Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Syriusly]

Those are all lawsuits based upon public accomodation laws. Churches are exempt from public accomodation laws. Any lawsuits against a church would therefore be dismissed at the first hearing. But yes- there would be idiots who would attempt such a lawsuit. Any idiot can file a lawsuit, just like any idiot can claim that it is still illegal for gay couples to marry in California.

But isn't a church simply a congregation of christians? How is it more or less than that? And if christians have been successfully forced to promote gay-lifestyle "marriages" in violation of their core faith values, how is it again that this would legally protect a congregation of them?

Do you think that if you are a Christian you are exempt from taxes?

 

[Syriusly]

Your evaluation of Windsor is imaginary, doesn't exist.

The vote now will be 6-3, maybe even 7-2. None of the judges want to be on the wrong side of an opinion as momentous as Brown.

Lie to yourself all you want; the rest of us will just step back and let you flounder.

If you are so sure the Court will reverse Windsor at 6-3 or 7-2, then I guess the Hearing will be a mere formality?

The Court is not and will not be considering Windsor at all.

 

[Paperman299]

But if 82% would not go along with that plan (a number which surely includes homosexuals), then that's evidence churches WON'T be forced to do ceremonies they object to, not that they WILL be, isn't it?

82% does not necessarily include homomsexuals. Homosexuals do not comprise 18% of the total population....so that's not a given mathematically. However, give it a few years and homosexuals may outdo 18% and rise even higher....

My evidence for that?

Here:

Youth aged 13 to 24 accounted for an estimated 26% of all new HIV infections in the United States in 2010.

• Most new HIV infections among youth occur among gay and bisexual males; there was a 22% increase in estimated new infections in this group from 2008 to 2010. CDC - HIV Among Youth - Age - Risk - HIV AIDS

Hey, aren't those the same years the big gay media push/gay marriage push really went into full tilt?.....fads sure catch on with the young..

But if 82% would not go along with that plan (a number which surely includes homosexuals), then that's evidence churches WON'T be forced to do ceremonies they object to, not that they WILL be, isn't it?

 

[Skylar]

But isn't a church simply a congregation of christians?

Didn't you just say that a church was something lodged in your heart....like a pig valve, or arterial plaque? Then that you yourself were a church?

Your definition changes with virtually every recitation. And you're still stymied by simple, simple math:

0 +0 - 0 = 0

That's the number cases where churches have been forced to accommodate gay weddings this year, plus the number of cases where churches have been forced to accommodate gay weddings in this country over the last year minus the number of times churches have been forced to accommodate gay marriages since the Windsor ruling equaling the number of times that churches have been forced to accommodate gay weddings in this country, ever.

Which is zero on all courts.

And if christians have been successfully forced to promote gay-lifestyle "marriages" in violation of their core faith values, how is it again that this would legally protect a congregation of them?

Selling a good or service isn't 'promoting' the customer. Its promoting the good or service. So the entire premise of your argument is backward.

 

[Skylar]

But if 82% would not go along with that plan (a number which surely includes homosexuals), then that's evidence churches WON'T be forced to do ceremonies they object to, not that they WILL be, isn't it?

82% does not necessarily include homomsexuals. Homosexuals do not comprise 18% of the total population....so that's not a given mathematically. However, give it a few years and homosexuals may outdo 18% and rise even higher....

My evidence for that?

Here:

Youth aged 13 to 24 accounted for an estimated 26% of all new HIV infections in the United States in 2010.

• Most new HIV infections among youth occur among gay and bisexual males; there was a 22% increase in estimated new infections in this group from 2008 to 2010. CDC - HIV Among Youth - Age - Risk - HIV AIDS

Hey, aren't those the same years the big gay media push/gay marriage push really went into full tilt?.....fads sure catch on with the young..

But if 82% would not go along with that plan (a number which surely includes homosexuals), then that's evidence churches WON'T be forced to do ceremonies they object to, not that they WILL be, isn't it?

But paperman.....overwhelming opposition, without a single board member voicing support for an idea clearly demonstrates that its about to happen. At least in the wasteland of Silo's imagination.

 

[Skylar]

The reason is the evidence that has been found in the recent and/or not so recent attacks on Christians, and this being coupled with the judges now siding with the homosexuals on marriage, in which is a new thing for the gay's and lesbians.

And how many times have churches been forced to accommodate gay marriages? Can you round the number of incidents off to the nearest thousand please. If that's too difficult, how about to the nearly hundred. The nearly dozen?

