Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

And in fact, we've changed our entire restaurant to a private club. Not because we discriminate, but just to protest the idea of "public accommodating"

Would you mind sharing a couple of things...

1. What state is the restaurant in?

2. What is the membership criteria?

3. I don't suppose you would be willing to share the name and city/town where this restaurant would be? (For privacy reasons I can fully understand not wanting to share that, but it would be nice to check out this "private club" restaurant's web site.)


******************

Just be aware, most states exempt bona fide "private clubs" however just hanging sign in the window saying "this is a private club" typically won't cut it. Various factors will be looked at in the case a discrimination case is filed, things such as: Membership criteria, advertising, to the members run the club, profit v. non-profit status, etc.

Anti-Discrimination Laws Applicable to Private Clubs or Not - FindLaw


Take for example COSTCO, it's a private club right? You have to be a "member" to shop their, however public accommodation laws would apply to COSTCO as there is no real "membership" criteria beyond stroking a checked for the annual membership fee.


>>>>

It's a little tricky here really. We already had a private membership available because our county was stupid about serving alcohol, you can if you're a private club but not as a restaurant open to the public, so previously we had just a portion of the restaruant separate from the main and that was our "club" where we had a bar and served, no one under 21 was allowed in there (not by law but just because it made it easier) and by state law , membership was as easy as paying a $5 fee and signing up.

But, in the last election the rules were changed and now it's okay to serve alcohol to whomever, so the private club isn't necessary for that, but we have so many regulars that we don't even really need walk in business and our regulars like the idea of a private restaurant and like I said, just out of protest we've decided to make the entire restaurant a private club.

Section 213-065 Discrimination in public accommodations

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thought you were behind the Zion Curtain, for a moment.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Thought you were behind the Zion Curtain, for a moment.

You thought I was Jewish? LOL we have a steak house, not a deli LOL

 

[WorldWatcher]

And in fact, we've changed our entire restaurant to a private club. Not because we discriminate, but just to protest the idea of "public accommodating"

Would you mind sharing a couple of things...

1. What state is the restaurant in?

2. What is the membership criteria?

3. I don't suppose you would be willing to share the name and city/town where this restaurant would be? (For privacy reasons I can fully understand not wanting to share that, but it would be nice to check out this "private club" restaurant's web site.)


******************

Just be aware, most states exempt bona fide "private clubs" however just hanging sign in the window saying "this is a private club" typically won't cut it. Various factors will be looked at in the case a discrimination case is filed, things such as: Membership criteria, advertising, to the members run the club, profit v. non-profit status, etc.

Anti-Discrimination Laws Applicable to Private Clubs or Not - FindLaw


Take for example COSTCO, it's a private club right? You have to be a "member" to shop their, however public accommodation laws would apply to COSTCO as there is no real "membership" criteria beyond stroking a checked for the annual membership fee.


>>>>

It's a little tricky here really. We already had a private membership available because our county was stupid about serving alcohol, you can if you're a private club but not as a restaurant open to the public, so previously we had just a portion of the restaruant separate from the main and that was our "club" where we had a bar and served, no one under 21 was allowed in there (not by law but just because it made it easier) and by state law , membership was as easy as paying a $5 fee and signing up.

But, in the last election the rules were changed and now it's okay to serve alcohol to whomever, so the private club isn't necessary for that, but we have so many regulars that we don't even really need walk in business and our regulars like the idea of a private restaurant and like I said, just out of protest we've decided to make the entire restaurant a private club.

Section 213-065 Discrimination in public accommodations

So there is no membership criteria, the restaurant simply charges anyone that walks in the door a one time cover charge (or even an annual charge) and calls it a "membership" just like COSTCO.

Sorry but that isn't going to exempt you from public accommodation laws, especially since it's probably a for profit business.

Put up a sign that says we don't service Asians (race), Blacks (color), Jews (religion), Irishman (national origin), women (sex), or blind people (disability). I don't think the results would be that the restaurant with no real selection criteria and that accepts walk-in business would qualify as a bona fide "private club".

No advertising in newspaper? No online advertising? No signage soliciting patronage?


