Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[WorldWatcher]

So...have ANY of you called your representatives to tell them you want to repeal part of the Civil Rights Act? What was their response? Anyone? Anyone? Beuhler?

Repealing Public Accommodation laws pertaining to private businesses does not mean the Civil Rights act needs to be repealed. Only one small portion would be impacted.

And yes, I have informed my Representative both in Congress and in the Virginia assembly that I think it would be a good idea to repeal the applicability of Public Accommodation laws to most situations. I received back a politely worded letter that basically said (and I paraphrase): "Thank you for your concern, don't call us, we'll call you."



>>>>

I said part of.

Yes you did and I missed that. My bad.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

..Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy authorized by the Commerce Clause, they're vital for ensuring the integrity of local markets and all other interrelated markets.

The notion of 'getting rid' of public accommodations laws is naïve, reactionary, and unwarranted; that a potential patron be refused service by a business open to the general public for no other reason than race, religion, or sexual orientation is offensive to our society and repugnant to the Constitution.

Translation: "LGBTs will be suing churches to perform our "weddings" and adoptions the minute any ink is dry on potential federal protection for just our deviant sex cult"

 

[mdk]

..Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy authorized by the Commerce Clause, they're vital for ensuring the integrity of local markets and all other interrelated markets.

The notion of 'getting rid' of public accommodations laws is naïve, reactionary, and unwarranted; that a potential patron be refused service by a business open to the general public for no other reason than race, religion, or sexual orientation is offensive to our society and repugnant to the Constitution.

Translation: "LGBTs will be suing churches to perform our "weddings" and adoptions the minute any ink is dry on potential federal protection for just our deviant sex cult"

Many segments of society have protected status recognized by the federal government. You cannot name a single case where a church has been forced to marry anyone against their wishes. Not one.

You should skip trying to be a translator for other posters by the way. It clearly isn't your bailiwick.

 

[dblack]

..Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy authorized by the Commerce Clause, they're vital for ensuring the integrity of local markets and all other interrelated markets.

The notion of 'getting rid' of public accommodations laws is naïve, reactionary, and unwarranted; that a potential patron be refused service by a business open to the general public for no other reason than race, religion, or sexual orientation is offensive to our society and repugnant to the Constitution.

Translation: "LGBTs will be suing churches to perform our "weddings" and adoptions the minute any ink is dry on potential federal protection for just our deviant sex cult"

Many segments of society have protected status recognized by the federal government. You cannot name a single case where a church has been forced to marry anyone against their wishes. Not one.

You should skip trying to be a translator for other posters by the way. It clearly isn't your bailiwick.

But bakers have been forced to serve people against their will. And others are sure to follow. Why should churches get a special exemption?

 

[Seawytch]

..Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy authorized by the Commerce Clause, they're vital for ensuring the integrity of local markets and all other interrelated markets.

The notion of 'getting rid' of public accommodations laws is naïve, reactionary, and unwarranted; that a potential patron be refused service by a business open to the general public for no other reason than race, religion, or sexual orientation is offensive to our society and repugnant to the Constitution.

Translation: "LGBTs will be suing churches to perform our "weddings" and adoptions the minute any ink is dry on potential federal protection for just our deviant sex cult"

Many segments of society have protected status recognized by the federal government. You cannot name a single case where a church has been forced to marry anyone against their wishes. Not one.

You should skip trying to be a translator for other posters by the way. It clearly isn't your bailiwick.

But bakers have been forced to serve people against their will. And others are sure to follow. Why should churches get a special exemption?

So have lunch counters. Tyranny!!!!!

They get a special "exemption" because they are a church. Duh.

 

[Steinlight]

Many Protestant Churches require couples to pay for wedding services, making them public accommodations, so these Protestant Churches will either have to go the Catholic route of subsidizing the ceremonies themselves or not offering wedding services all together.

One of the blessings of being a Catholic, our Church prohibits money being exchanged for holy sacraments, so our ceremonies won't be corrupted by degenerate secular "anti-discrimination" laws.

 

[mdk]

..Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy authorized by the Commerce Clause, they're vital for ensuring the integrity of local markets and all other interrelated markets.

The notion of 'getting rid' of public accommodations laws is naïve, reactionary, and unwarranted; that a potential patron be refused service by a business open to the general public for no other reason than race, religion, or sexual orientation is offensive to our society and repugnant to the Constitution.

Translation: "LGBTs will be suing churches to perform our "weddings" and adoptions the minute any ink is dry on potential federal protection for just our deviant sex cult"

Many segments of society have protected status recognized by the federal government. You cannot name a single case where a church has been forced to marry anyone against their wishes. Not one.

You should skip trying to be a translator for other posters by the way. It clearly isn't your bailiwick.

But bakers have been forced to serve people against their will. And others are sure to follow. Why should churches get a special exemption?

Churches are not subject to public accommodation laws. They have always been exempt and they should remain exempt. PA laws have been around for a long time and not a single church has been forces to marry anyone against their wishes.