Or...as we both already know, is the number exactly zero?

Not a single example of churches being forced to accommodate gay weddings in the history of country. But still your ilk are left standing in steaming yellow puddles over their fantasy which has never happened, nor any ruling has supported, regarding laws that don't even apply to churches.

Once again, for the cheap seats and the desperately, willfully ignorant, PA laws don't apply to churches. Nor even have. The apply only to public businesses.

Some in society may feel or do feel that it is just the tip of the iceberg on what is yet to come in it all, and they wonder if the two can exist together without going after one another's beliefs in life, and this because a judge or judges have decided to go along with a new idea that gay's and lesbians should be married just like heteros have been married in the past.

And those some would be basing their conclusions on hysteric emotion, mascara melting fear, and hapless delusion while ignoring the pristine lack of any evidence to support them, nor bridge from the fear stained wasteland of their imagination to the world the rest of us live in.

0 + 0 - 0 = 0, buddy.

 

[mdk]

beagle and Sil continue to flail as the thread's fail becomes ever more apparent.

I'd hardly call 82% a "fail"...the poll above and the 50,000 views on this most popular thread in USMB's history are anything but a "fail"...

Do you think your spin on the truth has that potent of an effect?

(Translation: PLEASE! Moderators please make this thread go away right now especially!!)

Oh please, nobody is trying to get this thread shut down and the poll you so foolishly hang your hat on doesn't even as about gay marriage. You have been reminded on numerous occasions that many of the same people that support gay marriage also support the right of churches to marry or not marry any couple as they see fit. You obtusely ignore every inconvenient poll that states a majority of Americans support gays having access to marriage. Instead you bizarrely cling to this poll, long lines at Chick-fil-A, and Facebook pages "likes" as proof that most Americans really do not support gay marriage. You reek of desperation and it warms the cockles of my heart.

 

[Silhouette]

The Court is not and will not be considering Windsor at all.

??????????????????????

The US Surpreme Court in Deciding once and for all its position for removing state-defined privelege for the protection of children to a "federally-mandated free-for-all...formative structure for kids be damned" ....to become a "right" (for ALL alternative lifestyes, remember the Constitution..) will not consult Its Own most recent and comprehensive thoughts on that direct and specific question of law?????????????????????????????????

Damn girl. Put down that crack pipe!

That goes for you too, Paperman..

But if 82% would not go along with that plan (a number which surely includes homosexuals), then that's evidence churches WON'T be forced to do ceremonies they object to, not that they WILL be, isn't it?

All it takes is one person to file a lawsuit. A church is merely a congregation of individuals of a faith. Look what has already been set as a precedent to the individual christian...bakers, florist, photographers...

 

[Skylar]

The US Surpreme Court in Deciding once and for all its position for removing state-defined privelege for the protection of children to a "federally-mandated free-for-all...formative structure for kids be damned" ....to become a "right" (for ALL alternative lifestyes, remember the Constitution..) will not consult Its Own most recent and comprehensive thoughts on that direct and specific question of law?

Windsor wasn't about the legality of State gay marriage bans. Nor did it decide any issue related to them. Remember, you grossly misunderstood the question being answered by Edith Windsor for the court to answer.

Every lower court ruling that has overturned gay marriage has done so on the basis that such bans violate constitutional guarantees. The petition for writ of cert distributed for the January 15th conference (DeBoer v. Snyder, Bourke v. Beshear, Obergefell v. Wymyslo, and Tanco v. Haslam) are all questions about the violation of constitutional guarentees by gay marriage bans.

And issue that Windsor does not rule on.

And yet in another stunning display of desperate, willful ignorance, you ignore the constitutional guarantees Windsor insists all state marriage laws are subject to, ignore all the federal rulings that overturn gay marriage on the basis of the violation of those guarantees and ignore every request for cert now distributed to the USSC for their conference.....

....despite every single case about gay marriage being considered by the USSC involving violation of constitutional guarantees.

The willful ignorance is simply stunning. And it won't change a thing. Constitutional guarantees are the fulcrum around which any case regarding gay marriage will be decided by the USSC this year.

All it takes is one person to file a lawsuit. A church is merely a congregation of individuals of a faith. Look what has already been set as a precedent to the individual christian...bakers, florist, photographers..

None of which are churches. But instead, public businesses. Churches aren't businesses and aren't subject to public accommodation laws. And just like you ignore any mention of 'constitutional guarentees' in the Windsor ruling, you ignore the fact that no PA law applies to any church.

