Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Silhouette]

As part of my business, I make cake toppers professionally. And many gay couples are willing to pay top dollar for my work.

What would be interesting, legally speaking, would be to deny providing a wedding service to gay couples on religious grounds (Jude 1, New Testament) in a state where the electors decided to make marriage only legal between a man and a woman, like California or any of the other numerous states being told illegally that they don't have a right to have the "unquestioned authority" on gay marriage or not (Windsor 2013).

Then the gay couple would sue, of course, and the business owner would defend, of course, and then the case would wind up before the US Supreme Court where it would be forced to determine two things.

1. If gay marriage was even legal in the state in question at the time and

2. If gays lifestyles have a right to force any person in the US to abdicate and defy core religious concepts of their faith via "public accomodation" laws.

 

[koshergrl]

If it is a custom order, it is up to the discretion of the business as to whether or not they can or will do it. No discrimination occurred.

Customer A is straight, buys wedding cake. Customer B is gay is refused same exact cake. Discrimination

Customer A and B both order a custom made cake...business can refuse either or both. No discrimination.

Wrong moron, that's not how the law works

Jesus Christ educate yourself before you go arguing shit.

Who the fuck has EVER bought a wedding cake out of a display case? NO ONE , they are ALL custom cakes.

What I said and is true is that no business must provide an item that they do not already provide. And yes, wedding cakes are ordered out of a catalog, you dolt. You don't walk in with a fucking blueprint, Dumber than the Average Cockroach.

If you sell the product to Person A, you must also sell the product to Person B. It can't get any simpler than that and you still don't understand? That's so sad...

You are so stupid and dishonest.

Look at this link

Elegant Cakery. Porcelain Cake Toppers

show me where you see a wedding cake topper with two men or two women. You don't.

Should that bakery be forced to provide one should a gay couple want one?

As part of my business, I make cake toppers professionally. And many gay couples are willing to pay top dollar for my work.

And that has WHAT to do with the question I asked SeaBytch?

Derefag and Seahag are both on ignore...you should try it, your life gets that much less annoying. I can't handle being harrangued continually by know-nothing lunatics, and I have found they have NEVER added anything of value to any conversation they engage in. Until I see someone responding to their stupidity, I don't even know they're posting. They're seriously that irrelevant.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Wrong moron, that's not how the law works

Jesus Christ educate yourself before you go arguing shit.

Who the fuck has EVER bought a wedding cake out of a display case? NO ONE , they are ALL custom cakes.

What I said and is true is that no business must provide an item that they do not already provide. And yes, wedding cakes are ordered out of a catalog, you dolt. You don't walk in with a fucking blueprint, Dumber than the Average Cockroach.

If you sell the product to Person A, you must also sell the product to Person B. It can't get any simpler than that and you still don't understand? That's so sad...

You are so stupid and dishonest.

Look at this link

Elegant Cakery. Porcelain Cake Toppers

show me where you see a wedding cake topper with two men or two women. You don't.

Should that bakery be forced to provide one should a gay couple want one?

As part of my business, I make cake toppers professionally. And many gay couples are willing to pay top dollar for my work.

And that has WHAT to do with the question I asked SeaBytch?

Derefag and Seahag are both on ignore...you should try it, your life gets that much less annoying. I can't handle being harrangued continually by know-nothing lunatics, and I have found they have NEVER added anything of value to any conversation they engage in. Until I see someone responding to their stupidity, I don't even know they're posting. They're seriously that irrelevant.

Dear, I have 48 people on ignore, if I ignore EVERYONE who is a shit bag soon I'd have no one left to "debate" with.

SeaBytch definitely exposed herself here as a complete hypocrite.

 

[koshergrl]

Seahag and Deridfag can't debate. That's my point. I have fewer than 48 and they are definitely at the top of the list as useless usmb trolls.

 

[koshergrl]

In fact, Derefag is #5, lol.

 

[Syriusly]

.

Hey folks, I'm having one heckuva time getting proponents of public accommodations laws to express their outrage on this thread:

Christian Man Asks Thirteen Gay Bakeries To Bake Him Traditional Marriage Cake Turned Down By All Page 4 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Little help here!

.

If the bakers do not carry or provide the item the customer asks for, no laws are being broken.

