Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Silhouette]

On topic.

Churches have not- and will not be forced to marry anyone that the churches do not want to- whether its because the couples are black, Jewish, Muslim, fat, or homosexuals.

it hasn't happened in the 50 years since the Civil Rights Act passed, and it won't happen in the next 50 years.

Individual christians, where the church of Christ resides within will not be forced to marry gays or participate in gay marriages. Right. So we both agree. Good.

Blacks, Jews, Muslims, fat people and homosexuals are all welcome in the church of Christ. They have to leave their other faith behind though. They are not allowed to dictate redactions or augmentations to the edicts of faith. One of those is the mandate forbidding the promotion of a homosexual culture. (not individual homosexuals). Paramount example of Jude 1's New Testament warning? That would be gays trying to "marry" and raise children as "mother and father".

 

[Jarlaxle]

LOL. You're the freaks, not us.

You now need to have a neutral third party examine your computer for evidence of lesbian pornography.

 

[Silhouette]

On topic. Churches have not- and will not be forced to marry anyone that the churches do not want to- whether its because the couples are black, Jewish, Muslim, fat, or homosexuals. it hasn't happened in the 50 years since the Civil Rights Act passed, and it won't happen in the next 50 years.

Individual christians, where the church of Christ resides within will not be forced to marry gays or participate in gay marriages. Right. So we both agree. Good. Blacks, Jews, Muslims, fat people and homosexuals are all welcome in the church of Christ. They have to leave their other faith behind though. They are not allowed to dictate redactions or augmentations to the edicts of faith. One of those is the mandate forbidding the promotion of a homosexual culture. (not individual homosexuals). Paramount example of Jude 1's New Testament warning? That would be gays trying to "marry" and raise children as "mother and father".

The church is within the individual. That's where we need to start with all this, where exactly does "church" reside? Is it wood, nails, formica? No. Is it papers, books or telephones? No. Is it the minister, the priest, the nuns? No. Is it the symbolic holy sacrament? No.

The relgion resides within the man. The church and its phasod, its routines are merely the eddy that draws in the parishoners, the flock. The actual religion is what is instilled within the mind and soul of each of the congregation, whether gathered or apart in their daily lives. "Church" doesn't stop happening when someone walks out the door and down the front steps. It is happening all the time in the soul of the faithful.

 

[Syriusly]

On topic. Churches have not- and will not be forced to marry anyone that the churches do not want to- whether its because the couples are black, Jewish, Muslim, fat, or homosexuals. it hasn't happened in the 50 years since the Civil Rights Act passed, and it won't happen in the next 50 years.

Individual christians, where the church of Christ resides within will not be forced to marry gays or participate in gay marriages. Right. So we both agree. Good. Blacks, Jews, Muslims, fat people and homosexuals are all welcome in the church of Christ. They have to leave their other faith behind though. They are not allowed to dictate redactions or augmentations to the edicts of faith. One of those is the mandate forbidding the promotion of a homosexual culture. (not individual homosexuals). Paramount example of Jude 1's New Testament warning? That would be gays trying to "marry" and raise children as "mother and father".

The church is within the individual. That's where we need to start with all this, where exactly does "church" reside? Is it wood, nails, formica? No. Is it papers, books or telephones? No. Is it the minister, the priest, the nuns? No. Is it the symbolic holy sacrament? No.

The relgion resides within the man. The church and its phasod, its routines are merely the eddy that draws in the parishoners, the flock. The actual religion is what is instilled within the mind and soul of each of the congregation, whether gathered or apart in their daily lives. "Church" doesn't stop happening when someone walks out the door and down the front steps. It is happening all the time in the soul of the faithful.

On topic. Churches have not- and will not be forced to marry anyone that the churches do not want to- whether its because the couples are black, Jewish, Muslim, fat, or homosexuals. it hasn't happened in the 50 years since the Civil Rights Act passed, and it won't happen in the next 50 years

 

[Syriusly]

On topic.

Churches have not- and will not be forced to marry anyone that the churches do not want to- whether its because the couples are black, Jewish, Muslim, fat, or homosexuals.

it hasn't happened in the 50 years since the Civil Rights Act passed, and it won't happen in the next 50 years.

