Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Syriusly]

What's with "fags", averagebear. We both served with lesbians and gays who were good soldiers. Don't deny it. If they were willing to do the job and go in harm's way, what is it off your ass anyway.

Their willingness to go in harm's way doesn't change that they are fags. Even if they wer bad soldiers they'd still be fags.

Yep- just like kikes will still be kikes, ******* will still be ******* and polacks will still be polacks.

To some people.

Lakhota

As I said

Yep- just like kikes will still be kikes, ******* will still be ******* and polacks will still be polacks.

To some people.

To those same people- fags will still be fags.

 

[mdk]

"Should places of worship be required to hold gay weddings" means nothing about the legality of marriage equality.

Except that that is not true since we have the stupid, and unconstitutional, public accommodation laws.

You can deny it all you want Jake, one day a gay will sue a Christian Church to force them to allow their wedding. People are assholes and do shit like that just to prove they are assholes.

I mean I never thought I'd see the day when a court ordered a school to let a boy use the girl's restroom either. And honestly, I doubt that even 5 years ago YOU would thought it would have happened, or supported it either.

I agree with your reasoning. If a private bakery can be told what they did by denying to do a cake for a same sex couple is wrong and illegal, don't think an activist, same sex marriage supporting judge won't tell a church that says no to such a wedding the same thing.

There hasn't been a single church that has been forced to marry a couple against their wishes, gay, straight, black, white, interracial, etc. Not one. Gays have been getting married in MA for over decade and not one church has been forced to marry a gay couple. All you have are slippery slopes and Pandora's Box types scenarios that have not come to pass.

When, and it will happen because all it will take is some activists judge, will that be your response? There are lots of things that the government now mandates that people said exactly what you said when those who think like me expressed concern over them.

The question is SHOULD churches be forced to do so not have they.

As I have stated on numerous occasions in this thread, churches should not be forced to marry any couple against their wishes.

If by some improbable chance a couple (any couple) sued a church on the bias they wouldn't marry them I would side with the church. Whom a church marries is a matter for the church not the government. Even if your scenario came to pass it would never survive on appeals. A church has never been ordered by the courts to marry some against their wishes.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Only slippery slope fallacies in this thread.

 

[Silhouette]

As I have stated on numerous occasions in this thread, churches should not be forced to marry any couple against their wishes.

If by some improbable chance a couple (any couple) sued a church on the bias they wouldn't marry them I would side with the church. Whom a church marries is a matter for the church not the government. Even if your scenario came to pass it would never survive on appeals. A church has never been ordered by the courts to marry some against their wishes.

Should they be forced to adopt to any married couple against their wishes also? Just checking. Because you know, that's next...

 

[Syriusly]

As I have stated on numerous occasions in this thread, churches should not be forced to marry any couple against their wishes.

If by some improbable chance a couple (any couple) sued a church on the bias they wouldn't marry them I would side with the church. Whom a church marries is a matter for the church not the government. Even if your scenario came to pass it would never survive on appeals. A church has never been ordered by the courts to marry some against their wishes.

Should they be forced to adopt to any married couple against their wishes also? Just checking. Because you know, that's next...

Churches are not orphanages.

Orphanages are not churches.

 

[Seawytch]

"Should places of worship be required to hold gay weddings" means nothing about the legality of marriage equality.

Except that that is not true since we have the stupid, and unconstitutional, public accommodation laws.

You can deny it all you want Jake, one day a gay will sue a Christian Church to force them to allow their wedding. People are assholes and do shit like that just to prove they are assholes.

I mean I never thought I'd see the day when a court ordered a school to let a boy use the girl's restroom either. And honestly, I doubt that even 5 years ago YOU would thought it would have happened, or supported it either.

I agree with your reasoning. If a private bakery can be told what they did by denying to do a cake for a same sex couple is wrong and illegal, don't think an activist, same sex marriage supporting judge won't tell a church that says no to such a wedding the same thing.

Then you have ZERO understanding of the Constitution.

 

[mdk]

As I have stated on numerous occasions in this thread, churches should not be forced to marry any couple against their wishes.

