Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Skylar]

Now just how do you separate ones faith from a person or the owners of a business?

The same way we did when folks tried to argue that it was against their religion to serve Jews or Black people.

If you're going to do business with the public, its both reasonable and proper that they be subject to minimum standard of fair and equitable conduct with your customers by the State.

 

[Skylar]

That's an excellent compromise, providing LGBTs can hold onto the marriage experiment long enough for it to matter. SCOTUS may decide the states have the final say on alternative lifestyles-as-parents... for the sake of the children involved.

Check Kennedy's ruling in Windsor on the effects on the children of gay parents when their parents are denied the recognition of marriage if you want a preview of how the court will likely rule on that topic.

 

[beagle9]

Now just how do you separate ones faith from a person or the owners of a business?

It's easy, you don't confuse business with faith. Baking cakes isn't serving God, and neither is filling gas tanks. If you want to serve God then do so, but running a business for profit isn't serving God and if you serve the public then you serve all of the public, not just the ones you personally approve of.

It's not about not serving all of the public, but it's about letting the public know who you are in so that it's not confused when asking about a service in which for example the baker doesn't engage in or shouldn't engage in as according to his or her faith. Now the baker will still serve the person by selling him a cake that he or she would like or to get someone he or she knows to decorate it for him or herself afterwards, but that doesn't suffice does it ? No it's as if people want to see that the baker is forced to go against his or her faith, just like a person standing there watching a person struggle under the oppression of a Nazi who would make a Jewish person wash his feet if he could, and that is the way that I see it in life when a person is forced to go against his or her faith in any thing that they do in life. America is not Nazi Germany, and it shouldn't become Nazi Germany, because there is something here for everbody.

The way you see it matters not a damn. In faith you have a certain leeway, in business you follow our rules. Those are the rules. Grow up and deal with it.

Our rules ? Well just who do you think that you are in suggesting that someone should follow your rules in the way that you interpret them as or that you would expect us to follow upon whom ever else would expect us also to do the same ? What are these new rules in which would entail that which you think is grounded, and yet is now being re-interpreted in a new way that takes away from the old ones that were grounded, and is now being done without any ones permission upon in order to do such a thing as this ? Are these rules being changed as to there original meaning of, or as is found within those rules or laws now, and do you want them to now read from a minority view point in which you want us to follow them in that way ? The arrogance of the minority view point upon the majority is just amazing these days I tell ya..

 

[beagle9]

Now just how do you separate ones faith from a person or the owners of a business?

The same way we did when folks tried to argue that it was against their religion to serve Jews or Black people.

If you're going to do business with the public, its both reasonable and proper that they be subject to minimum standard of fair and equitable conduct with your customers by the State.

The same does not apply to every instance or issue, but it is noted how you all love to couple or fuse them together, even though they don't fly together in every issue like you all want them to.

 

[beagle9]

That's an excellent compromise, providing LGBTs can hold onto the marriage experiment long enough for it to matter. SCOTUS may decide the states have the final say on alternative lifestyles-as-parents... for the sake of the children involved.

Check Kennedy's ruling in Windsor on the effects on the children of gay parents when their parents are denied the recognition of marriage if you want a preview of how the court will likely rule on that topic.

Kids being used as leverage again eh ? Is that the same as human shields ?

 

[Skylar]

That's an excellent compromise, providing LGBTs can hold onto the marriage experiment long enough for it to matter. SCOTUS may decide the states have the final say on alternative lifestyles-as-parents... for the sake of the children involved.

Check Kennedy's ruling in Windsor on the effects on the children of gay parents when their parents are denied the recognition of marriage if you want a preview of how the court will likely rule on that topic.

Kids being used as leverage again eh ? Is that the same as human shields ?

More accurately, children of gays and lesbians are harmed when their parents can't marry.

 

[Skylar]

Now just how do you separate ones faith from a person or the owners of a business?

The same way we did when folks tried to argue that it was against their religion to serve Jews or Black people.

If you're going to do business with the public, its both reasonable and proper that they be subject to minimum standard of fair and equitable conduct with your customers by the State.