I am down with scrapping PA laws with the exception of vital services such as, transportation, hospitals, and lodgings. Let these businesses proudly state what customers they will or will not serve. Let the free market decide if they are worthy of our business. It will be terribly funny hearing them moan about bullying when their businesses fails due to boycotts and the disgust of the public for their moronic business practices.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Adoption agencies will be mostly secular in the futures.

Church run business for hire wedding chapels will not be exempt.

 

[dblack]

..Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy authorized by the Commerce Clause, they're vital for ensuring the integrity of local markets and all other interrelated markets.

The notion of 'getting rid' of public accommodations laws is naïve, reactionary, and unwarranted; that a potential patron be refused service by a business open to the general public for no other reason than race, religion, or sexual orientation is offensive to our society and repugnant to the Constitution.

Translation: "LGBTs will be suing churches to perform our "weddings" and adoptions the minute any ink is dry on potential federal protection for just our deviant sex cult"

Many segments of society have protected status recognized by the federal government. You cannot name a single case where a church has been forced to marry anyone against their wishes. Not one.

You should skip trying to be a translator for other posters by the way. It clearly isn't your bailiwick.

But bakers have been forced to serve people against their will. And others are sure to follow. Why should churches get a special exemption?

So have lunch counters. Tyranny!!!!!

They get a special "exemption" because they are a church. Duh.

Yeah. I get that. I'm asking, why? Do you think that's a valid application of freedom of religion? Because I don't. The first amendment isn't there to give churches special exemptions. It's there to prevent religious persecution. Applying it in that way (as an excuse to grant churches special privileges) is inside-out, and in my view an egregious violation of equal protection.

 

[Seawytch]

..Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy authorized by the Commerce Clause, they're vital for ensuring the integrity of local markets and all other interrelated markets.

The notion of 'getting rid' of public accommodations laws is naïve, reactionary, and unwarranted; that a potential patron be refused service by a business open to the general public for no other reason than race, religion, or sexual orientation is offensive to our society and repugnant to the Constitution.

Translation: "LGBTs will be suing churches to perform our "weddings" and adoptions the minute any ink is dry on potential federal protection for just our deviant sex cult"

Many segments of society have protected status recognized by the federal government. You cannot name a single case where a church has been forced to marry anyone against their wishes. Not one.

You should skip trying to be a translator for other posters by the way. It clearly isn't your bailiwick.

But bakers have been forced to serve people against their will. And others are sure to follow. Why should churches get a special exemption?

So have lunch counters. Tyranny!!!!!

They get a special "exemption" because they are a church. Duh.

Yeah. I get that. I'm asking, why? Do you think that's a valid application of freedom of religion? Because I don't. The first amendment isn't there to give churches special exemptions. It's there to prevent religious persecution. Applying it in that way (as an excuse to grant churches special privileges) is inside-out, and in my view an egregious violation of equal protection.

Yeah, well good luck getting that through Congress or the SCOTUS. Churches have always been free to discriminate as they see fit. I see no reason to change that. Churches have always been subject to public pressure too and that is how they have always been "forced" to change their policies.

 

[dblack]

Translation: "LGBTs will be suing churches to perform our "weddings" and adoptions the minute any ink is dry on potential federal protection for just our deviant sex cult"

Many segments of society have protected status recognized by the federal government. You cannot name a single case where a church has been forced to marry anyone against their wishes. Not one.

You should skip trying to be a translator for other posters by the way. It clearly isn't your bailiwick.

But bakers have been forced to serve people against their will. And others are sure to follow. Why should churches get a special exemption?

So have lunch counters. Tyranny!!!!!

They get a special "exemption" because they are a church. Duh.

Yeah. I get that. I'm asking, why? Do you think that's a valid application of freedom of religion? Because I don't. The first amendment isn't there to give churches special exemptions. It's there to prevent religious persecution. Applying it in that way (as an excuse to grant churches special privileges) is inside-out, and in my view an egregious violation of equal protection.

Yeah, well good luck getting that through Congress or the SCOTUS. Churches have always been free to discriminate as they see fit. I see no reason to change that. Churches have always been subject to public pressure too and that is how they have always been "forced" to change their policies.

Oh, I'm not trying to get anything through Congress. And to be clear, I don't think government should be in the business of forcing anyone to change their minds. But I think the law should apply to everyone equally.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Churches persecute and are persecuted.

the 1st is a permeable playing field

 

[Skylar]

But bakers have been forced to serve people against their will. And others are sure to follow. Why should churches get a special exemption?

Baking isn't a constitutionally protected right. Free practice of religion is.

And both your question and my answer seem vaguely familiar.........

 

[Skylar]

Yeah. I get that. I'm asking, why? Do you think that's a valid application of freedom of religion? Because I don't. The first amendment isn't there to give churches special exemptions. It's there to prevent religious persecution. Applying it in that way (as an excuse to grant churches special privileges) is inside-out, and in my view an egregious violation of equal protection.

