Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Silhouette]

I'm sure 100s of anonymous gay-lifestyle "marriage" supporters lined up to oppose churches having to recognize gay lifestyles by performing marriage.

Sure, that's who voted for the 82% above...uh huh... Especially how the question that got the 82% was worded..

 

[Skylar]

I'm sure 100s of anonymous gay-lifestyle "marriage" supporters lined up to oppose churches having to recognize gay lifestyles by performing marriage.

Sure, that's who voted for the 82% above...uh huh... Especially how the question that got the 82% was worded..

Show us. Don't tell us. You're the one claiming the 'momentum' is with churches being forced to perform gay marriages.....even when your own source explicitly contradicts this assumption by about an order of magnitude.

Remember, your imagination isn't evidence. Its an excuse for it.

 

[Paperman299]

I'm sure 100s of anonymous gay-lifestyle "marriage" supporters lined up to oppose churches having to recognize gay lifestyles by performing marriage.

Sure, that's who voted for the 82% above...uh huh... Especially how the question that got the 82% was worded..

What are you talking about? Gay isn't a lifestyle, why would they be anonymous, and there's no reason for "100s" of equal marriage supporters to defend churches from oppression because it's not happening. Why would anyone protest oppression of religious freedom that isn't happening??

 

[Silhouette]

What are you talking about? Gay isn't a lifestyle, why would they be anonymous, and there's no reason for "100s" of equal marriage supporters to defend churches from oppression because it's not happening. Why would anyone protest oppression of religious freedom that isn't happening??

All posters here are anonymous as far as I know. Do any of us post with our legal names?

I'll have to check with Anne Heche and the tens of thousands of "lesbians" like her that woke up and thought..."If I'm attracted to all things masculine then....?" and get back to you on whether or not it's a lifestyle..

 

[Skylar]

What are you talking about? Gay isn't a lifestyle, why would they be anonymous, and there's no reason for "100s" of equal marriage supporters to defend churches from oppression because it's not happening. Why would anyone protest oppression of religious freedom that isn't happening??

All posters here are anonymous as far as I know. Do any of us post with our legal names?

I'll have to check with Anne Heche and the tens of thousands of "lesbians" like her that woke up and thought..."If I'm attracted to all things masculine then....?" and get back to you on whether or not it's a lifestyle..

So....which church has been forced to conduct a gay wedding? And who is advocating such?

If you don't know their legal names, give us the handles...with accompanying quotes.

 

[Silhouette]

So....which church has been forced to conduct a gay wedding? And who is advocating such?

So which christian baker or florist or photographer or caterer was being forced to accomodate a gay wedding 10 years ago?

 

[Skylar]

So....which church has been forced to conduct a gay wedding? And who is advocating such?

If you don't know their legal names, give us the handles...with accompanying quotes.

So which christian baker or florist or photographer or caterer was being forced to accomodate a gay wedding 10 years ago?

Bakers, Florists and Photographers aren't churches.

So which church has been forced to conduct a gay wedding? And who is advocating such?

This is the 5th time I've asked you this. And your record of failure is perfect. Can we then conclude that you have no such example? That you're merely fearmongering again?

 

[Silhouette]

Bakers, Florists and Photographers aren't churches.

So which church has been forced to conduct a gay wedding? And who is advocating such?

This is the 5th time I've asked you this. And your record of failure is perfect. Can we then conclude that you have no such example? That you're merely fearmongering again?

They are christians and the church is within the heart of the faithful...so...again...I haven't heard ten years ago of christan bakers, florists, photographers or caterers getting sued by the LGBT fold...until recently..

 

[beagle9]

God's admonitions regarding the intermarrying between races had NOTHING to do with skin color and everything to do with religion.

He told his chosen people not to marry outside their own faith. It's sound advice, the same advice I give my children.

And yet there were- and probably still are- people who believe that God does not want people to intermarry between races- and any church could refuse to marry an inter-racial couple if it chose to do so.

Churches are under no obligation to marry any couple it does not want to marry- and never will be.

I'm sure you think you made a point here.