Example One:

Customer walks into a gadget store and orders gadget out of catalog or off the shelf. Business sells gadget to person A but not person B because they don't like the religion of person B. Discrimination has occurred.

Example Two:

Customer walks into gadget store and asks for a non gadget item that the business does not nor have they ever provided. No discrimination has occurred.

You're such a dishonest piece of shit.

Bakeries who sell cakes advertise that they sell CUSTOM cakes. Have you EVER been to a bakery which only sold cakes that were actually on their display? Of course not you idiot.

You truly can't just be honest and say "those gay bakeries are in violation of the law as it stands" can you?

Are those bakeries in violation of the law?

What law was violated?

Depends on their state laws. I haven't looked yet to be honest.

In either case you very well know by now that I believe they were within their rights to refuse service.

Then why did you assert:
You truly can't just be honest and say "those gay bakeries are in violation of the law as it stands" can you?

You were asking Sea to be 'honest' and say the bakeries were in violation of the law as it stands.

So be honest and tell us what law that is that you expect her to be honest about.

 

[Syriusly]

When the state seeks to impose its will upon the churches of the land, bloodshed is a heartbeat away.

No. In our country, the state does not have the authority to dictate what the church must *allow*.

So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?

Yes. Separation of church and state. Right?

And if the church practices sharia law as part of their doctrine, would the state then have a right to intervene?

If a church 'practices' sharia law the state wouldn't care- so long as such practices don't conflict with secular law.

If the 'Sharia law' being practiced is illegal- it is illegal- and the state has every right to intervene.

No church practices sharia law.

Tell that to the guy who asked the question.

 

[Syriusly]

As part of my business, I make cake toppers professionally. And many gay couples are willing to pay top dollar for my work.

What would be interesting, legally speaking, would be to deny providing a wedding service to gay couples on religious grounds (Jude 1, New Testament) in a state where the electors decided to make marriage only legal between a man and a woman, like California or any of the other numerous states being told illegally that they don't have a right to have the "unquestioned authority" on gay marriage or not (Windsor 2013).

Then the gay couple would sue, of course, and the business owner would defend, of course, and then the case would wind up before the US Supreme Court where it would be forced to determine two things.

1. If gay marriage was even legal in the state in question at the time and

2. If gays lifestyles have a right to force any person in the US to abdicate and defy core religious concepts of their faith via "public accomodation" laws.

More of Silhouette's bat guano crazy legal theory.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

.

Hey folks, I'm having one heckuva time getting proponents of public accommodations laws to express their outrage on this thread:

Christian Man Asks Thirteen Gay Bakeries To Bake Him Traditional Marriage Cake Turned Down By All Page 4 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Little help here!

.

If the bakers do not carry or provide the item the customer asks for, no laws are being broken.

Example One:

Customer walks into a gadget store and orders gadget out of catalog or off the shelf. Business sells gadget to person A but not person B because they don't like the religion of person B. Discrimination has occurred.

Example Two:

Customer walks into gadget store and asks for a non gadget item that the business does not nor have they ever provided. No discrimination has occurred.

You're such a dishonest piece of shit.

Bakeries who sell cakes advertise that they sell CUSTOM cakes. Have you EVER been to a bakery which only sold cakes that were actually on their display? Of course not you idiot.

You truly can't just be honest and say "those gay bakeries are in violation of the law as it stands" can you?

Are those bakeries in violation of the law?

What law was violated?

Depends on their state laws. I haven't looked yet to be honest.

In either case you very well know by now that I believe they were within their rights to refuse service.

Then why did you assert:
You truly can't just be honest and say "those gay bakeries are in violation of the law as it stands" can you?

You were asking Sea to be 'honest' and say the bakeries were in violation of the law as it stands.

So be honest and tell us what law that is that you expect her to be honest about.

I admit that "in violation of the law" depends on the state they live in. I didn't mean otherwise.

The point stands SeaBytch believes gays should have to be served, but should be able to refuse service to those who don't like gays. That's beyond obvious.

 

[koshergrl]

So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?

Yes. Separation of church and state. Right?

And if the church practices sharia law as part of their doctrine, would the state then have a right to intervene?

If a church 'practices' sharia law the state wouldn't care- so long as such practices don't conflict with secular law.

If the 'Sharia law' being practiced is illegal- it is illegal- and the state has every right to intervene.

No church practices sharia law.

Tell that to the guy who asked the question.