Individual christians, where the church of Christ resides within will not be forced to marry gays or participate in gay marriages. Right. So we both agree. Good.
.

No one will ever be forced to marry a gay person.

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

On topic.

Churches have not- and will not be forced to marry anyone that the churches do not want to- whether its because the couples are black, Jewish, Muslim, fat, or homosexuals.

it hasn't happened in the 50 years since the Civil Rights Act passed, and it won't happen in the next 50 years.

Individual christians, where the church of Christ resides within will not be forced to marry gays or participate in gay marriages. Right. So we both agree. Good.
.

No one will ever be forced to marry a gay person.

But they will be forced to cater.

 

[Syriusly]

On topic.

Churches have not- and will not be forced to marry anyone that the churches do not want to- whether its because the couples are black, Jewish, Muslim, fat, or homosexuals.

it hasn't happened in the 50 years since the Civil Rights Act passed, and it won't happen in the next 50 years.

Individual christians, where the church of Christ resides within will not be forced to marry gays or participate in gay marriages. Right. So we both agree. Good.
.

No one will ever be forced to marry a gay person.

But they will be forced to cater.

IF the law says that companies that offer catering services cannot deny service based upon race, religion, country of origin, or sexual orientation.

If you don't like that law, change so an individual can discriminate against an African American or Jew or Muslim or Mexican or Homosexual by claiming a religious objection.

 

[Carib Gyal]

On topic. Churches have not- and will not be forced to marry anyone that the churches do not want to- whether its because the couples are black, Jewish, Muslim, fat, or homosexuals. it hasn't happened in the 50 years since the Civil Rights Act passed, and it won't happen in the next 50 years.

Individual christians, where the church of Christ resides within will not be forced to marry gays or participate in gay marriages. Right. So we both agree. Good. Blacks, Jews, Muslims, fat people and homosexuals are all welcome in the church of Christ. They have to leave their other faith behind though. They are not allowed to dictate redactions or augmentations to the edicts of faith. One of those is the mandate forbidding the promotion of a homosexual culture. (not individual homosexuals). Paramount example of Jude 1's New Testament warning? That would be gays trying to "marry" and raise children as "mother and father".

The church is within the individual. That's where we need to start with all this, where exactly does "church" reside? Is it wood, nails, formica? No. Is it papers, books or telephones? No. Is it the minister, the priest, the nuns? No. Is it the symbolic holy sacrament? No.

The relgion resides within the man. The church and its phasod, its routines are merely the eddy that draws in the parishoners, the flock. The actual religion is what is instilled within the mind and soul of each of the congregation, whether gathered or apart in their daily lives. "Church" doesn't stop happening when someone walks out the door and down the front steps. It is happening all the time in the soul of the faithful.

On topic. Churches have not- and will not be forced to marry anyone that the churches do not want to- whether its because the couples are black, Jewish, Muslim, fat, or homosexuals. it hasn't happened in the 50 years since the Civil Rights Act passed, and it won't happen in the next 50 years

If a Jew or Muslim wanted to be married in a Christian church instead of a temple or mosque, it might mean they aren't Jews or Muslims at all.

 

[Silhouette]

If a Jew or Muslim wanted to be married in a Christian church instead of a temple or mosque, it might mean they aren't Jews or Muslims at all.

Yes, it would be a change in faith, an outward indication of that.

So it gays want to be married or have christians participate in their marriage in the bakery, photo shop or church, they have to accept that to ask them to do this is to ask them to abdicate their faith and enter the "church of LGBT" instead. It is something you cannot force someone to do: to abdicate their faith for another cult. Choice is one thing. Force is quite another...

 

[beagle9]

One of the huge mistakes that this government has made could very well be, in the allowing of ones sexual orientation to become some sort of protected status in this nation, and worse is the way that it has all been done now or what it means in this nation now.

Now this situation is seeking to abuse it's new founded protections in which the government has given it, because sexual orientation can be and does mean many things under such a broad label in which has been given unto it by this government or rather when it is being eternally interpreted and reinterpreted by this government upon each case that arises under the status, and so all one has to do is to declare protected status under these labels that are given them, and they can freely abuse the rights of whom ever they wish to it appears now, and this they will do just as long as they claim this status in which the government has given them in protection there of. I ask this, so why can't peoples sexuality stay in the bedroom, and in private without any intervening by this government anymore ? The harmony of a well balanced society lay within it's fragile but well kept together balance in which kept certain things in check between it all, but as we all move forward it's as if the boundaries between the issues are being knocked down now, and this is where all the troubles seem to begin.