Thanks- glad to offer it again:

And yet there were- and probably still are- people who believe that God does not want people to intermarry between races- and any church could refuse to marry an inter-racial couple if it chose to do so.

Churches are under no obligation to marry any couple it does not want to marry- and never will be.

This thing that you keep saying about the "churches" being under no obligation to marry any couple it does not want to marry- and they never will be, and then you use Blacks, Jews and other scenario's in which you keep creating for your hypothetical analysis in which has a hate message that is being placed into this thread against the entire church by you, but it is all just so transparent of you... You are trying to convey such a message in a way as if to say you are for the church's right to do what you are saying, when in fact you are not for it at all, and you are trying to nudge us and/or your affiliates to tell us how the Churches are just a bunch of bigots, but that is their right to be a Bigot even though you disagree with this thought process in which you are using... How kind of you to point all that out to us, but we know better about what you are up to in here. You are selling snake oil is what you are doing.

I am absolutely serious when I say that every Church has the right to decide how to deal with church matters- and can discriminate in any fashion it chooses to.

Yes- Churches have the right to be bigots.

And yes- I see no moral or legal difference between any church refusing to marry a couple because

• they are mixed race
• they are gay
• they are Jewish
• they are Puerto Rican
• they are fat
• they are divorced

Do you think that churches do not have that right? Do you think that there are not churches who have advocated say racial segregation? Been against mixed race marriages?

Have you ever heard of the sermon by Bob Jones- founder of Bob Jones University- a Christian college which famously forbade mixed race dating.

Is Segregation Scriptural by Bob Jones Sr 1960 A Time To Laugh

Its a fine sermon where Bob Jones explains how God wants the races segregated. Bob Jones University rules prohibited mixed race dating on Biblical grounds until 14 years ago.

And like I said, this is how the movement is going after, and have gone after the Christians for whom they target as a whole group when going after them, and they are doing this because they feel that they (the Christians) are a threat to their cause in which they want to push heavily now in life.

They (those who have an agenda) want to blanket the Christians or stereo type them altogether as being bigoted Christians, and they want to do this by way of bringing your so called bigot theory into play almost every time against them, and to do this for the broader agenda being pushed. You want to use it against them all this claim of bigotry, and you want to use those who misrepresent the Christians the most. This is the goal otherwise to go after them all with this broad brush you keep using on them in this way.

Now we all know that there are those who are bad amongst every group now don't we, but it doesn't mean that those that are bad somehow represent the whole group and you should know this also, but here you are doing what you do.. Why?

Now there are bigots of course who are mixed into everything, just like every other race, religion or culture has the same... The Blacks have them, the whites have them, the Chinese Americans has them, the Mexican Americans has them, the Italian Americans has them, and on and on it all goes..... Every group out there has them, but they never control the whole group, so do you get the picture on something you already know ? Everyone has within their groups the same things that are mixed in and amongst their groups, but the movement wants to put the bad who are amongst the Christians ((out into the fore front)), and they do this in order to try and stick them as representing all those who are Christian, and they do this for a reason, and they do it for their overall political agenda, and then ultimately their goals in life.

You and your buds figure that they (the bigots), are hiding always in and amongst the flock. and so you will begin by saying that they are of course those who are against interracial marriages as you might suggest or say that they are (or) that they are those for whom would deny marrying a Jewish man and a catholic woman within a baptist church as you might say that they would do, but it's all for a larger agenda that you say these things in which you do hope leads others to be bigoted against Christians.. This is why the question is asked I guess
Should Churches be forced to accommodate for homosexual weddings?, because the person who wrote the OP, must think that it is coming soon, and he or she must think this because of all the signs that would suggest such a thing will soon come to pass.

Hey, we all could take the worst among any group in the nation, and we could try to stereo type the whole group by use of or by way of the bad who are amongst the group that might be targeted in this way, but people are smarter than this, so you fail in your tactic as is used here.

They (those with an agenda), want to use the bigots who are amongst all as an excuse, and they do this in order to try and test the faith or beliefs of those who disagree with the agenda in life maybe, but hey (the Christians) also disagree with a lot of other things in life just as well, and they do this mainly for themselves and their children as is based upon Biblical teachings about such things. The Christians are not a threat, and they just want to be left alone is all.

