Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Skylar]

Wow, hyperbole much? Not one child has been taken away from any gay parent because they were gay.

Its hardly outside the realm of possibility. Forced sterilization for gays and lesbians was policy for quite a while in our country. While taking children away from gays is being debated in other countries:

Russian lawmakers will in February debate a bill that could see homosexual couples lose custody of their children, parliamentary documents showed Wednesday.

Russia To Debate Taking Children Away From Gay Parents

With posters in this thread having lauded the Russia approach to gays, and even insisted that gays should be legally forbidden from ever having children.

Conversely, many right have been taken away in courts from christian bakers, florists etc.

Discrimination against minorities isn't a right.

Churches are nothing more than congregations if individual christians.

They're quite more. They are exempted from PA laws. Businesses aren't. Churches are exempt from taxation. Businesses aren't. You equate them.

You're wrong.

 

[Silhouette]

Wow, hyperbole much? Not one child has been taken away from any gay parent because they were gay.

Its hardly outside the realm of possibility. Forced sterilization for gays and lesbians was policy for quite a while in our country. While taking children away from gays is being debated in other countries...

Frontal lobotomies and bleeding with leeches were popular here too. As well as slavery. You don't have a point in the real world. We can only look to our current legal climate which includes actual real examples of gays legally forcing individual christians to abdicate their faith in order to promote the LGBT one as dominant. A church is nothing more than a congregation of individual christians.

 

[Skylar]

There have already been gay marriage opponents that have insisted that gays and lesbians should be legally prohibited from ever having children. They didn't explain how that would be enforced.

Have they taken gays to court and won? No.

Nope. Nor has any church been required to accommodate any gay wedding.

The difference is.....your ilk are calling for gays to be legally forbidden from ever having children. No one here has called for churches to be forced to accommodate gay weddings.

Have gays taken christians to court to force them to abdicate their edicts to promote a gay lifestyle culture, and won? Yes, yes they have.

You're confused. Its not the gays that have taken folks to court. Its the State's human rights commission that has, for violating State anti-discrimination laws.

And of course, a baker isn't a church. Rendering your entire argument moot.

 

[Skylar]

Frontal lobotomies and bleeding with leeches were popular here too.

We don't hear many calls for a return to either. But your ilk have spoken fondly of rolling back the clock on gay rights, stripping them of the right to adopt, the right to free speech, even the privilege of driving. Some others opponents of gay marriage on this board talking about the death penalty for gays to protect society.

Who has called for churches to be forced to abide public accommodation laws?

 

[Silhouette]

Nope. Nor has any church been required to accommodate any gay wedding....
And of course, a baker isn't a church. Rendering your entire argument moot.

A baker is a person. And people have rights. One of them is the 1st Amendment. Part of a church HAS been required to accomodate gay weddings: an individual christian...

..I'm talking like a lawyer talks, analytically...so pay attention...

If a church is merely an aggregate if individual christians, then the aggregate is legally the same as the individual as to rights to practice religion. Religion doesn't begin and end at the church steps. It is merely a place where religion comes for a "refresh" once a week. The real religion is day to day in the heart of a man. In fact, I wouldn't be exaggerating to say that outside the church is where religion really matters. For it is in the trenches where the resolve of christians is tested...not in the sublime and calm walls of an ornate building with a pleasant pipe organ and choir..

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

The difference is.....your ilk are calling for gays to be legally forbidden from ever having children. No one here has called for churches to be forced to accommodate gay weddings.

You are talking about extremists which are present in many cases.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Frontal lobotomies and bleeding with leeches were popular here too.

We don't hear many calls for a return to either. But your ilk have spoken fondly of rolling back the clock on gay rights, stripping them of the right to adopt, the right to free speech, even the privilege of driving. Some others opponents of gay marriage on this board talking about the death penalty for gays to protect society.

There are a lot of nuts out there, and it is no surprise to find a few here. Nuts often want attention.

 

[Skylar]

The difference is.....your ilk are calling for gays to be legally forbidden from ever having children. No one here has called for churches to be forced to accommodate gay weddings.

You are talking about extremists which are present in many cases.

I'm talking about participants in this thread.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

The difference is.....your ilk are calling for gays to be legally forbidden from ever having children. No one here has called for churches to be forced to accommodate gay weddings.

You are talking about extremists which are present in many cases.

I'm talking about participants in this thread.

Exactly who is an extremist here?

 

[Skylar]

Nope. Nor has any church been required to accommodate any gay wedding....
And of course, a baker isn't a church. Rendering your entire argument moot.

A baker is a person. And people have rights. One of them is the 1st Amendment. Part of a church HAS been required to accommodate gay weddings: an individual christian...

A person isn't a church anymore than a hub cap is a car. You keep trying to equate a person with a church. And they aren't the same. Not logically, nor legally.

Your argument is simply invalid.

..I'm talking like a lawyer talks, analytically...so pay attention...

And yet your argument ignores the law, ignores the legal status of churches, ignores PA laws, and ignores reason. There are few lawyers that remain employed who do the same.

If a church is merely an aggregate if individual christians, then the aggregate is legally the same as the individual as to rights to practice religion.

Save that it isn't. Churches are recognized as a separate entity from its parishioners. A church is tax exempt. Parishioners aren't. A church isn't a business. While parishioners can have businesses. And those businesses are subject to PA laws. Churches are expressly exempt.

You claim regarding the legal status of churches and parishioners being the same is quite simply wrong. You're inventing pseudo-law that doesn't exist to support your argument. While we're speaking of the actual law.

It is merely a place where religion comes for a "refresh" once a week. The real religion is day to day in the heart of a man.

While churches are locations. You don't hold weddings in your heart, Sil. Its too small, and you'd get blood all over the bride's dress.

