

My answer is the same as before... Democracy, the Constitution, and my faith in G-d, are on differently levels. I will obey the first two, until they violate the third. G-d is at the top of my authority list, not the bottom.

If push comes to shove, and I have to choose between the Constitution and a bunch of Homo lobbiests, or G-d, I'll choose G-d.

In other words, you and the Majority, and the Constitution, can go jump off a cliff, if you tell me I have to violate G-d's law. I don't care what either says, if you contradict G-d.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Androw, good for you, but nobody really cares.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Androw, no one is going to make you marry a guy, ever.

 

[Gadawg73]

I still think the real importance of this thread, diversions aside, is that 85% of the very large turnout on the poll [largest ever at USMB?] believe gay marriage should not be forced upon people who don't want it in the building. You have to assume that if they don't believe it should be performed in churches that don't want it there, that they also are behind states choosing if they or polygamists etc behaviors can marry there.

Adjust your political platform accordingly..

We do not live in a majority rule country.
Something about the Constitution which tells GOVERNMENT what GOVERNMENT can not do.
The Constitution NEVER tells what a minority can not do because of what the majority may want.
The Constitution is an interesting document. I strongly suggest you read it.
I highly recommend it.

Funny how quickly the left flip flops on this arugment.

When Obama wins the election, everyone is supposed to shut up and do whatever the left wants, because we're a Democracy, and the majority rules with an iron fist.

Then when the majority is against the left on any particular topic, suddenly 'oh wait... there's a constitution, and the majority doesn't rule'.

My answer is the same as before... Democracy, the Constitution, and my faith in G-d, are on differently levels. I will obey the first two, until they violate the third. G-d is at the top of my authority list, not the bottom.

If push comes to shove, and I have to choose between the Constitution and a bunch of Homo lobbiests, or G-d, I'll choose G-d.

In other words, you and the Majority, and the Constitution, can go jump off a cliff, if you tell me I have to violate G-d's law. I don't care what either says, if you contradict G-d.

I am not the left or the majority and it does not matter what the left or the right or the majority "wants".

Something about The Constitution.

Speaking of "God's law":
God's law is do not judge, to love thy neighbor and do unto your neighbor as you would have him do unto you.
Speaking of contradicting God.

 

[Andylusion]

We do not live in a majority rule country.
Something about the Constitution which tells GOVERNMENT what GOVERNMENT can not do.
The Constitution NEVER tells what a minority can not do because of what the majority may want.
The Constitution is an interesting document. I strongly suggest you read it.
I highly recommend it.

Funny how quickly the left flip flops on this arugment.

When Obama wins the election, everyone is supposed to shut up and do whatever the left wants, because we're a Democracy, and the majority rules with an iron fist.

Then when the majority is against the left on any particular topic, suddenly 'oh wait... there's a constitution, and the majority doesn't rule'.

My answer is the same as before... Democracy, the Constitution, and my faith in G-d, are on differently levels. I will obey the first two, until they violate the third. G-d is at the top of my authority list, not the bottom.

If push comes to shove, and I have to choose between the Constitution and a bunch of Homo lobbiests, or G-d, I'll choose G-d.

In other words, you and the Majority, and the Constitution, can go jump off a cliff, if you tell me I have to violate G-d's law. I don't care what either says, if you contradict G-d.

I am not the left or the majority and it does not matter what the left or the right or the majority "wants".

Something about The Constitution.

Speaking of "God's law":
God's law is do not judge, to love thy neighbor and do unto your neighbor as you would have him do unto you.
Speaking of contradicting God.

You are right, and it would not matter if you were or not, or anything about the Constitution.

Nothing I said contradicts G-d. Again, I know you have your own personal adaptive version of the Bible. So I'm sure I contradict 'your version'. But I don't care about your version. Thanks.

 

[Gadawg73]

Funny how quickly the left flip flops on this arugment.

When Obama wins the election, everyone is supposed to shut up and do whatever the left wants, because we're a Democracy, and the majority rules with an iron fist.

Then when the majority is against the left on any particular topic, suddenly 'oh wait... there's a constitution, and the majority doesn't rule'.

My answer is the same as before... Democracy, the Constitution, and my faith in G-d, are on differently levels. I will obey the first two, until they violate the third. G-d is at the top of my authority list, not the bottom.

If push comes to shove, and I have to choose between the Constitution and a bunch of Homo lobbiests, or G-d, I'll choose G-d.