If by some improbable chance a couple (any couple) sued a church on the bias they wouldn't marry them I would side with the church. Whom a church marries is a matter for the church not the government. Even if your scenario came to pass it would never survive on appeals. A church has never been ordered by the courts to marry some against their wishes.

Should they be forced to adopt to any married couple against their wishes also? Just checking. Because you know, that's next...

How many times do I have to answer the same questions for you? I'll answer again though since you seem to want to know every day despite the fact the answers are always the same.

If they are a private adoption agency then absolutely not. A private adoption agency can place a child in any family unit they see fit. If they are faith based agency and accept money from the government then you must abide by the rules that come attached to the money. If you don't want to follow these rules then go private and place children with whomever you wish.

 

[JakeStarkey]

As I have stated on numerous occasions in this thread, churches should not be forced to marry any couple against their wishes.

If by some improbable chance a couple (any couple) sued a church on the bias they wouldn't marry them I would side with the church. Whom a church marries is a matter for the church not the government. Even if your scenario came to pass it would never survive on appeals. A church has never been ordered by the courts to marry some against their wishes.

Should they be forced to adopt to any married couple against their wishes also? Just checking. Because you know, that's next...

Slippery slope fallacy by Sil. In fact, children protest at times, for various reasons, bieng placed with certain adults, and judges may take that into consideration if s/he so wishes.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil merely wants to be reassured that Sil is wrong.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Only slippery slope fallacies in this thread.

Slipper slope and fallacy two claims made by people who can't debate and seek the easy way out.

Is that who you are Jake?

The fact is that if a church that advertises weddings to the public gets sued by a gay , the church WILL lose and there will be a church who is forced to allow a gay wedding in their church.

It most certainly CAN happen.

 

[Skylar]

The fact is that if a church that advertises weddings to the public gets sued by a gay , the church WILL lose and there will be a church who is forced to allow a gay wedding in their church.

Says who? Can you show us a single example of this happening to say, a church that refused to perform an interracial wedding after the landmark 1967 Loving v. Virginia decision?

Race has far more federal protections than sexual orientation.

 

[Syriusly]

The fact is that if a church that advertises weddings to the public gets sued by a gay , the church WILL lose and there will be a church who is forced to allow a gay wedding in their church

You are confusing facts with your fears.

And churches with business's.

No more than a Catholic Church that 'adverstises weddings' will be successfully sued by a Jew for not being allowed to be married in the Cathedral.

 

[Broncho4]

The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.

So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?

How about against racial minorities as well?

I don't know of any church that is espousing a desire to exclude based on race but yes. Churches should be allowed to believe whatever they want to believe. If that belief turns into a practice that robs someone else of their individual rights then the law can step in. We have no constitutional protection to attend any church regardless of the differences in beliefs.

I suspect that society would handle the issue of a church denying a minority to worship. Again, I don't know of any church that has any interest in this.

 

[Silhouette]

Should they be forced to adopt to any married couple against their wishes also? Just checking. Because you know, that's next...

Churches are not orphanages.

Orphanages are not churches.

OK, I'll take that code as a "yes, we LGBT militant activists will be soon suing church run orphanages for access to those kids".

Thanks for your honesty.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

The fact is that if a church that advertises weddings to the public gets sued by a gay , the church WILL lose and there will be a church who is forced to allow a gay wedding in their church

You are confusing facts with your fears.

And churches with business's.

No more than a Catholic Church that 'adverstises weddings' will be successfully sued by a Jew for not being allowed to be married in the Cathedral.

Under the same law, a Jew COULD sue a Catholic church who refused to allow him or her to marry. Why do you ignore the fact that there are churches who advertise weddings for profit which makes them a BUSINESS.

Can a Church say "we don't believe in the minimum wage" and ignore that law when doing business? Why do you pick and choose which laws you think a Church should have to follow?

 

[Skylar]

Under the same law, a Jew COULD sue a Catholic church who refused to allow him or her to marry. Why do you ignore the fact that there are churches who advertise weddings for profit which makes them a BUSINESS.

Says who? Certainly not the court.

Again, that a gay person might sue a church to force them to perform a religious ceremony isn't in dispute. But they're is zero indication that the courts will take the suit seriously.