You can re-imagine the meaning of 'church' if you wish. But it has no relevance to the law, this thread, or its poll.

 

[Skylar]

The difference is.....your ilk are calling for gays to be legally forbidden from ever having children. No one here has called for churches to be forced to accommodate gay weddings.

You are talking about extremists which are present in many cases.

I'm talking about participants in this thread.

Exactly who is an extremist here?

I'm not using the word 'extremeists'. I'm describing the positions of participants in this thread. Are you looking for their handles?

 

[Paperman299]

Victim-hood works I guess, but who wants to live their lives claiming to be a victim all the time ?

Christians opposed to equal marriage in this thread, apparently.

 

[Skylar]

Victim-hood works I guess, but who wants to live their lives claiming to be a victim all the time ?

Christians opposed to equal marriage in this thread, apparently.

Religion is the one of the most common motivations for opposing gay marriage. Tradition and homophobia being the other two. With lots and lots of overlap.

 

[Contumacious]

This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.

Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?

Yes, indeed.

Today I sent a text message to the Socialist -In-Chief demanding that he send the the Delta Force and/or Navy Seal Team 6 to teach Pastor Ray Chavez a lesson. Accuse him of fucking little 12 year old girls then burn the church to the ground.

I mean the pretext worked in Waco.


.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Wow, hyperbole much? Not one child has been taken away from any gay parent because they were gay.

Its hardly outside the realm of possibility. Forced sterilization for gays and lesbians was policy for quite a while in our country. While taking children away from gays is being debated in other countries...

Frontal lobotomies and bleeding with leeches were popular here too. As well as slavery. You don't have a point in the real world. We can only look to our current legal climate which includes actual real examples of gays legally forcing individual christians to abdicate their faith in order to promote the LGBT one as dominant. A church is nothing more than a congregation of individual christians.

Your slippery slope argument applies here as well, don't you know, Sil?

Quit being such an ass.

 

[beagle9]

I mean look at the devastation they are causing in this nation in so many ways, and all the while they are constantly claiming to be the victims or rather they are always claiming that they are helping the so called victims while doing so ? Kidding me right ?

Please, be so kind as to cite this "devastations" "they" are causing "in this nation in so many ways". Be very specific.

When Chic-Filet, Phil Robertson, the cake baker, the Mrs. America contestant etc. were attacked, well don't you think that it most defintnitely caused un-needed stress and/or anguish in these peoples lives over such a thing ? I mean we might not see upon the surface these things in which people suffer from afterwards, and this is because it may be months or even years before it could affect a person in a negative way, either in their health or in their minds yet all depending.

Now is that specific enough for you ? The same also goes for others who are struggling in life all the same or just trying to live their lives all the same without incident, so it mainly rest on who did the attack, and then what the goals were in the attack otherwise when anyone attacks anyone over an issue or over a belief on something in this nation. There are many issues all over the place now, but the main thing is to wonder why someone needs to attack another persons liberty, freedoms, their religion or their religious beliefs as we see so much of going on now in America ?

 

[beagle9]

Offender....I wasn't aware praciting religion is an offense, for passively refusing to do something that is forbidden by your faith.

Is it possible that the reason why you don't understand anything is because you just don't understand the written word?


If you don't think that a law is correct- it is your right is to file a lawsuit.
If you think someone is violating a regulation- your right is often to file a lawsuit.

And it doesn't matter what religion either the person suing or the person being sued is.

That's the answer always isn't with the left, hey just file a LAWSUIT, File a LAWSUIT, file a LAWSUIT, and this instead of just getting a consensus on everything that people do feel important to them, then just let them vote on it. How about we all leave the lawyers and their LAWSUIT pimping alone for a change. This is the problem right now in America, where as people have been taught that to get what you want just FILE A LAWSUIT. Next what they have learned is that they will usually get money out of it even when they are wrong, and that solves everything to them now doesn't it ?

 

[beagle9]

Victim-hood works I guess, but who wants to live their lives claiming to be a victim all the time ?

Christians opposed to equal marriage in this thread, apparently.

No I think Christians just want to keep traditional marriage between a man and a woman, and they want to keep it sacred in that way. Now they don't have a problem with people wanting something new and then calling it something new, because their job is not to control peoples lives or minds at all, but to freely accept those who have lived a hard and confusing life, and that might be ready to give their sinfulness up freely, and to join a good Church where their lives can be changed hopefully forever. I think that their are many Christians who are afraid of the slippery slope that these things are all sitting on now, and so they are asking for marriage to be preserved to a man and a woman in the traditional sense is all. The reasons the Christians feel they are under attack as in victims now also as you put it, is due to the heated debate that has caused people to go out and to try and set people up over the situation.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Victim-hood works I guess, but who wants to live their lives claiming to be a victim all the time ?

Christians opposed to equal marriage in this thread, apparently.

No I think Christians just want to keep traditional marriage between a man and a woman, and they want to keep it sacred in that way. Now they don't have a problem with people wanting something new and then calling it something new, because their job is not to control peoples lives or minds at all, but to freely accept those who have lived a hard and confusing life, and that might be ready to give their sinfulness up freely, and to join a good Church where their lives can be changed hopefully forever. I think that their are many Christians who are afraid of the slippery slope that these things are all sitting on now, and so they are asking for marriage to be preserved to a man and a woman in the traditional sense is all. The reasons the Christians feel they are under attack as in victims now also as you put it, is due to the heated debate that has caused people to go out and to try and set people up over the situation.

The Christians don't write the laws of this nation. And I mean this in the nicest way possible, fuck 'em.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Marriage equality continues so that some Christians right to "keep traditional marriage between a man and a woman, and they want to keep it sacred in that way."

What we can can't do is keep it so for others who disagree.