The same does not apply to every instance or issue, but it is noted how you all love to couple or fuse them together, even though they don't fly together in every issue like you all want them to.

Leon Bazile made it clear that God was the basis of his interracial marriage ruling. And there were plenty of other bigots of the day who did the same thing:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

Leon Bazile, 1965

It was bullshit then. Its bullshit now. Fair and equitable treatment of all customers is reasonable and proper for a State to require. As the States have authority over intrastate commerce.

 

[Syriusly]

Now just how do you separate ones faith from a person or the owners of a business?

The same way we did when folks tried to argue that it was against their religion to serve Jews or Black people.

If you're going to do business with the public, its both reasonable and proper that they be subject to minimum standard of fair and equitable conduct with your customers by the State.

The same does not apply to every instance or issue, but it is noted how you all love to couple or fuse them together, even though they don't fly together in every issue like you all want them to.

Leon Bazile made it clear that God was the basis of his interracial marriage ruling. And there were plenty of other bigots of the day who did the same thing:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

Leon Bazile, 1965

It was bullshit then. Its bullshit now. Fair and equitable treatment of all customers is reasonable and proper for a State to require. As the States have authority over intrastate commerce.

And anyone who does not think that such laws are constitutional?

Well they have recourse to the same legal system that same gender couples have used to fight laws that they feel are unconstitutional.

Those Christian bakers who feel like their rights are being abused? Well they can do what the gay couples who feel like their rights were being abused did- go to court- make the argument- prove their case.

Or change the law.

Because the argument is not with the enforcement, or the people enforcing the law- it is with the law itself.

 

[Seawytch]

Anyone who wonders or who wants to measure the impact of if churches will be forced to perform gay marriages.

Sigh- more lies.

No churches will be forced to perform any marriages- not Jewish marriages, not Buddhist marriages, not African American marriages and not same gender marriages.

Just lies by anti-gay activists.

Not sure how true this is, but someone told me today that churches could lose their tax exempt status if they choose to discriminate by virtue of their religion or religious beliefs as found in the ways that they live by and believe as a religious people do upon the issues that are being debated in America today.

Oh I'm sure they are a target, just like so many other things have since become a target in this nation now by the feds. Will the feds gain total control over this nation soon, and if so who does that control ultimately affect in a negative way, and what effect will it ultimately have on the nation or it's people when all is said and done ? It appears that no stone will be missed, as all of them will be turned over in this new transformation or want to be utopic world in which is being envisioned now in America by a few, but not quite yet by the majority.

Someone lied to you.

 

[bendog]

Anyone who wonders or who wants to measure the impact of if churches will be forced to perform gay marriages.

Sigh- more lies.

No churches will be forced to perform any marriages- not Jewish marriages, not Buddhist marriages, not African American marriages and not same gender marriages.

Just lies by anti-gay activists.

Not sure how true this is, but someone told me today that churches could lose their tax exempt status if they choose to discriminate by virtue of their religion or religious beliefs as found in the ways that they live by and believe as a religious people do upon the issues that are being debated in America today.

Oh I'm sure they are a target, just like so many other things have since become a target in this nation now by the feds. Will the feds gain total control over this nation soon, and if so who does that control ultimately affect in a negative way, and what effect will it ultimately have on the nation or it's people when all is said and done ? It appears that no stone will be missed, as all of them will be turned over in this new transformation or want to be utopic world in which is being envisioned now in America by a few, but not quite yet by the majority.

Someone lied to you.

It's easy to lie to people who want to be victims.

 

[Skylar]

Anyone who wonders or who wants to measure the impact of if churches will be forced to perform gay marriages.

Sigh- more lies.

No churches will be forced to perform any marriages- not Jewish marriages, not Buddhist marriages, not African American marriages and not same gender marriages.

Just lies by anti-gay activists.

Not sure how true this is, but someone told me today that churches could lose their tax exempt status if they choose to discriminate by virtue of their religion or religious beliefs as found in the ways that they live by and believe as a religious people do upon the issues that are being debated in America today.