 

[Conservative65]

"Should places of worship be required to hold gay weddings" means nothing about the legality of marriage equality.

Except that that is not true since we have the stupid, and unconstitutional, public accommodation laws.

You can deny it all you want Jake, one day a gay will sue a Christian Church to force them to allow their wedding. People are assholes and do shit like that just to prove they are assholes.

I mean I never thought I'd see the day when a court ordered a school to let a boy use the girl's restroom either. And honestly, I doubt that even 5 years ago YOU would thought it would have happened, or supported it either.

I agree with your reasoning. If a private bakery can be told what they did by denying to do a cake for a same sex couple is wrong and illegal, don't think an activist, same sex marriage supporting judge won't tell a church that says no to such a wedding the same thing.

There hasn't been a single church that has been forced to marry a couple against their wishes, gay, straight, black, white, interracial, etc. Not one. Gays have been getting married in MA for over decade and not one church has been forced to marry a gay couple. All you have are slippery slopes and Pandora's Box types scenarios that have not come to pass.

When, and it will happen because all it will take is some activists judge, will that be your response? There are lots of things that the government now mandates that people said exactly what you said when those who think like me expressed concern over them.

The question is SHOULD churches be forced to do so not have they.

As I have stated on numerous occasions in this thread, churches should not be forced to marry any couple against their wishes.

If by some improbable chance a couple (any couple) sued a church on the bias they wouldn't marry them I would side with the church. Whom a church marries is a matter for the church not the government. Even if your scenario came to pass it would never survive on appeals. A church has never been ordered by the courts to marry some against their wishes.

Unless your a federal judge, what you would do is irrelevant.

A church has never been ordered to marry some against their wishes, YET.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Under the same law, a Jew COULD sue a Catholic church who refused to allow him or her to marry. Why do you ignore the fact that there are churches who advertise weddings for profit which makes them a BUSINESS.

Says who? Certainly not the court.

Again, that a gay person might sue a church to force them to perform a religious ceremony isn't in dispute. But they're is zero indication that the courts will take the suit seriously.

And I will remind you that 5 years ago we ALL would have laughed if someone had sued so their male child who thought he was a female could use the female restroom . You would have then said "No court would take such a case seriously"

 

[Skylar]

Under the same law, a Jew COULD sue a Catholic church who refused to allow him or her to marry. Why do you ignore the fact that there are churches who advertise weddings for profit which makes them a BUSINESS.

Says who? Certainly not the court.

Again, that a gay person might sue a church to force them to perform a religious ceremony isn't in dispute. But they're is zero indication that the courts will take the suit seriously.

And I will remind you that 5 years ago we ALL would have laughed if someone had sued so their male child who thought he was a female could use the female restroom . You would have then said "No court would take such a case seriously"

Its been almost 50 years since the Loving decision. In that time have churches been forced to perform interracial marriages that they didn't want to?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Under the same law, a Jew COULD sue a Catholic church who refused to allow him or her to marry. Why do you ignore the fact that there are churches who advertise weddings for profit which makes them a BUSINESS.

Says who? Certainly not the court.

Again, that a gay person might sue a church to force them to perform a religious ceremony isn't in dispute. But they're is zero indication that the courts will take the suit seriously.

And I will remind you that 5 years ago we ALL would have laughed if someone had sued so their male child who thought he was a female could use the female restroom . You would have then said "No court would take such a case seriously"

Its been almost 50 years since the Loving decision. In that time have churches been forced to perform interracial marriages that they didn't want to?

Irrelevant. Before the first parents of a little pervert sued to allow their pervert to use whichever restroom he wanted, had any parents sued on behalf of their little pervert in this way?

See, perverts believe in FORCING people to do deal with their perversions in this way. Inter racial couples aren't automatically perverts, gays are.

For example, have you ever seen a interracial pride parade? No, neither have I. Why do fags have such things? Well to rub their perversion in your face of course.

Also, have you ever heard an inter racial couple say that they would like to force (through public pressure heehehehe) churches to marry them? No, you have not, but there is a perverted fag woman in this thread who has said EXACTLY that about churches and gay marriage. Why? Because unlike interracial couples, the goal of gay couples is not simply to be allowed to live their lives...