In other words, you and the Majority, and the Constitution, can go jump off a cliff, if you tell me I have to violate G-d's law. I don't care what either says, if you contradict G-d.

I am not the left or the majority and it does not matter what the left or the right or the majority "wants".

Something about The Constitution.

Speaking of "God's law":
God's law is do not judge, to love thy neighbor and do unto your neighbor as you would have him do unto you.
Speaking of contradicting God.

You are right, and it would not matter if you were or not, or anything about the Constitution.

Nothing I said contradicts G-d. Again, I know you have your own personal adaptive version of the Bible. So I'm sure I contradict 'your version'. But I don't care about your version. Thanks.

The Constitution DOES MATTER as that is ALL that matters under the law.
And God ain't in it.

WE are a nation OF LAWS, NOT men and their various and changing like the wind religious views, beliefs and opinions.

 

[Seawytch]

I still think the real importance of this thread, diversions aside, is that 85% of the very large turnout on the poll [largest ever at USMB?] believe gay marriage should not be forced upon people who don't want it in the building. You have to assume that if they don't believe it should be performed in churches that don't want it there, that they also are behind states choosing if they or polygamists etc behaviors can marry there.

Adjust your political platform accordingly..

We do not live in a majority rule country.
Something about the Constitution which tells GOVERNMENT what GOVERNMENT can not do.
The Constitution NEVER tells what a minority can not do because of what the majority may want.
The Constitution is an interesting document. I strongly suggest you read it.
I highly recommend it.

Funny how quickly the left flip flops on this arugment.

When Obama wins the election, everyone is supposed to shut up and do whatever the left wants, because we're a Democracy, and the majority rules with an iron fist.

Then when the majority is against the left on any particular topic, suddenly 'oh wait... there's a constitution, and the majority doesn't rule'.

You're misrepresenting the facts. Is that intentional?

When a law that is passed someone believes is unconstitutional, it gets challenged. You understand basic government, right?

My answer is the same as before... Democracy, the Constitution, and my faith in G-d, are on differently levels. I will obey the first two, until they violate the third. G-d is at the top of my authority list, not the bottom.

If push comes to shove, and I have to choose between the Constitution and a bunch of Homo lobbiests, or G-d, I'll choose G-d.

In other words, you and the Majority, and the Constitution, can go jump off a cliff, if you tell me I have to violate G-d's law. I don't care what either says, if you contradict G-d.

If god is at the top of your "authority" list, perhaps a Democracy is not where you want to reside...or do you wish to turn this country into a theocracy?

 

[Seawytch]

I still think the real importance of this thread, diversions aside, is that 85% of the very large turnout on the poll [largest ever at USMB?] believe gay marriage should not be forced upon people who don't want it in the building. You have to assume that if they don't believe it should be performed in churches that don't want it there, that they also are behind states choosing if they or polygamists etc behaviors can marry there.

That of course is a wrong assumption.

There is a difference between a private entity that qualifies as a private organization (See Boy Scouts of America v. Dale) which restricts access to internal use based on private club membership (which legally is what a Church congregation is) and government entities discriminating against it's own Citizens (potentially) in violation of the 14th Amendment.



So my opinions, unlike your "assumptions", is that...

1. Government entities should not discriminate against it's citizens without a compelling government interests and in the case of SSCM there is none.

2. Public Accommodation laws which restrict the property and free association rights of private entities, such as for profit businesses and non-profit entities (which would include Churches) should be free to refuse service on whatever criteria they choose. Be it race, ethnicity, national origin, age, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, parental status, or veteran's status.



>>>>

Agreed...with one caveat...as long as I cannot discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, age, gender, marital status, parental status, or veteran's status...they shouldn't be able to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Just sayin...

 

[RKMBrown]

I still think the real importance of this thread, diversions aside, is that 85% of the very large turnout on the poll [largest ever at USMB?] believe gay marriage should not be forced upon people who don't want it in the building. You have to assume that if they don't believe it should be performed in churches that don't want it there, that they also are behind states choosing if they or polygamists etc behaviors can marry there.

Adjust your political platform accordingly..

We do not live in a majority rule country.
Something about the Constitution which tells GOVERNMENT what GOVERNMENT can not do.
The Constitution NEVER tells what a minority can not do because of what the majority may want.
The Constitution is an interesting document. I strongly suggest you read it.
I highly recommend it.