I'm telling you. You said "If a church 'practices' sharia law."

It's nonsensical, because churches don't practice sharia law.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

In fact, Derefag is #5, lol.

Oh I just realized who "Derefag" is, yeah I have that moron on ignore.

 

[koshergrl]

CHURCHES DON'T PRACTICE SHARIA LAW, people. Try to stick to the subject. This is ridiculous, and irrelevant.

 

[Syriusly]

Reading comprehension past the headline is important.

United Methodist Church (UMC) pastor in the United States had had a formal complaint filed against him by a same-sex couple who are part of his congregation because he refused to officiate at their wedding.

Kenneth Barner and Scott Chappell have charged Rev Kelly Carpenter, pastor of Green Street church in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, with “failure to perform the work of ministry”, according to the United Methodist News Service (UMNS). They also accuse him of “gender discrimination”.

Both are chargeable offences according to the UMC’s Book of Discipline. However, so is officiating at a same-sex wedding.

According to Barner and Chappell, the rules are contradictory. “God’s grace is available to all and so should the pastoral ministry (be)”, the charge says.


Read more at Methodist Church Pastor Sued for Refusing to Conduct Gay Marriage The Christian Mail

Do you think that church members should not be allowed to file complaints according to the church's own rules?

Here is a better article about it- with an accurate headline:

Gay couple files complaint for refusal of wedding

“I have initiated the proper response according to The Book of Discipline,” the bishop told UMNS. “Because this is now a personnel matter of the annual conference, it will need to remain confidential until further notice.”

As bishop, Goodpaster is charged with following a process that encourages finding a resolution that satisfies the bishop, the individuals lodging a complaint, and the one facing the complaint.

Carpenter said he didn’t know how the process would go “mostly because we are pretty much in agreement about the problem in the church. We need to figure that out.”

He said he thinks the church’s public witness in this dispute has the potential to be “uniting” for the congregation. Carpenter stressed that Barner and Chappell are serious about the complaint, but he commended them for finding a creative way designed not to harm the church.

Carpenter is sympathetic to the cause, saying: “If there was a way for me to be a co-signer with the complaint, I think it’s right on the money.

“It really calls out the contradictions in our Book of Discipline, which calls us to be ministry with all people.”


Read more at Methodist Church Pastor Sued for Refusing to Conduct Gay Marriage The Christian Mail

This is an internal church dispute- filed by church members.

Why would you object to that?

Same as all my other examples, it shows that gays are building up to suing churches to perform gay "marriages"

Why you deny it is probable in the future is beyond comprehension.

Actually I have said before- any idiot can file a law suit.

However- you posted an article with the headline that was inaccurate- about a situation that is not a lawsuit but an internal rules dispute within a church.

Your post was inaccurate- and you don't seem to care about your inaccuracy.

This is an internal church dispute- filed by church members.

Why would you object to that?

No sir , The thread title is accurate. He wasn't sued in court, because the church has a policy of self mediating such things, but he was sued.

I do admit , however, that it could mislead people who don't understand hat sued doesn't necessarily mean in civil court.

Oh it could be misleading since we were discussing law suits- and whether churches can be sued and the headline uses a term that is used almost exclusively for law suits- when this is an internal church dispute.

Once again:

This is an internal church dispute- filed by church members.

Why would you object to that?

You are of course prepared to show where I objected to that?

This appeared to be an objection to me

Same as all my other examples, it shows that gays are building up to suing churches to perform gay "marriages"

Why you deny it is probable in the future is beyond comprehension.

Unless you are saying you have no objection to gays or blacks or jews suing churches in order to be married there.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

CHURCHES DON'T PRACTICE SHARIA LAW, people. Try to stick to the subject. This is ridiculous, and irrelevant.

Is it any more ridiculous than

"Christians should have to serve gays, but gays shouldn't have to serve people who don't like gays?"

 

[Syriusly]

CHURCHES DON'T PRACTICE SHARIA LAW, people. Try to stick to the subject. This is ridiculous, and irrelevant.

Yet you keep it alive by posting about it.

Someone asked whether the state could intervene if a church practiced Sharia law.

I responded.

The issue was dead until you got your nose bent out of joint and stuck it in.

If you want the issue to be dead- stop posting about it.

 

[koshergrl]

CHURCHES DON'T PRACTICE SHARIA LAW, people. Try to stick to the subject. This is ridiculous, and irrelevant.