Oh I'm sure they are a target, just like so many other things have since become a target in this nation now by the feds. Will the feds gain total control over this nation soon, and if so who does that control ultimately affect in a negative way, and what effect will it ultimately have on the nation or it's people when all is said and done ? It appears that no stone will be missed, as all of them will be turned over in this new transformation or want to be utopic world in which is being envisioned now in America by a few, but not quite yet by the majority.

Someone lied to you.

Yup. Not only lied, but did so with the explicit intention of frightening him. So he's almost certainly being manipulated.

 

[mikegriffith1]

In other words, should we use anti-discrimination laws to force Bible-believing churches to host ceremonies that we know they will find morally offensive when we know we could easily find other churches or facilities that would be willing to host the ceremonies?

And should we use anti-discrimination laws to force Christian photographers to attend and service ceremonies that we know they will find morally offensive when we know we could easily find other photographers who would not mind servicing the ceremonies?

If the gay rights crowd would practice a little tolerance and respect, this would not even be an issue. It's not that they "need" to hold their ceremonies in conservative churches or "need" to have Christian photographers service their ceremonies--it's that they want to do so because they want to insult and humiliate conservative Christians.

 

[jillian]

Anyone who wonders or who wants to measure the impact of if churches will be forced to perform gay marriages.

Sigh- more lies.

No churches will be forced to perform any marriages- not Jewish marriages, not Buddhist marriages, not African American marriages and not same gender marriages.

Just lies by anti-gay activists.

Not sure how true this is, but someone told me today that churches could lose their tax exempt status if they choose to discriminate by virtue of their religion or religious beliefs as found in the ways that they live by and believe as a religious people do upon the issues that are being debated in America today.

Oh I'm sure they are a target, just like so many other things have since become a target in this nation now by the feds. Will the feds gain total control over this nation soon, and if so who does that control ultimately affect in a negative way, and what effect will it ultimately have on the nation or it's people when all is said and done ? It appears that no stone will be missed, as all of them will be turned over in this new transformation or want to be utopic world in which is being envisioned now in America by a few, but not quite yet by the majority.

it's not true at all.. someone is trying to get you revved up for no reason.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

In other words, should we use anti-discrimination laws to force Bible-believing churches to host ceremonies that we know they will find morally offensive when we know we could easily find other churches or facilities that would be willing to host the ceremonies?

Ain't gonna happen here. That's just fear-mongering.

 

[Syriusly]

In other words, should we use anti-discrimination laws to force Bible-believing churches to host ceremonies that we know they will find morally offensive when we know we could easily find other churches or facilities that would be willing to host the ceremonies?

And should we use anti-discrimination laws to force Christian photographers to attend and service ceremonies that we know they will find morally offensive when we know we could easily find other photographers who would not mind servicing the ceremonies?

If the gay rights crowd would practice a little tolerance and respect, this would not even be an issue. It's not that they "need" to hold their ceremonies in conservative churches or "need" to have Christian photographers service their ceremonies--it's that they want to do so because they want to insult and humiliate conservative Christians.

Churches have not- and will not- be forced to marry anyone that they do not want to marry- whether they are black, Jewish or homosexual.

Merely fear mongering by the far right.

 

[Silhouette]

In other words, should we use anti-discrimination laws to force Bible-believing churches to host ceremonies that we know they will find morally offensive when we know we could easily find other churches or facilities that would be willing to host the ceremonies?

And should we use anti-discrimination laws to force Christian photographers to attend and service ceremonies that we know they will find morally offensive when we know we could easily find other photographers who would not mind servicing the ceremonies?

If the gay rights crowd would practice a little tolerance and respect, this would not even be an issue. It's not that they "need" to hold their ceremonies in conservative churches or "need" to have Christian photographers service their ceremonies--it's that they want to do so because they want to insult and humiliate conservative Christians.

It's not merely "morally offensive" to christians. If you read Jude 1, it is a FUCKING MANDATE, that if they are foolish enough to ignore in favor of social expediency or some other such secular pressures, they are thrown into the pit of fire for eternity as if they were worse than the homosexual culture they failed to prevent advancing.