That was true at the forming of the country. Then the Constitution bastardized and amended to change it into a majority rule country. Minority groups, for example the upper middle class income earners, white males, interstate commerce traders, are explicitly targeted by the majority. White males are targeted to be punished by AA. The fourteenth amendment clearly states that the minority is subject to the whims of the majority via due process. The commerce clause clearly states that the minority is subject to the whims of the majority. The sixteenth amendment clearly states that the minority is subject to the whims of the majority.

Face it, we are fighting wars without congress approval. We are fighting wars against our selves (drug war). Our president can declare you a criminal and punish you to his desire without trial.

Gone are the days when prohibition required an Amendment to the constitution. Gone! Now we have drug prohibition without an amendment.

What do these facts that tell you about the state of this Constitution?

The civil rights bill though a good bill, points out clearly that our liberties can be taken from us without an Amendment. You can be forced to provide public accommodation against your will if you so choose to sell product. No amendment was required.

 

[RKMBrown]

I am not the left or the majority and it does not matter what the left or the right or the majority "wants".

Something about The Constitution.

Speaking of "God's law":
God's law is do not judge, to love thy neighbor and do unto your neighbor as you would have him do unto you.
Speaking of contradicting God.

You are right, and it would not matter if you were or not, or anything about the Constitution.

Nothing I said contradicts G-d. Again, I know you have your own personal adaptive version of the Bible. So I'm sure I contradict 'your version'. But I don't care about your version. Thanks.

The Constitution DOES MATTER as that is ALL that matters under the law.
And God ain't in it.

WE are a nation OF LAWS, NOT men and their various and changing like the wind religious views, beliefs and opinions.

Not any more. We are now a nation of lawlessness, where our AG and POTUS operate a crime syndicate, aka. the democrat party.

 

[Gadawg73]

I still think the real importance of this thread, diversions aside, is that 85% of the very large turnout on the poll [largest ever at USMB?] believe gay marriage should not be forced upon people who don't want it in the building. You have to assume that if they don't believe it should be performed in churches that don't want it there, that they also are behind states choosing if they or polygamists etc behaviors can marry there.

Adjust your political platform accordingly..

We do not live in a majority rule country.
Something about the Constitution which tells GOVERNMENT what GOVERNMENT can not do.
The Constitution NEVER tells what a minority can not do because of what the majority may want.
The Constitution is an interesting document. I strongly suggest you read it.
I highly recommend it.

That was true at the forming of the country. Then the Constitution bastardized and amended to change it into a majority rule country. Minority groups, for example the upper middle class income earners, white males, interstate commerce traders, are explicitly targeted by the majority. White males are targeted to be punished by AA. The fourteenth amendment clearly states that the minority is subject to the whims of the majority via due process. The commerce clause clearly states that the minority is subject to the whims of the majority. The sixteenth amendment clearly states that the minority is subject to the whims of the majority.

Face it, we are fighting wars without congress approval. We are fighting wars against our selves (drug war). Our president can declare you a criminal and punish you to his desire without trial.

Gone are the days when prohibition required an Amendment to the constitution. Gone! Now we have drug prohibition without an amendment.

What do these facts that tell you about the state of this Constitution?

The civil rights bill though a good bill, points out clearly that our liberties can be taken from us without an Amendment. You can be forced to provide public accommodation against your will if you so choose to sell product. No amendment was required.

AA has not affected me and I am a white male. It possibly could have affected me but it has not. Many people are subjected to the law but are not affected. Probably a majority of white males are not affected by the law. Many laws affect certain segments of the population. Commerce Clause is in the Constitution and that was what was ruled as applicable with the Civil Rights Act dealing with public accommodation.
Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States Congress could use the power granted to it by the Constitution's Commerce Clause.

That hotel was on Courtland ST. almost across the street from my first agency in Atlanta, had another name when I was there and is now a parking lot at Baker and Courtland.

 

[Gadawg73]

You are right, and it would not matter if you were or not, or anything about the Constitution.

Nothing I said contradicts G-d. Again, I know you have your own personal adaptive version of the Bible. So I'm sure I contradict 'your version'. But I don't care about your version. Thanks.

The Constitution DOES MATTER as that is ALL that matters under the law.
And God ain't in it.

WE are a nation OF LAWS, NOT men and their various and changing like the wind religious views, beliefs and opinions.

Not any more. We are now a nation of lawlessness, where our AG and POTUS operate a crime syndicate, aka. the democrat party.

No, not what I like either but not what you claim.