 

[Syriusly]

And yet there were- and probably still are- people who believe that God does not want people to intermarry between races- and any church could refuse to marry an inter-racial couple if it chose to do so.

Churches are under no obligation to marry any couple it does not want to marry- and never will be.

I'm sure you think you made a point here.

Thanks- glad to offer it again:

And yet there were- and probably still are- people who believe that God does not want people to intermarry between races- and any church could refuse to marry an inter-racial couple if it chose to do so.

Churches are under no obligation to marry any couple it does not want to marry- and never will be.

This thing that you keep saying about the "churches" being under no obligation to marry any couple it does not want to marry- and they never will be, and then you use Blacks, Jews and other scenario's in which you keep creating for your hypothetical analysis in which has a hate message that is being placed into this thread against the entire church by you, but it is all just so transparent of you... You are trying to convey such a message in a way as if to say you are for the church's right to do what you are saying, when in fact you are not for it at all, and you are trying to nudge us and/or your affiliates to tell us how the Churches are just a bunch of bigots, but that is their right to be a Bigot even though you disagree with this thought process in which you are using... How kind of you to point all that out to us, but we know better about what you are up to in here. You are selling snake oil is what you are doing.

I am absolutely serious when I say that every Church has the right to decide how to deal with church matters- and can discriminate in any fashion it chooses to.

Yes- Churches have the right to be bigots.

And yes- I see no moral or legal difference between any church refusing to marry a couple because

• they are mixed race
• they are gay
• they are Jewish
• they are Puerto Rican
• they are fat
• they are divorced

Do you think that churches do not have that right? Do you think that there are not churches who have advocated say racial segregation? Been against mixed race marriages?

Have you ever heard of the sermon by Bob Jones- founder of Bob Jones University- a Christian college which famously forbade mixed race dating.

Is Segregation Scriptural by Bob Jones Sr 1960 A Time To Laugh

Its a fine sermon where Bob Jones explains how God wants the races segregated. Bob Jones University rules prohibited mixed race dating on Biblical grounds until 14 years ago.

And like I said, this is how the movement is going after, and have gone after the Christians for whom they target as a whole group when going after them, and they are doing this because they feel that they (the Christians) are a threat to their cause in which they want to push heavily now in life.

They (those who have an agenda) want to blanket the Christians or stereo type them altogether as being bigoted Christians, and they want to do this by way of bringing your so called bigot theory into play almost every time against them, and to do this for the broader agenda being pushed. You want to use it against them all this claim of bigotry, and you want to use those who misrepresent the Christians the most. This is the goal otherwise to go after them all with this broad brush you keep using on them in this way.l.

The title of this thread is 'should churches be forced to accomodate homosexual weddings'- and churches are Christian.

I didn't ask the question- I have repeatedly said that no- churches should not- and will not be forced to accomodate homosexual or any other weddings.

I bring up the issue of racial prohibitions because the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed 50 years ago- and in that entire time no one has used that act to sue a church to require them to marry a couple because one of them is African American.

My agenda is equal treatment under the law for homosexuals- for them to have the exact same legal treatment as my wife and I enjoy.

If my pointing out that bigotry is bigotry makes you uncomfortable- so be it.

But my posts are always on point- no one will be forcing any church to marry any couple against their will.

 

[Syriusly]

Bakers, Florists and Photographers aren't churches.

So which church has been forced to conduct a gay wedding? And who is advocating such?

This is the 5th time I've asked you this. And your record of failure is perfect. Can we then conclude that you have no such example? That you're merely fearmongering again?

They are christians and the church is within the heart of the faithful...so...again...I haven't heard ten years ago of christan bakers, florists, photographers or caterers getting sued by the LGBT fold...until recently..

Churches are not subject to taxation.

Bakers are.

Show me a Baker who has tax exempt status because he is a church, and I will show you a baker who has no obligation to comply with public accomodation laws.

 

[Syriusly]

I'm sure 100s of anonymous gay-lifestyle "marriage" supporters lined up to oppose churches having to recognize gay lifestyles by performing marriage.