Rendering your prediction more useless fearmongering.

 

[Silhouette]

But if 82% would not go along with that plan (a number which surely includes homosexuals), then that's evidence churches WON'T be forced to do ceremonies they object to, not that they WILL be, isn't it?

No, unfortunately, no it isn't.

A majority in all the states currently believing erroneously that they must allow gay-lifestyle marraige against their will enacted laws limiting marriage to one man/one woman. And still they were legally-forced to accept (not that they have to) that which is repugnant to the majority.

 

[Paperman299]

But if 82% would not go along with that plan (a number which surely includes homosexuals), then that's evidence churches WON'T be forced to do ceremonies they object to, not that they WILL be, isn't it?

No, unfortunately, no it isn't.

A majority in all the states currently believing erroneously that they must allow gay-lifestyle marraige against their will enacted laws limiting marriage to one man/one woman. And still they were legally-forced to accept (not that they have to) that which is repugnant to the majority.

The poll is still the kind of evidence I stated it was. A percentage of 82% saying "no" is evidence people won't force churches to do something churches don't want to do.

Your new evidence is that there are other people who would prefer equal marriage was not a legal reality, but this is irrelevant to what may actually happen with regards to religious freedom. You haven't even given evidence that a majority of people opposing equal marriage actually believe churches will be forced to conduct religious marriage ceremonies for same-sex partners, as you do. AND EVEN IF THEY DID, your position would still be no stronger than before. Evidence people are afraid something will happen is not evidence it will happen; if it were, wouldn't America have been ravaged by SARS, Avian influenza, swine flu, AND Ebola by now?

 

[Silhouette]

Your new evidence is that there are other people who would prefer equal marriage was not a legal reality, but this is irrelevant to what may actually happen with regards to religious freedom. You haven't even given evidence that a majority of people opposing equal marriage actually believe churches will be forced to conduct religious marriage ceremonies for same-sex partners, as you do. AND EVEN IF THEY DID, your position would still be no stronger than before. Evidence people are afraid something will happen is not evidence it will happen; if it were, wouldn't America have been ravaged by SARS, Avian influenza, swine flu, AND Ebola by now?

The evidence is that christians have already been legally forced to abdicate their faith in favor of the LGBT lifestyle.

What YOU are dodging around is that churches are nothing but congregations of christians. All it takes is one plaintiff. ONE. The precedent for forcing christians to abdicate their beliefs in favor of deviant lifestyles forbidden to promote by their religion HAS ALREADY HAPPENED.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

But if 82% would not go along with that plan (a number which surely includes homosexuals), then that's evidence churches WON'T be forced to do ceremonies they object to, not that they WILL be, isn't it?

No, unfortunately, no it isn't.

A majority in all the states currently believing erroneously that they must allow gay-lifestyle marraige against their will enacted laws limiting marriage to one man/one woman. And still they were legally-forced to accept (not that they have to) that which is repugnant to the majority.

The poll is still the kind of evidence I stated it was. A percentage of 82% saying "no" is evidence people won't force churches to do something churches don't want to do.

Your new evidence is that there are other people who would prefer equal marriage was not a legal reality, but this is irrelevant to what may actually happen with regards to religious freedom. You haven't even given evidence that a majority of people opposing equal marriage actually believe churches will be forced to conduct religious marriage ceremonies for same-sex partners, as you do. AND EVEN IF THEY DID, your position would still be no stronger than before. Evidence people are afraid something will happen is not evidence it will happen; if it were, wouldn't America have been ravaged by SARS, Avian influenza, swine flu, AND Ebola by now?

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

 

[Syriusly]

The Court is not and will not be considering Windsor at all.

??????????????????????

The US Surpreme Court in Deciding o...

whether making it illegal for gay couples to marry is constitutional or not.

And that is all they will be deciding.

 

[Paperman299]

Your new evidence is that there are other people who would prefer equal marriage was not a legal reality, but this is irrelevant to what may actually happen with regards to religious freedom. You haven't even given evidence that a majority of people opposing equal marriage actually believe churches will be forced to conduct religious marriage ceremonies for same-sex partners, as you do. AND EVEN IF THEY DID, your position would still be no stronger than before. Evidence people are afraid something will happen is not evidence it will happen; if it were, wouldn't America have been ravaged by SARS, Avian influenza, swine flu, AND Ebola by now?

The evidence is that christians have already been legally forced to abdicate their faith in favor of the LGBT lifestyle.