I wonder what perpetuated these things over time, and how is it that we should be viewing them in perspective of or rather giving a protective status upon or well maybe not ?

 

[Carib Gyal]

One of the huge mistakes that this government has made could very well be, in the allowing of ones sexual orientation to become some sort of protected status in this nation, and worse is the way that it has all been done now or what it means in this nation now.

Now this situation is seeking to abuse it's new founded protections in which the government has given it, because sexual orientation can be and does mean many things under such a broad label in which has been given unto it by this government or rather when it is being eternally interpreted and reinterpreted by this government upon each case that arises under the status, and so all one has to do is to declare protected status under these labels that are given them, and they can freely abuse the rights of whom ever they wish to it appears now, and this they will do just as long as they claim this status in which the government has given them in protection there of. I ask this, so why can't peoples sexuality stay in the bedroom, and in private without any intervening by this government anymore ? The harmony of a well balanced society lay within it's fragile but well kept together balance in which kept certain things in check between it all, but as we all move forward it's as if the boundaries between the issues are being knocked down now, and this is where all the troubles seem to begin.

I wonder what perpetuated these things over time, and how is it that we should be viewing them in perspective of or rather giving a protective status upon or well maybe not ?

Lobbyists. If a group has a strong/powerful enough lobby, they, too, can be given protective status. Let's take short or fat people as an example. They have certainly been historically "oppressed." If they can organize and hire strong enough lobbies for their cause, we could see stature and weight being given protective status, as well.

 

[beagle9]

On topic.

Churches have not- and will not be forced to marry anyone that the churches do not want to- whether its because the couples are black, Jewish, Muslim, fat, or homosexuals.

it hasn't happened in the 50 years since the Civil Rights Act passed, and it won't happen in the next 50 years.

Individual christians, where the church of Christ resides within will not be forced to marry gays or participate in gay marriages. Right. So we both agree. Good.
.

No one will ever be forced to marry a gay person.

But they will be forced to cater.

IF the law says that companies that offer catering services cannot deny service based upon race, religion, country of origin, or sexual orientation.

If you don't like that law, change so an individual can discriminate against an African American or Jew or Muslim or Mexican or Homosexual by claiming a religious objection.

Then what is the difference in one claiming a lifestyle or cultural objection to something, as opposed to someone claiming a religious objection to something ? Why is one being protected but not the other one who has the same right also to object to something ? Now when it comes to skin color, well that issue has been settled in this nation, and it has nothing to do with all the issues that have tried to piggy back that issue in order to get another issue passed or recognized as well under the same protected status that it was given.

 

[beagle9]

One of the huge mistakes that this government has made could very well be, in the allowing of ones sexual orientation to become some sort of protected status in this nation, and worse is the way that it has all been done now or what it means in this nation now.

Now this situation is seeking to abuse it's new founded protections in which the government has given it, because sexual orientation can be and does mean many things under such a broad label in which has been given unto it by this government or rather when it is being eternally interpreted and reinterpreted by this government upon each case that arises under the status, and so all one has to do is to declare protected status under these labels that are given them, and they can freely abuse the rights of whom ever they wish to it appears now, and this they will do just as long as they claim this status in which the government has given them in protection there of. I ask this, so why can't peoples sexuality stay in the bedroom, and in private without any intervening by this government anymore ? The harmony of a well balanced society lay within it's fragile but well kept together balance in which kept certain things in check between it all, but as we all move forward it's as if the boundaries between the issues are being knocked down now, and this is where all the troubles seem to begin.

I wonder what perpetuated these things over time, and how is it that we should be viewing them in perspective of or rather giving a protective status upon or well maybe not ?

Lobbyists. If a group has a strong/powerful enough lobby, they, too, can be given protective status. Let's take short or fat people as an example. They have certainly been historically "oppressed." If they can organize and hire strong enough lobbies for their cause, we could see stature and weight being given protective status, as well.