Yeah, you've asked that too. And were answered like half a dozen times. Its almost like you don't want an answer to your questions and will ignore it when offered.

As a recap, just in case your memory is just a little spotty today, the free practice of religion is inherently discriminatory.

Baking isn't.

 

[Skylar]

Churches are not subject to public accommodation laws. They have always been exempt and they should remain exempt. PA laws have been around for a long time and not a single church has been forces to marry anyone against their wishes.

They aren't in terms of the practice of their religion. They are in terms of employment. But since this is a free practice debate, you're correct for all practical purposes. Just don't be surprised if someone quotes irrelevant employment caselaw to try and refute your point.

 

[dblack]

Yeah. I get that. I'm asking, why? Do you think that's a valid application of freedom of religion? Because I don't. The first amendment isn't there to give churches special exemptions. It's there to prevent religious persecution. Applying it in that way (as an excuse to grant churches special privileges) is inside-out, and in my view an egregious violation of equal protection.

Yeah, you've asked that too. And were answered like half a dozen times. Its almost like you don't want an answer to your questions and will ignore it when offered.

Fair enough. You've answered. Most people quoting current policy, not saying whether they thing it's right or not

As a recap, just in case your memory is just a little spotty today, the free practice of religion is inherently discriminatory.

Baking isn't.

The act of thinking for one's self is inherently discriminatory

 

[dblack]

But bakers have been forced to serve people against their will. And others are sure to follow. Why should churches get a special exemption?

Baking isn't a constitutionally protected right. Free practice of religion is.

It most certainly is. That's what the Ninth Amendment is all about.

 

[Skylar]

And shit just got interesting!

Less than two weeks after a federal appeals court struck down Idaho’s ban on same-sex marriage, two ministers in the northwestern Idaho city of Coeur d’Alene have filed a lawsuit claiming they could face up to 180 years in jail for refusing to perform a same-sex wedding.

The lawsuit, filed Oct. 17 in federal trial court by the conservative Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, stoked long-held fears among opponents of marriage equality.

Two Ministers Claim They Could Face 180 Years In Jail For Refusing To Do Gay Weddings

But as Paul Harvey used to say, "Now....for the rest of the story".

However, according to city officials and the lawsuit itself, the Hitching Post filed papers with the Idaho Secretary of State identifying itself as a religious corporation on Oct. 6, the day before the 9th Circuit struck down Idaho’s ban. The city’s ordinance explicitly states that religious corporations are exempt from the law.

The lawsuit came as a surprise to city officials, who described conversations with the Knapps up until last week as “cordial.”

“We have never threatened them. We have never sent them a letter warning them. There was no ‘we’re going to throw you in jail’ kind of stuff. So we were mildly surprised, well, totally surprised by the lawsuit,” City Attorney Mike Gridley told The Huffington Post.

Two Ministers Claim They Could Face 180 Years In Jail For Refusing To Do Gay Weddings

I'm a little worried about the Ministers. They may throw their backs out bending over backwards to play the victim.

 

[Skylar]

The act of thinking for one's self is inherently discriminatory

And yet when thinking transforms into doing....not all acts are equally protected by our constitution. Religious liberties are thoroughly protected. And they are inherently discriminatory.

The closest thing we've seen to 'Ministers being forced to perform weddings against their will'.....turned out to be more theater for right wing fear mongers. Religion is and remains protected. Flagrant, obvious discrimination in the practice of religion is perfectly constitutional. And all evidence points to it remaining so.

 

[dblack]

And shit just got interesting!

Less than two weeks after a federal appeals court struck down Idaho’s ban on same-sex marriage, two ministers in the northwestern Idaho city of Coeur d’Alene have filed a lawsuit claiming they could face up to 180 years in jail for refusing to perform a same-sex wedding.

The lawsuit, filed Oct. 17 in federal trial court by the conservative Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, stoked long-held fears among opponents of marriage equality.

Two Ministers Claim They Could Face 180 Years In Jail For Refusing To Do Gay Weddings

But as Paul Harvey used to say, "Now....for the rest of the story".

However, according to city officials and the lawsuit itself, the Hitching Post filed papers with the Idaho Secretary of State identifying itself as a religious corporation on Oct. 6, the day before the 9th Circuit struck down Idaho’s ban. The city’s ordinance explicitly states that religious corporations are exempt from the law.

The lawsuit came as a surprise to city officials, who described conversations with the Knapps up until last week as “cordial.”

“We have never threatened them. We have never sent them a letter warning them. There was no ‘we’re going to throw you in jail’ kind of stuff. So we were mildly surprised, well, totally surprised by the lawsuit,” City Attorney Mike Gridley told The Huffington Post.

Two Ministers Claim They Could Face 180 Years In Jail For Refusing To Do Gay Weddings

I'm a little worried about the Ministers. They may throw their backs out bending over backwards to play the victim.

Indeed. But this calls out the very real conflict between equal rights and public accommodations laws.