Is it any more ridiculous than

"Christians should have to serve gays, but gays shouldn't have to serve people who don't like gays?"

That's why I have them on ignore.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Same as all my other examples, it shows that gays are building up to suing churches to perform gay "marriages"

Why you deny it is probable in the future is beyond comprehension.

Actually I have said before- any idiot can file a law suit.

However- you posted an article with the headline that was inaccurate- about a situation that is not a lawsuit but an internal rules dispute within a church.

Your post was inaccurate- and you don't seem to care about your inaccuracy.

This is an internal church dispute- filed by church members.

Why would you object to that?

No sir , The thread title is accurate. He wasn't sued in court, because the church has a policy of self mediating such things, but he was sued.

I do admit , however, that it could mislead people who don't understand hat sued doesn't necessarily mean in civil court.

Oh it could be misleading since we were discussing law suits- and whether churches can be sued and the headline uses a term that is used almost exclusively for law suits- when this is an internal church dispute.

Once again:

This is an internal church dispute- filed by church members.

Why would you object to that?

You are of course prepared to show where I objected to that?

This appeared to be an objection to me

Same as all my other examples, it shows that gays are building up to suing churches to perform gay "marriages"

Why you deny it is probable in the future is beyond comprehension.

Unless you are saying you have no objection to gays or blacks or jews suing churches in order to be married there.

I have no objection to anyone availing themselves of the legal system when they feel they have been wronged.

That however is different than saying I have no problem with whichever law they are using to claim they were wronged.

For example, I abhor any and all "public accommodation" laws, they are blatantly unconstitutional.

BUT, I don't blame anyone for suing when they feel that their legal rights have been violated.

 

[Silhouette]

You two trying to "kill thread by manufactured flame war" again?

Tsk Tsk. I know the numbers in the poll at the top are rattling you. Got to keep those buried if the "most people support gay marriage" myth is to exact the "fake it till you make it" strategy, eh?

Meanwhile:

As part of my business, I make cake toppers professionally. And many gay couples are willing to pay top dollar for my work.

What would be interesting, legally speaking, would be to deny providing a wedding service to gay couples on religious grounds (Jude 1, New Testament) in a state where the electors decided to make marriage only legal between a man and a woman, like California or any of the other numerous states being told illegally that they don't have a right to have the "unquestioned authority" on gay marriage or not (Windsor 2013).
Then the gay couple would sue, of course, and the business owner would defend, of course, and then the case would wind up before the US Supreme Court where it would be forced to determine two things.

1. If gay marriage was even legal in the state in question at the time and

2. If gays lifestyles have a right to force any person in the US to abdicate and defy core religious concepts of their faith via "public accomodation" laws.

 

[Syriusly]

CHURCHES DON'T PRACTICE SHARIA LAW, people. Try to stick to the subject. This is ridiculous, and irrelevant.

Is it any more ridiculous than

"Christians should have to serve gays, but gays shouldn't have to serve people who don't like gays?"

Your objection is to the law.

The law in some places says that business's must serve persons even if they are gay.
The law everywhere in the U.S. says that business's must serve persons even if they are Christian.

If any gay business people refused to do business with a Christian because he is a Christian he would be breaking the law.
if any Christian business person refuses to do business with a homosexual because he is a homosexual he would be breaking the law(if that was the law in that jurisdiction).

Simply refusing to serve bigots isn't against the law anywhere.

 

[Syriusly]

CHURCHES DON'T PRACTICE SHARIA LAW, people. Try to stick to the subject. This is ridiculous, and irrelevant.

Yet you keep it alive by posting about it.

Someone asked whether the state could intervene if a church practiced Sharia law.

I responded.

The issue was dead until you got your nose bent out of joint and stuck it in.

If you want the issue to be dead- stop posting about it.

Learn to use the quote function properly.

I'm not posting about it. I'm continuing to point out that your commentary about sharia law and the previous drivel about Leviticus that was posted is irrelevant drivel meant to hide the fact that the anti-Christian left can't make an intelligent argument.

Yet you keep it alive by posting about it.

Someone asked whether the state could intervene if a church practiced Sharia law.

I responded.

The issue was dead until you got your nose bent out of joint and stuck it in.

If you want the issue to be dead- stop posting about it.