Yes it could mean that all the efforts that the former mayor of NYC had put in place, in order to deny people their right to a large coke or all the donuts they wish to eat, be repealed due to the new protected status in which overweight people will have gotten for themselves through their powerful lobby. I got it, as the goal post is always changing, and so what is today in America may not be tomorrow in this nation.

 

[Carib Gyal]

On topic.

Churches have not- and will not be forced to marry anyone that the churches do not want to- whether its because the couples are black, Jewish, Muslim, fat, or homosexuals.

it hasn't happened in the 50 years since the Civil Rights Act passed, and it won't happen in the next 50 years.

Individual christians, where the church of Christ resides within will not be forced to marry gays or participate in gay marriages. Right. So we both agree. Good.
.

No one will ever be forced to marry a gay person.

But they will be forced to cater.

IF the law says that companies that offer catering services cannot deny service based upon race, religion, country of origin, or sexual orientation.

If you don't like that law, change so an individual can discriminate against an African American or Jew or Muslim or Mexican or Homosexual by claiming a religious objection.

Then what is the difference in one claiming a lifestyle or cultural objection to something, as opposed to someone claiming a religious objection to something ? Why is one being protected but not the other one who has the same right also to object to something ? Now when it comes to skin color, well that issue has been settled in this nation, and it has nothing to do with all the issues that have tried to piggy back that issue in order to get another issue passed or recognized as well under the same protected status that it was given.

I'm not a lawyer, although I think there is no difference. Churches (or synagogues or mosques) will not be forced to marry anyone. Just as you cannot be forced to have gay sex with someone. It's not discrimination, it's just that you're not down with it.

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

On topic.

Churches have not- and will not be forced to marry anyone that the churches do not want to- whether its because the couples are black, Jewish, Muslim, fat, or homosexuals.

it hasn't happened in the 50 years since the Civil Rights Act passed, and it won't happen in the next 50 years.

Individual christians, where the church of Christ resides within will not be forced to marry gays or participate in gay marriages. Right. So we both agree. Good.
.

No one will ever be forced to marry a gay person.

But they will be forced to cater.

IF the law says that companies that offer catering services cannot deny service based upon race, religion, country of origin, or sexual orientation.

If you don't like that law, change so an individual can discriminate against an African American or Jew or Muslim or Mexican or Homosexual by claiming a religious objection.

Nope. Just nasty queers which will always be my right.

 

[Syriusly]

On topic. Churches have not- and will not be forced to marry anyone that the churches do not want to- whether its because the couples are black, Jewish, Muslim, fat, or homosexuals. it hasn't happened in the 50 years since the Civil Rights Act passed, and it won't happen in the next 50 years.

Individual christians, where the church of Christ resides within will not be forced to marry gays or participate in gay marriages. Right. So we both agree. Good. Blacks, Jews, Muslims, fat people and homosexuals are all welcome in the church of Christ. They have to leave their other faith behind though. They are not allowed to dictate redactions or augmentations to the edicts of faith. One of those is the mandate forbidding the promotion of a homosexual culture. (not individual homosexuals). Paramount example of Jude 1's New Testament warning? That would be gays trying to "marry" and raise children as "mother and father".

The church is within the individual. That's where we need to start with all this, where exactly does "church" reside? Is it wood, nails, formica? No. Is it papers, books or telephones? No. Is it the minister, the priest, the nuns? No. Is it the symbolic holy sacrament? No.

The relgion resides within the man. The church and its phasod, its routines are merely the eddy that draws in the parishoners, the flock. The actual religion is what is instilled within the mind and soul of each of the congregation, whether gathered or apart in their daily lives. "Church" doesn't stop happening when someone walks out the door and down the front steps. It is happening all the time in the soul of the faithful.

On topic. Churches have not- and will not be forced to marry anyone that the churches do not want to- whether its because the couples are black, Jewish, Muslim, fat, or homosexuals. it hasn't happened in the 50 years since the Civil Rights Act passed, and it won't happen in the next 50 years

If a Jew or Muslim wanted to be married in a Christian church instead of a temple or mosque, it might mean they aren't Jews or Muslims at all.