Sure, that's who voted for the 82% above...uh huh... Especially how the question that got the 82% was worded..

You are delusional.

 

[Skylar]

Bakers, Florists and Photographers aren't churches.

So which church has been forced to conduct a gay wedding? And who is advocating such?

This is the 5th time I've asked you this. And your record of failure is perfect. Can we then conclude that you have no such example? That you're merely fearmongering again?

They are christians and the church is within the heart of the faithful...so...again...I haven't heard ten years ago of christan bakers, florists, photographers or caterers getting sued by the LGBT fold...until recently..

You're not a church, Silo. You're not a mosque. You're not a synogugue. You're a person. Ending any 'church in your heart' nonsense. As Sy pointed out, churches are tax exempt. People clearly aren't. Offering you an undeniable and superbly concrete example of how uselessly inapplicable your 'place of worship is clogging my aorta' actually is.

 

[beagle9]

I'm sure you think you made a point here.

Thanks- glad to offer it again:

And yet there were- and probably still are- people who believe that God does not want people to intermarry between races- and any church could refuse to marry an inter-racial couple if it chose to do so.

Churches are under no obligation to marry any couple it does not want to marry- and never will be.

This thing that you keep saying about the "churches" being under no obligation to marry any couple it does not want to marry- and they never will be, and then you use Blacks, Jews and other scenario's in which you keep creating for your hypothetical analysis in which has a hate message that is being placed into this thread against the entire church by you, but it is all just so transparent of you... You are trying to convey such a message in a way as if to say you are for the church's right to do what you are saying, when in fact you are not for it at all, and you are trying to nudge us and/or your affiliates to tell us how the Churches are just a bunch of bigots, but that is their right to be a Bigot even though you disagree with this thought process in which you are using... How kind of you to point all that out to us, but we know better about what you are up to in here. You are selling snake oil is what you are doing.

I am absolutely serious when I say that every Church has the right to decide how to deal with church matters- and can discriminate in any fashion it chooses to.

Yes- Churches have the right to be bigots.

And yes- I see no moral or legal difference between any church refusing to marry a couple because

• they are mixed race
• they are gay
• they are Jewish
• they are Puerto Rican
• they are fat
• they are divorced

Do you think that churches do not have that right? Do you think that there are not churches who have advocated say racial segregation? Been against mixed race marriages?

Have you ever heard of the sermon by Bob Jones- founder of Bob Jones University- a Christian college which famously forbade mixed race dating.

Is Segregation Scriptural by Bob Jones Sr 1960 A Time To Laugh

Its a fine sermon where Bob Jones explains how God wants the races segregated. Bob Jones University rules prohibited mixed race dating on Biblical grounds until 14 years ago.

And like I said, this is how the movement is going after, and have gone after the Christians for whom they target as a whole group when going after them, and they are doing this because they feel that they (the Christians) are a threat to their cause in which they want to push heavily now in life.

They (those who have an agenda) want to blanket the Christians or stereo type them altogether as being bigoted Christians, and they want to do this by way of bringing your so called bigot theory into play almost every time against them, and to do this for the broader agenda being pushed. You want to use it against them all this claim of bigotry, and you want to use those who misrepresent the Christians the most. This is the goal otherwise to go after them all with this broad brush you keep using on them in this way.l.

The title of this thread is 'should churches be forced to accomodate homosexual weddings'- and churches are Christian.

I didn't ask the question- I have repeatedly said that no- churches should not- and will not be forced to accomodate homosexual or any other weddings.

I bring up the issue of racial prohibitions because the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed 50 years ago- and in that entire time no one has used that act to sue a church to require them to marry a couple because one of them is African American.

My agenda is equal treatment under the law for homosexuals- for them to have the exact same legal treatment as my wife and I enjoy.

If my pointing out that bigotry is bigotry makes you uncomfortable- so be it.

But my posts are always on point- no one will be forcing any church to marry any couple against their will.

If you couldn't interject race into these threads somehow, and for what ever reason that you do so, then I think you would fear losing the argument if you didn't or couldn't interject race so easily into it, and with government back up also if it is needed.