>>>>

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

And in fact, we've changed our entire restaurant to a private club. Not because we discriminate, but just to protest the idea of "public accommodating"

Would you mind sharing a couple of things...

1. What state is the restaurant in?

2. What is the membership criteria?

3. I don't suppose you would be willing to share the name and city/town where this restaurant would be? (For privacy reasons I can fully understand not wanting to share that, but it would be nice to check out this "private club" restaurant's web site.)


******************

Just be aware, most states exempt bona fide "private clubs" however just hanging sign in the window saying "this is a private club" typically won't cut it. Various factors will be looked at in the case a discrimination case is filed, things such as: Membership criteria, advertising, to the members run the club, profit v. non-profit status, etc.

Anti-Discrimination Laws Applicable to Private Clubs or Not - FindLaw


Take for example COSTCO, it's a private club right? You have to be a "member" to shop their, however public accommodation laws would apply to COSTCO as there is no real "membership" criteria beyond stroking a checked for the annual membership fee.


>>>>

It's a little tricky here really. We already had a private membership available because our county was stupid about serving alcohol, you can if you're a private club but not as a restaurant open to the public, so previously we had just a portion of the restaruant separate from the main and that was our "club" where we had a bar and served, no one under 21 was allowed in there (not by law but just because it made it easier) and by state law , membership was as easy as paying a $5 fee and signing up.

But, in the last election the rules were changed and now it's okay to serve alcohol to whomever, so the private club isn't necessary for that, but we have so many regulars that we don't even really need walk in business and our regulars like the idea of a private restaurant and like I said, just out of protest we've decided to make the entire restaurant a private club.

Section 213-065 Discrimination in public accommodations

So there is no membership criteria, the restaurant simply charges anyone that walks in the door a one time cover charge (or even an annual charge) and calls it a "membership" just like COSTCO.

Sorry but that isn't going to exempt you from public accommodation laws, especially since it's probably a for profit business.

Put up a sign that says we don't service Asians (race), Blacks (color), Jews (religion), Irishman (national origin), women (sex), or blind people (disability). I don't think the results would be that the restaurant with no real selection criteria and that accepts walk-in business would qualify as a bona fide "private club".

No advertising in newspaper? No online advertising? No signage soliciting patronage?


>>>>

But we DO serve blacks, Asians, Hispanics, gays, women. Whomever. As long as they are members. And we have an attorney who has said we are well within the state law so I suppose we'll take his word over that of some world watcher on the internet.

And yes , we advertise, as a private club.

 

[WorldWatcher]

And in fact, we've changed our entire restaurant to a private club. Not because we discriminate, but just to protest the idea of "public accommodating"

Would you mind sharing a couple of things...

1. What state is the restaurant in?

2. What is the membership criteria?

3. I don't suppose you would be willing to share the name and city/town where this restaurant would be? (For privacy reasons I can fully understand not wanting to share that, but it would be nice to check out this "private club" restaurant's web site.)


******************

Just be aware, most states exempt bona fide "private clubs" however just hanging sign in the window saying "this is a private club" typically won't cut it. Various factors will be looked at in the case a discrimination case is filed, things such as: Membership criteria, advertising, to the members run the club, profit v. non-profit status, etc.

Anti-Discrimination Laws Applicable to Private Clubs or Not - FindLaw


Take for example COSTCO, it's a private club right? You have to be a "member" to shop their, however public accommodation laws would apply to COSTCO as there is no real "membership" criteria beyond stroking a checked for the annual membership fee.


>>>>

It's a little tricky here really. We already had a private membership available because our county was stupid about serving alcohol, you can if you're a private club but not as a restaurant open to the public, so previously we had just a portion of the restaruant separate from the main and that was our "club" where we had a bar and served, no one under 21 was allowed in there (not by law but just because it made it easier) and by state law , membership was as easy as paying a $5 fee and signing up.

But, in the last election the rules were changed and now it's okay to serve alcohol to whomever, so the private club isn't necessary for that, but we have so many regulars that we don't even really need walk in business and our regulars like the idea of a private restaurant and like I said, just out of protest we've decided to make the entire restaurant a private club.