Or it could be that they particularly admired that Cathedral and wanted to hold their Jewish wedding there.

On topic.

Churches have not- and will not be forced to marry anyone that the churches do not want to- whether its because the couples are black, Jewish, Muslim, fat, or homosexuals.

it hasn't happened in the 50 years since the Civil Rights Act passed, and it won't happen in the next 50 years.

Individual christians, where the church of Christ resides within will not be forced to marry gays or participate in gay marriages. Right. So we both agree. Good.
.

No one will ever be forced to marry a gay person.

But they will be forced to cater.

IF the law says that companies that offer catering services cannot deny service based upon race, religion, country of origin, or sexual orientation.

If you don't like that law, change so an individual can discriminate against an African American or Jew or Muslim or Mexican or Homosexual by claiming a religious objection.

Nope. Just nasty queers which will always be my right.

Oh you can refuse service to 'nasty queers', nasty negroes or nasty jews or nasty Muslims- you can be bigoted towards anyone once you get the law changed to make your bigotry legal.

 

[Carib Gyal]

On topic. Churches have not- and will not be forced to marry anyone that the churches do not want to- whether its because the couples are black, Jewish, Muslim, fat, or homosexuals. it hasn't happened in the 50 years since the Civil Rights Act passed, and it won't happen in the next 50 years.

Individual christians, where the church of Christ resides within will not be forced to marry gays or participate in gay marriages. Right. So we both agree. Good. Blacks, Jews, Muslims, fat people and homosexuals are all welcome in the church of Christ. They have to leave their other faith behind though. They are not allowed to dictate redactions or augmentations to the edicts of faith. One of those is the mandate forbidding the promotion of a homosexual culture. (not individual homosexuals). Paramount example of Jude 1's New Testament warning? That would be gays trying to "marry" and raise children as "mother and father".

The church is within the individual. That's where we need to start with all this, where exactly does "church" reside? Is it wood, nails, formica? No. Is it papers, books or telephones? No. Is it the minister, the priest, the nuns? No. Is it the symbolic holy sacrament? No.

The relgion resides within the man. The church and its phasod, its routines are merely the eddy that draws in the parishoners, the flock. The actual religion is what is instilled within the mind and soul of each of the congregation, whether gathered or apart in their daily lives. "Church" doesn't stop happening when someone walks out the door and down the front steps. It is happening all the time in the soul of the faithful.

On topic. Churches have not- and will not be forced to marry anyone that the churches do not want to- whether its because the couples are black, Jewish, Muslim, fat, or homosexuals. it hasn't happened in the 50 years since the Civil Rights Act passed, and it won't happen in the next 50 years

If a Jew or Muslim wanted to be married in a Christian church instead of a temple or mosque, it might mean they aren't Jews or Muslims at all.

Or it could be that they particularly admired that Cathedral and wanted to hold their Jewish wedding there.

Individual christians, where the church of Christ resides within will not be forced to marry gays or participate in gay marriages. Right. So we both agree. Good.
.

No one will ever be forced to marry a gay person.

But they will be forced to cater.

IF the law says that companies that offer catering services cannot deny service based upon race, religion, country of origin, or sexual orientation.

If you don't like that law, change so an individual can discriminate against an African American or Jew or Muslim or Mexican or Homosexual by claiming a religious objection.

Nope. Just nasty queers which will always be my right.

Oh you can refuse service to 'nasty queers', nasty negroes or nasty jews or nasty Muslims- you can be bigoted towards anyone once you get the law changed to make your bigotry legal.

Are the nasty Consitutionally protected?

 

[Syriusly]

On topic.

Churches have not- and will not be forced to marry anyone that the churches do not want to- whether its because the couples are black, Jewish, Muslim, fat, or homosexuals.

it hasn't happened in the 50 years since the Civil Rights Act passed, and it won't happen in the next 50 years.

Individual christians, where the church of Christ resides within will not be forced to marry gays or participate in gay marriages. Right. So we both agree. Good.
.

No one will ever be forced to marry a gay person.

But they will be forced to cater.

IF the law says that companies that offer catering services cannot deny service based upon race, religion, country of origin, or sexual orientation.

If you don't like that law, change so an individual can discriminate against an African American or Jew or Muslim or Mexican or Homosexual by claiming a religious objection.