Now the funny thing is, is that it has nothing to do with the issue of another peoples struggle in which they feel that they have once lived in life, but opportunity knocks right, and now you all want to come forward with every excuse under the sun these days it seems..

 

[Syriusly]

Thanks- glad to offer it again:

And yet there were- and probably still are- people who believe that God does not want people to intermarry between races- and any church could refuse to marry an inter-racial couple if it chose to do so.

Churches are under no obligation to marry any couple it does not want to marry- and never will be.

This thing that you keep saying about the "churches" being under no obligation to marry any couple it does not want to marry- and they never will be, and then you use Blacks, Jews and other scenario's in which you keep creating for your hypothetical analysis in which has a hate message that is being placed into this thread against the entire church by you, but it is all just so transparent of you... You are trying to convey such a message in a way as if to say you are for the church's right to do what you are saying, when in fact you are not for it at all, and you are trying to nudge us and/or your affiliates to tell us how the Churches are just a bunch of bigots, but that is their right to be a Bigot even though you disagree with this thought process in which you are using... How kind of you to point all that out to us, but we know better about what you are up to in here. You are selling snake oil is what you are doing.

I am absolutely serious when I say that every Church has the right to decide how to deal with church matters- and can discriminate in any fashion it chooses to.

Yes- Churches have the right to be bigots.

And yes- I see no moral or legal difference between any church refusing to marry a couple because

• they are mixed race
• they are gay
• they are Jewish
• they are Puerto Rican
• they are fat
• they are divorced

Do you think that churches do not have that right? Do you think that there are not churches who have advocated say racial segregation? Been against mixed race marriages?

Have you ever heard of the sermon by Bob Jones- founder of Bob Jones University- a Christian college which famously forbade mixed race dating.

Is Segregation Scriptural by Bob Jones Sr 1960 A Time To Laugh

Its a fine sermon where Bob Jones explains how God wants the races segregated. Bob Jones University rules prohibited mixed race dating on Biblical grounds until 14 years ago.

And like I said, this is how the movement is going after, and have gone after the Christians for whom they target as a whole group when going after them, and they are doing this because they feel that they (the Christians) are a threat to their cause in which they want to push heavily now in life.

They (those who have an agenda) want to blanket the Christians or stereo type them altogether as being bigoted Christians, and they want to do this by way of bringing your so called bigot theory into play almost every time against them, and to do this for the broader agenda being pushed. You want to use it against them all this claim of bigotry, and you want to use those who misrepresent the Christians the most. This is the goal otherwise to go after them all with this broad brush you keep using on them in this way.l.

The title of this thread is 'should churches be forced to accomodate homosexual weddings'- and churches are Christian.

I didn't ask the question- I have repeatedly said that no- churches should not- and will not be forced to accomodate homosexual or any other weddings.

I bring up the issue of racial prohibitions because the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed 50 years ago- and in that entire time no one has used that act to sue a church to require them to marry a couple because one of them is African American.

My agenda is equal treatment under the law for homosexuals- for them to have the exact same legal treatment as my wife and I enjoy.

If my pointing out that bigotry is bigotry makes you uncomfortable- so be it.

But my posts are always on point- no one will be forcing any church to marry any couple against their will.

If you couldn't interject race into these threads somehow, and for what ever reason that you do so, then I think you would fear losing the argument if you didn't or couldn't interject race so easily into it, and with government back up also if it is needed.

Now the funny thing is, is that it has nothing to do with the issue of another peoples struggle in which they feel that they have once lived in life, but opportunity knocks right, and now you all want to come forward with every excuse under the sun these days it seems..

You seem to overlook that I have provided many other examples besides race- you are the one obsessed with race here- not me.

No church will ever be forced to marry a couple that it doesn't want to- in the 60 years since the 1964 Civil Rights Act- which prohibited denial of service of public accommodations based upon- race- religion- national origin- and I believe gender.

In those 60 years- not one church has been forced to marry a couple that they don't want to.

Yet you fall right for the fear mongering of the homophobes.

You fear 'persecution' of Christians- when in reality it has never been Christians in America who have been persecuted- and it still is not.