Section 213-065 Discrimination in public accommodations

So there is no membership criteria, the restaurant simply charges anyone that walks in the door a one time cover charge (or even an annual charge) and calls it a "membership" just like COSTCO.

Sorry but that isn't going to exempt you from public accommodation laws, especially since it's probably a for profit business.

Put up a sign that says we don't service Asians (race), Blacks (color), Jews (religion), Irishman (national origin), women (sex), or blind people (disability). I don't think the results would be that the restaurant with no real selection criteria and that accepts walk-in business would qualify as a bona fide "private club".

No advertising in newspaper? No online advertising? No signage soliciting patronage?


>>>>

But we DO serve blacks, Asians, Hispanics, gays, women. Whomever. As long as they are members. And we have an attorney who has said we are well within the state law so I suppose we'll take his word over that of some world watcher on the internet.

And yes , we advertise, as a private club.

Didn't say you didn't serve blacks, Asians, Hispanics, gays, women.

I said put up a sign and notify the public that you refused to serve Asians or Blacks or Jews or Irishman, or women or blind people and then when the type of people you select (not all of course, just pick one group) comes to the door - turn them away.

See how well an attempt at evading the law would work. "Private Clubs" under the intent of the law are not typically "for profit". "Private Clubs" are are created by the members. "Private Clubs" have bylaws and the leadership is elected by the members. Is this a for profit place? Is it owned by you (or other owners) or is it owned by the members? Are the leaders elected based on votes of the members or are the leaders those that take to profits from the business (i.e the owners) and then hire staff managers?

Gays aren't an issue in your state, they are not listed as one of the classes of people covered under the law.


BTW - as you probably already know, I support the repeal of public accommodation laws as applied to private businesses. They should be free, with few exceptions, to refuse service to prospective customers for whatever reason the business owner chooses.

>>>>

 

[Jarlaxle]

Thought you were behind the Zion Curtain, for a moment.

Are you posting stoned AGAIN, boy?

 

[Seawytch]

BTW - as you probably already know, I support the repeal of public accommodation laws as applied to private businesses. They should be free, with few exceptions, to refuse service to prospective customers for whatever reason the business owner chooses.
>>>>

But you are not the "average bear" (pun intended). You don't believe that as long as they exist, gays should not be included in them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thought you were behind the Zion Curtain, for a moment.

Are you posting stoned AGAIN, boy?

Jarl, thank for the laugh.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I'm glad you are able to laugh at yourself, boy...everyone else has been laughing at you for so long, you might as well join them.

 

[Silhouette]

Jude 1 New Testament [The Warning to the Sober and Sane Christians]

"1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:

2 Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.

3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.

6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.

11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.

12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;

13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.

17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;

18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.

19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.

20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,

21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

22 And of some have compassion, making a difference:

23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,

25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen."

**********************

What I see from reading this is that it appears that the individual homosexual is looking at a lighter sentence on the other side of the veil than the sane christian who knows better but who looks the other way or enables the spread of a homosexual culture ["Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh.."]

The message is clear: If your civilization includes indulging the mentally ill to the point of that illness taking over your civilization, you are doomed if you sit there and do nothing while you know it's happening.

It's Sunday, so, I thought we'd return to the topic of the thread...

 

[Jarlaxle]

Wrong forum, Silly. "Religion" is that way!

 

[Silhouette]

Wrong forum, Silly. "Religion" is that way!

Hey uber-troll, the name of this thread is "Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?"

 

[RKMBrown]

You need to read it again. They are not being forced to marry anyone.

The church owned a public pavilion. The Church rents the public pavilion to the public. The gay couple wanted to rent the pavilion for their ceremony. No church members were required to be present at said ceremony or preside over said ceremony or bless the damn ceremony. We have laws in the USA that prohibit businesses from this sort of discrimination. If a person walks in to your public establishment you can't refuse him service because of the color of his skin, gender, sexual preference etc. That's what happened here and the Church was wrong to refuse access to the public pavilion that the church rented public-ally to the public.