Then what is the difference in one claiming a lifestyle or cultural objection to something, as opposed to someone claiming a religious objection to something ? Why is one being protected but not the other one who has the same right also to object to something ? Now when it comes to skin color, well that issue has been settled in this nation, and it has nothing to do with all the issues that have tried to piggy back that issue in order to get another issue passed or recognized as well under the same protected status that it was given.

There is no difference between plain bigotry and claiming a religious objection to something. Neither is protected by the law- you can't deny service to an African American because you claim you have religious objections to serving him, nor can you deny service to a Jew by claiming religious objections.

Race- religion- national origin- gender- those are all protected by Federal law- and it is against the law to deny service to someone because they live a Jewish lifestyle or a Christian lifestyle.

Some states and communities have additional protections for sexual preference- and it works the same way in those communities.

Don't like the law- change it so you can discriminate to your hearts content.

 

[Syriusly]

If a Jew or Muslim wanted to be married in a Christian church instead of a temple or mosque, it might mean they aren't Jews or Muslims at all.

Yes, it would be a change in faith, an outward indication of that.

So it gays want to be married or have christians participate in their marriage in the bakery, photo shop or church, they have to accept that to ask them to do this is to ask them to abdicate their faith and enter the "church of LGBT" instead. It is something you cannot force someone to do: to abdicate their faith for another cult. Choice is one thing. Force is quite another...

Then your issue is with the law.

Not with homosexuals.

If the public accomodation laws protect persons whose lifestyle is Christian, and they also protect homosexuals in the same way from discrimination- then your objection is to the law.

Simple enough- change the law if you disagree with protecting people from bigotry.

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

On topic. Churches have not- and will not be forced to marry anyone that the churches do not want to- whether its because the couples are black, Jewish, Muslim, fat, or homosexuals. it hasn't happened in the 50 years since the Civil Rights Act passed, and it won't happen in the next 50 years.

Individual christians, where the church of Christ resides within will not be forced to marry gays or participate in gay marriages. Right. So we both agree. Good. Blacks, Jews, Muslims, fat people and homosexuals are all welcome in the church of Christ. They have to leave their other faith behind though. They are not allowed to dictate redactions or augmentations to the edicts of faith. One of those is the mandate forbidding the promotion of a homosexual culture. (not individual homosexuals). Paramount example of Jude 1's New Testament warning? That would be gays trying to "marry" and raise children as "mother and father".

The church is within the individual. That's where we need to start with all this, where exactly does "church" reside? Is it wood, nails, formica? No. Is it papers, books or telephones? No. Is it the minister, the priest, the nuns? No. Is it the symbolic holy sacrament? No.

The relgion resides within the man. The church and its phasod, its routines are merely the eddy that draws in the parishoners, the flock. The actual religion is what is instilled within the mind and soul of each of the congregation, whether gathered or apart in their daily lives. "Church" doesn't stop happening when someone walks out the door and down the front steps. It is happening all the time in the soul of the faithful.

On topic. Churches have not- and will not be forced to marry anyone that the churches do not want to- whether its because the couples are black, Jewish, Muslim, fat, or homosexuals. it hasn't happened in the 50 years since the Civil Rights Act passed, and it won't happen in the next 50 years

If a Jew or Muslim wanted to be married in a Christian church instead of a temple or mosque, it might mean they aren't Jews or Muslims at all.

Or it could be that they particularly admired that Cathedral and wanted to hold their Jewish wedding there.

Individual christians, where the church of Christ resides within will not be forced to marry gays or participate in gay marriages. Right. So we both agree. Good.
.

No one will ever be forced to marry a gay person.

But they will be forced to cater.

IF the law says that companies that offer catering services cannot deny service based upon race, religion, country of origin, or sexual orientation.

If you don't like that law, change so an individual can discriminate against an African American or Jew or Muslim or Mexican or Homosexual by claiming a religious objection.

Nope. Just nasty queers which will always be my right.

Oh you can refuse service to 'nasty queers', nasty negroes or nasty jews or nasty Muslims- you can be bigoted towards anyone once you get the law changed to make your bigotry legal.

Nope. Just nasty queers, which is my right.