Christian couples can get married in all 50 states. Christians have not been fired for being Christian, and Christians have not been arrested for having sex with another Christian.

Now- do you want to discuss your fears of homosexual marriage? And why you fear others getting married?

 

[Silhouette]

You're not a church, Silo. You're not a mosque. You're not a synogugue. You're a person. Ending any 'church in your heart' nonsense. As Sy pointed out, churches are tax exempt. People clearly aren't. Offering you an undeniable and superbly concrete example of how uselessly inapplicable your 'place of worship is clogging my aorta' actually is.

The First Amendment doesn't read "Freedom of Church". It reads "Freedom of religion". And religion is, for a FACT, in the heart of a man.

 

[Skylar]

You're not a church, Silo. You're not a mosque. You're not a synogugue. You're a person. Ending any 'church in your heart' nonsense. As Sy pointed out, churches are tax exempt. People clearly aren't. Offering you an undeniable and superbly concrete example of how uselessly inapplicable your 'place of worship is clogging my aorta' actually is.

The First Amendment doesn't read "Freedom of Church". It reads "Freedom of religion". And religion is, for a FACT, in the heart of a man.

And you're more than welcome to practice your religion. But it doesn't exempt you from commonly applied laws.

And since the question is are churches required to conduct gay weddings against their will, the answer is no. Because you are not a church. You can tell me that you have a building lodged in a ventricle all you like. You're not a mosque either. Nor a synagogue. You're a person. And if you do business with the public, you're required to meet minimum standards of fairness and equity with the public.

Just like everyone else. You aren't special. And you aren't exempt.

 

[Silhouette]

The First Amendment doesn't read "Freedom of Church". It reads "Freedom of religion". And religion is, for a FACT, in the heart of a man.

And you're more than welcome to practice your religion. But it doesn't exempt you from commonly applied laws.
And since the question is are churches required to conduct gay weddings against their will, the answer is no. Because you are not a church. You can tell me that you have a building lodged in a ventricle all you like. You're not a mosque either. Nor a synagogue. You're a person. And if you do business with the public, you're required to meet minimum standards of fairness and equity with the public.

Just like everyone else. You aren't special. And you aren't exempt.

Well churches are made up of individuals, aren't they? So I can see where you're eventually going to build up your argument towards...which everybody knows is the case and when you deny it, you are lying through your teeth..

You cannot guarantee a man freedom of RELIGION and then tell him "oh but if we want you to, you have to abandon key elements and edicts of that religion, like Jude 1, which will damn your soul to hell for an eternity."

If you say that to a person, it better be about if his religion requires that he kill someone or discriminates against a race of people. It better not be to require him to participate in another faith-about-lifestyles like LGBT. Especially if when he is told if he does so, he will go to Hell for eternity. A gay person cannot require any christian to violate Jude 1 of the NEW Testament.

 

[Silhouette]

If you couldn't interject race into these threads somehow, and for what ever reason that you do so, then I think you would fear losing the argument if you didn't or couldn't interject race so easily into it, and with government back up also if it is needed.

Now the funny thing is, is that it has nothing to do with the issue of another peoples struggle in which they feel that they have once lived in life, but opportunity knocks right, and now you all want to come forward with every excuse under the sun these days it seems..

Gay lifestyle marriage for sure is not about a race of people. A race is a noun. A lifestyle is an action.

 

[koshergrl]

God's admonitions regarding the intermarrying between races had NOTHING to do with skin color and everything to do with religion.

He told his chosen people not to marry outside their own faith. It's sound advice, the same advice I give my children.

And yet there were- and probably still are- people who believe that God does not want people to intermarry between races- and any church could refuse to marry an inter-racial couple if it chose to do so.

Churches are under no obligation to marry any couple it does not want to marry- and never will be.

I'm sure you think you made a point here.

That religious justification for restrictions on marriage don't always hold up legally, or make much sense rationally?

It makes a lot of sense, and in this country, since just about anybody can get married by someone somewhere, it holds up perfectly fine legally as well.

A church is under no obligation to marry anyone if they don't want to.