That is a distinction without difference. The pavilion belongs to a church. That makes it CHURCH property.

You're not listening.

That was property that the church was making money on by selling access to the public. Again, it does not matter if you are a church or a biker gang, if you are selling to the public you can't discriminate who you sell to. Do you understand the civil rights act, and other civil rights acts the states put in that augment the federal one?

Of course I understand them, they are unconstitutional.

Not according to the SCOTUS. You can go private and discriminate all you want. Thus a church need only to limit sales to members and then they can discriminate to their ugly hearts content.

sad that you believe it's ugly when people believe something you don't.

You know I'm for allowing gays to marry, but they shouldn't be able to force anyone to participate in anyway.

And in fact, we've changed our entire restaurant to a private club. Not because we discriminate, but just to protest the idea of "public accommodating"

So you think it's "pretty" to discriminate against people based on race, age, religion, skin color, sexual preference, or gender? I think it's sad that you think it's sad to to believe it's ugly when people discriminate against others for these reasons.

You're still not listening. No one is forcing anyone participate in any way. Your straw-man is does not exist anywhere but in your imagination.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

That is a distinction without difference. The pavilion belongs to a church. That makes it CHURCH property.

You're not listening.

That was property that the church was making money on by selling access to the public. Again, it does not matter if you are a church or a biker gang, if you are selling to the public you can't discriminate who you sell to. Do you understand the civil rights act, and other civil rights acts the states put in that augment the federal one?

Of course I understand them, they are unconstitutional.

Not according to the SCOTUS. You can go private and discriminate all you want. Thus a church need only to limit sales to members and then they can discriminate to their ugly hearts content.

sad that you believe it's ugly when people believe something you don't.

You know I'm for allowing gays to marry, but they shouldn't be able to force anyone to participate in anyway.

And in fact, we've changed our entire restaurant to a private club. Not because we discriminate, but just to protest the idea of "public accommodating"

So you think it's "pretty" to discriminate against people based on race, age, religion, skin color, sexual preference, or gender? I think it's sad that you think it's sad to to believe it's ugly when people discriminate against others for these reasons.

You're still not listening. No one is forcing anyone participate in any way. Your straw-man is does not exist anywhere but in your imagination.

Come on, I know you are intelligent enough to differentiate defending the RIGHT to discriminate from actually discriminating.

It's exactly no different than I defend gays right to "marry" even though I'm not gay.

First and foremost, I'm about freedom. And a person being told they MUST do business with another person isn't very damned free.

 

[Silhouette]

Come on, I know you are intelligent enough to differentiate defending the RIGHT to discriminate from actually discriminating.

It's exactly no different than I defend gays right to "marry" even though I'm not gay.

First and foremost, I'm about freedom. And a person being told they MUST do business with another person isn't very damned free.

The worst part about it for christians isn't an invasion upon their personal freedom. It is the requirement by law for them to commit a mortal sin that will condemn them to hell for eternity. Enabling the expansion of the homosexual subCULTure isn't just a "say 10 Hail Mary's" type of sin. It's one that gets you eternity in the slammer.

Essentially, mandating that a christian church peform gay marriage is the same as showing up to that church with a wrecking ball and bulldozers..

 

[RKMBrown]

You're not listening.

That was property that the church was making money on by selling access to the public. Again, it does not matter if you are a church or a biker gang, if you are selling to the public you can't discriminate who you sell to. Do you understand the civil rights act, and other civil rights acts the states put in that augment the federal one?

Of course I understand them, they are unconstitutional.

Not according to the SCOTUS. You can go private and discriminate all you want. Thus a church need only to limit sales to members and then they can discriminate to their ugly hearts content.

sad that you believe it's ugly when people believe something you don't.

You know I'm for allowing gays to marry, but they shouldn't be able to force anyone to participate in anyway.

And in fact, we've changed our entire restaurant to a private club. Not because we discriminate, but just to protest the idea of "public accommodating"

So you think it's "pretty" to discriminate against people based on race, age, religion, skin color, sexual preference, or gender? I think it's sad that you think it's sad to to believe it's ugly when people discriminate against others for these reasons.