I mean, right in Jude 1 it discusses precisely how secular pressures have been used in the past and would be used again in the future to make christians promote a homosexual subculture. It discusses how those secular word-wizards have smooth tongues and speak with authority, using the influences of social positioning to mandate the spread of their mental disease into the very thresholds of christian homes and minds. (places of business, halls of worship, what have you)

Read Jude 1. It sounds like it was written yesterday. Yet it came from the hand of Jesus's personal daily assistant. Jude represents that these words came straight from his savior and best friend's mouth. Bear in mind that Jesus by and large was sort of a pacifist. So him preaching that anyone who aids and abets the spread of homosexuality is a significant thing. Jude 1 talks of Sodom and other cities like it that the residents en masse (not just the gay ones) will be sentenced to hell. Apparently the Big Guy isn't keen on homosexual cultures taking over whole regions or nations. Yet Jude 1 tells christians to reach out to INDIVIDUAL homosexuals in order to help with their salvation and obvious distresses.

Basically if you had to render Jude 1 into a simple and clear Command, it says "help the individual homosexual with his sufferings via compassion or tools of psychology and you will enter the Kingdom of Heaven....help a homosexual subculture spread and overtake the region you live in by doing nothing or even giving them a hand when you're forced to and you will burn in Hell for eternity."

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Now just how do you separate ones faith from a person or the owners of a business?

The same way we did when folks tried to argue that it was against their religion to serve Jews or Black people.

If you're going to do business with the public, its both reasonable and proper that they be subject to minimum standard of fair and equitable conduct with your customers by the State.

Why are you Leftists so terrified of freedom of association?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Now just how do you separate ones faith from a person or the owners of a business?

The same way we did when folks tried to argue that it was against their religion to serve Jews or Black people.

If you're going to do business with the public, its both reasonable and proper that they be subject to minimum standard of fair and equitable conduct with your customers by the State.

Why are you Leftists so terrified of freedom of association?

They aren't, they just don't want people to have to drive all over town to get gas because all the stations say No *******. That interferes with the freedom of others to get on with their lives. If you don't like the rules, don't go into business, and if the rules change not to your liking, close up and watch the birds all day.

How long before you guys accept the fact that you've lost this fight?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Now just how do you separate ones faith from a person or the owners of a business?

The same way we did when folks tried to argue that it was against their religion to serve Jews or Black people.

If you're going to do business with the public, its both reasonable and proper that they be subject to minimum standard of fair and equitable conduct with your customers by the State.

Why are you Leftists so terrified of freedom of association?

They aren't, they just don't want people to have to drive all over town to get gas because all the stations say No *******. That interferes with the freedom of others to get on with their lives. If you don't like the rules, don't go into business, and if the rules change not to your liking, close up and watch the birds all day.

So what you Leftists fear is something that couldn't happen to begin with. If your local Chevron station had a sign saying "No *******" would you go there? I wouldn't either. It would go out of business. That's what happens with free association, it's the shortest route to true social justice.

 

[Skylar]

In other words, should we use anti-discrimination laws to force Bible-believing churches to host ceremonies that we know they will find morally offensive when we know we could easily find other churches or facilities that would be willing to host the ceremonies?

Nope. You're clearly not following the thread.

And should we use anti-discrimination laws to force Christian photographers to attend and service ceremonies that we know they will find morally offensive when we know we could easily find other photographers who would not mind servicing the ceremonies?

If a photographer is doing business with the public, they should treat all of their customers fairly and equitably. If they can't, they shouldn't be doing business.

If the gay rights crowd would practice a little tolerance and respect, this would not even be an issue. It's not that they "need" to hold their ceremonies in conservative churches or "need" to have Christian photographers service their ceremonies--it's that they want to do so because they want to insult and humiliate conservative Christians.

Gays are looking for no more or less consideration than any black person would be at the Woolworth's lunch counter.

'We don't serve your kind here' isn't an acceptable practice in business for most States. Nor should it be.