What YOU are dodging around is that churches are nothing but congregations of christians. All it takes is one plaintiff. ONE. The precedent for forcing christians to abdicate their beliefs in favor of deviant lifestyles forbidden to promote by their religion HAS ALREADY HAPPENED.

Christians have not been forced to abdicate their faith. In fact, if you are a straight person, then laws pertaining to marriages between same-sex partners don't affect you at all. Christians can believe and worship exactly what they were believing and worshiping before, in the same way they were before, regardless of who other people are marrying. The only caveat is they can't make OTHER people do it.

As to your second statement, I and others have actually tackled this "a church is wherever Christians are" argument multiple times. A church, legally, is a different entity than a business. It is tax-exempt, and it enjoys special protections.

And you still have provided zero evidence that anyone is seeking government intervention in how religious ceremonies are conducted. Your imaginary plaintiff does not exist, and never has. And if someone ever did come forward and try to sue a church over how they conducted their religious ceremonies, they A) would have NO CASE, and B) would enjoy no support from me or anyone else you've been arguing with on this thread.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

But if 82% would not go along with that plan (a number which surely includes homosexuals), then that's evidence churches WON'T be forced to do ceremonies they object to, not that they WILL be, isn't it?

No, unfortunately, no it isn't.

A majority in all the states currently believing erroneously that they must allow gay-lifestyle marraige against their will enacted laws limiting marriage to one man/one woman. And still they were legally-forced to accept (not that they have to) that which is repugnant to the majority.

The poll is still the kind of evidence I stated it was. A percentage of 82% saying "no" is evidence people won't force churches to do something churches don't want to do.

Your new evidence is that there are other people who would prefer equal marriage was not a legal reality, but this is irrelevant to what may actually happen with regards to religious freedom. You haven't even given evidence that a majority of people opposing equal marriage actually believe churches will be forced to conduct religious marriage ceremonies for same-sex partners, as you do. AND EVEN IF THEY DID, your position would still be no stronger than before. Evidence people are afraid something will happen is not evidence it will happen; if it were, wouldn't America have been ravaged by SARS, Avian influenza, swine flu, AND Ebola by now?

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

Hey little faggot hater, when are you going to realize that your society says that is bullshit, never?

 

[Syriusly]

But if 82% would not go along with that plan (a number which surely includes homosexuals), then that's evidence churches WON'T be forced to do ceremonies they object to, not that they WILL be, isn't it?

No, unfortunately, no it isn't.

A majority in all the states currently believing erroneously that they must allow gay-lifestyle marraige against their will enacted laws limiting marriage to one man/one woman. And still they were legally-forced to accept (not that they have to) that which is repugnant to the majority.

The poll is still the kind of evidence I stated it was. A percentage of 82% saying "no" is evidence people won't force churches to do something churches don't want to do.

Your new evidence is that there are other people who would prefer equal marriage was not a legal reality, but this is irrelevant to what may actually happen with regards to religious freedom. You haven't even given evidence that a majority of people opposing equal marriage actually believe churches will be forced to conduct religious marriage ceremonies for same-sex partners, as you do. AND EVEN IF THEY DID, your position would still be no stronger than before. Evidence people are afraid something will happen is not evidence it will happen; if it were, wouldn't America have been ravaged by SARS, Avian influenza, swine flu, AND Ebola by now?

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

And in almost 40 states, it is two men or two women.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

This fight is so fucking over. Why are they even trying? Can they just not let go of the anchor?

 

[Syriusly]

Your new evidence is that there are other people who would prefer equal marriage was not a legal reality, but this is irrelevant to what may actually happen with regards to religious freedom. You haven't even given evidence that a majority of people opposing equal marriage actually believe churches will be forced to conduct religious marriage ceremonies for same-sex partners, as you do. AND EVEN IF THEY DID, your position would still be no stronger than before. Evidence people are afraid something will happen is not evidence it will happen; if it were, wouldn't America have been ravaged by SARS, Avian influenza, swine flu, AND Ebola by now?

The evidence is that christians have already been legally forced to abdicate their faith in favor of the LGBT lifestyle.
.

No- Christians and Jews and Muslims and atheists all have to obey the law.

Churches are not subject to PA laws or taxes.

Individuals are.

 

[Syriusly]

This fight is so fucking over. Why are they even trying? Can they just not let go of the anchor?

Silhouette will still be predicting how the Supreme Court will decide, months after the decision is announced.