You're still not listening. No one is forcing anyone participate in any way. Your straw-man is does not exist anywhere but in your imagination.

Come on, I know you are intelligent enough to differentiate defending the RIGHT to discriminate from actually discriminating.

It's exactly no different than I defend gays right to "marry" even though I'm not gay.

First and foremost, I'm about freedom. And a person being told they MUST do business with another person isn't very damned free.

Yes, I understand the not so subtle difference between defending liberty of people to perform ugly acts. My point was just because we defend ugly acts does not mean we have to claim said ugly acts are pretty acts. You called out my use of the term ugly... yet you imply you are merely defending liberty... thus also implying that you are defending ugly acts for the sake of liberty... Thus using the language in the same way I was using it.... IOW you called me out for doing the same thing you are doing. nudge.

As for your statement "And a person being told they MUST do business with another person isn't very damned free." I'll repeat a third time.. no one has been told they MUST do business with another person, everyone is free to keep their sales private vs. selling to the public at large where there are laws against discrimination. It is a STRAW-MAN to say different. All churches have members and congregations. This church in question has one minor operation going on where they were selling to the public at large, not solely to their private membership. Thus for the PUBLIC rentals of the PUBLIC FACILITY they had to go by PUBLIC accommodation laws.

In the case of consumer rights... the issue of liberty is two fold...public sellers and public consumers... should sellers be able to discriminate, thus harm, certain consumers based on skin color, etc.; or should sellers be harmed by the government through public accommodation laws like wheel chair access and forcing sellers to sell to black people. When the issue involves picking and choosing which of two citizens will be forced/harmed an arbiter is brought in.. in this case the US citizens have spoken and their representatives have put forth public accommodation laws siding with the consumers, however leaving a loop-hole to sellers that they can go private.

 

[Silhouette]

Yes, I understand the not so subtle difference between defending liberty of people to perform ugly acts. My point was just because we defend ugly acts does not mean we have to claim said ugly acts are pretty acts. You called out my use of the term ugly... yet you imply you are merely defending liberty... thus also implying that you are defending ugly acts for the sake of liberty... Thus using the language in the same way I was using it.... IOW you called me out for doing the same thing you are doing. nudge.

You're talking about "ugly acts" like these right? And the people who defend them, right? The same people who want access to adoptable orphans through the legal loophole of marriage, right? The same LGBT crew that wants to force churches to commit the mortal sin of spreading THIS culture as a matter of law, right?

vv "No church has been mandated to perform a gay marriage".......YET....

 

[RKMBrown]

Come on, I know you are intelligent enough to differentiate defending the RIGHT to discriminate from actually discriminating.

It's exactly no different than I defend gays right to "marry" even though I'm not gay.

First and foremost, I'm about freedom. And a person being told they MUST do business with another person isn't very damned free.

The worst part about it for christians isn't an invasion upon their personal freedom. It is the requirement by law for them to commit a mortal sin that will condemn them to hell for eternity. Enabling the expansion of the homosexual subCULTure isn't just a "say 10 Hail Mary's" type of sin. It's one that gets you eternity in the slammer.

Essentially, mandating that a christian church peform gay marriage is the same as showing up to that church with a wrecking ball and bulldozers..

EPIC FAIL. Again, no church has been mandated to perform a gay marriage.

 

[RKMBrown]

Yes, I understand the not so subtle difference between defending liberty of people to perform ugly acts. My point was just because we defend ugly acts does not mean we have to claim said ugly acts are pretty acts. You called out my use of the term ugly... yet you imply you are merely defending liberty... thus also implying that you are defending ugly acts for the sake of liberty... Thus using the language in the same way I was using it.... IOW you called me out for doing the same thing you are doing. nudge.

You're talking about "ugly acts" like these right? And the people who defend them, right? The same people who want access to adoptable orphans through the legal loophole of marriage, right? The same LGBT crew that wants to force churches to commit the mortal sin of spreading THIS culture as a matter of law, right?

You're gonna go to hell for posting these gay pride photos.