Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Skylar]

Colorado, Syriusly, is not where this legal question is headed. It is headed to the US Supreme Court..OK so are individuals involved in practicing the edicts of their faith, or are they a fractillated part of a larger whole? How would the 1st Amendment view that? ie: is it "freedom of church for congregations or ordained ministers" or is is "freedom of religion for individuals"?

It's not even worth splitting that particular hair until we've established this: It's not an absolute freedom. Even freedom of speech comes with limitations, most famously the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example. "Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."

So here's my question for you: Why do you believe that freedom of religion is endless when one of our most treasured rights, freedom of speech, is not?

You haven't delineated whether or not the 1st Amendment protects the excercise of religion of a congregation of christians (churches) only, or of individual ones? Which has the protection, collections of christians or individual ones?

And I addressed why I didn't reply to your post under your stringent standards straight away. Now, can we agree that freedom of religion is not an unlimited right, and has always carried restrictions? And if not, then why is it that freedom of religion should be an unlimited right, when freedom of speech is not?

ALL RIGHTS are limited by the RESPONSIBILITIES which sustain that right.

Such as the responsibility to freely speak out against the murder of pre-born children and other aspects of the normalization of sexual abnormality; debauchery, hedonism and the balance of the unenviable traits common to the Ideological Left.

There are no such responsibilities, Keyes. You just made that all up.

 

[Skylar]

I know. Silo may be silly and overly dramatic but threatening and/or violent she is not. I disagree with most of her posts but I respect the fact that she remains mostly civil.

Thanks. And most people who disagree with "gay marriage" and the Gay Agenda in general are also not thuggish folk. They simple feel, know, believe and like me, have studied about how it is wrong and harmful to society.

You keep your private lives private. But do not demand they become part of the inherited fabric of society.

But we've wandered away from talking about how if individual christians can be sued, congregations of them (churches) most certainly are next.

To attack an individual Christian for an agenda or for political and power purposes, is the same as attacking the congregation or an entire Church or a "Christian" Church if so be it the target of an attack through it's members.

Obvious nonsense. A person is no more a church than a hub cap is a car. Holding a business to PA laws does not mean that churches are held to PA laws. As churches aren't businesses.

Try as you might, PA laws simply don't apply to churches. Churches and religious corporations are explicitly exempted.

 

[Skylar]

Neither are unlimited unless they are abused, then they become limited at that point. It (IMHO) was the right of the individual Christian to not bake a cake for a gay couple if his religion prohibited him from doing so once he found that out.

You're demanding special rules for Christians, where a Christian doesn't have to follow any laws they don't want to follow.

Um, no. Christians will be treated like everyone else. There get no special exemptions from generally applied laws. They get no special treatment. And if they want to do business with the public, they'll need to treat the public with the same fairness and equality as any other business person would.

That's not an 'attack'. That's merely consistency.

 

[Skylar]

Colorado, Syriusly, is not where this legal question is headed. It is headed to the US Supreme Court..OK so are individuals involved in practicing the edicts of their faith, or are they a fractillated part of a larger whole? How would the 1st Amendment view that? ie: is it "freedom of church for congregations or ordained ministers" or is is "freedom of religion for individuals"?

It's not even worth splitting that particular hair until we've established this: It's not an absolute freedom. Even freedom of speech comes with limitations, most famously the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example. "Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."

So here's my question for you: Why do you believe that freedom of religion is endless when one of our most treasured rights, freedom of speech, is not?

You haven't delineated whether or not the 1st Amendment protects the excercise of religion of a congregation of christians (churches) only, or of individual ones? Which has the protection, collections of christians or individual ones?

Given that our discussion is regarding churches being forced to accommodate weddings, we're clearly not speaking of individual business people, Silo.

As a person is not a church anymore than a hubcap is a car.

 

[kaz]

When have I ascribed feelings to you?

Read every post you wrote that I responded to when I said you are crying. Jesus you are dumb. I hope you're hot.

You are making absolutely no sense...but that seems to be a theme with you. YOU claim I'm "upset" and then you say I'm the one ascribing "feelings".

Yes, every time I said you were upset it was in direct response to a post you told me how I feel.

Except I didn't. I posted my perception of your victimhood.

And I posted my perception you did that because you are bawling your eyes out because you're a weeping mess. Same thing.

 

[Seawytch]

When have I ascribed feelings to you?

Read every post you wrote that I responded to when I said you are crying. Jesus you are dumb. I hope you're hot.

You are making absolutely no sense...but that seems to be a theme with you. YOU claim I'm "upset" and then you say I'm the one ascribing "feelings".

Yes, every time I said you were upset it was in direct response to a post you told me how I feel.

Except I didn't. I posted my perception of your victimhood.

And I posted my perception you did that because you are bawling your eyes out because you're a weeping mess. Same thing.

Except you're actually exhibiting victimy tendencies whereas I'm not exhibiting anything resembling sadness or upset.

Poor Kaz, he's so "subtle" nobody understands him.

 

[Silhouette]

Neither are unlimited unless they are abused, then they become limited at that point. It (IMHO) was the right of the individual Christian to not bake a cake for a gay couple if his religion prohibited him from doing so once he found that out.

You're demanding special rules for Christians, where a Christian doesn't have to follow any laws they don't want to follow.

Um, no. Christians will be treated like everyone else. There get no special exemptions from generally applied laws. They get no special treatment. And if they want to do business with the public, they'll need to treat the public with the same fairness and equality as any other business person would.

That's not an 'attack'. That's merely consistency.

When your group talks about excluding polygamists and incest couples in this year's hearing on marriage equality, you are arguing for special treatment for homosexuals. Only yours isn't a registered religion. Until you make it so and gain tax exempt status, yours is merely a cult.

Christians have protection under the 1st. Lifestyles don't. Better get busy filling out all the paperwork and designate (finally) the Church of LGBT for what it really is.

 

[Skylar]

Neither are unlimited unless they are abused, then they become limited at that point. It (IMHO) was the right of the individual Christian to not bake a cake for a gay couple if his religion prohibited him from doing so once he found that out.

You're demanding special rules for Christians, where a Christian doesn't have to follow any laws they don't want to follow.

Um, no. Christians will be treated like everyone else. There get no special exemptions from generally applied laws. They get no special treatment. And if they want to do business with the public, they'll need to treat the public with the same fairness and equality as any other business person would.

That's not an 'attack'. That's merely consistency.

When your group talks about excluding polygamists and incest couples in this year's hearing on marriage equality, you are arguing for special treatment for homosexuals.

This years hearing doesn't include any polygamists or incest couples. Nor the challenge of any laws outlawing polygamy or incest.

This years hearings are about the constitutionality of gay marriage bans. And its not 'special treatment' for the court to answer the legal question its being asked.

 

[Silhouette]

This years hearing doesn't include any polygamists or incest couples. Nor the challenge of any laws outlawing polygamy or incest.

This years hearings are about the constitutionality of gay marriage bans. And its not 'special treatment' for the court to answer the legal question its being asked.

^^ See, there it is, right there! ^^ You didn't even wait two posts and you admitted what I said was true. You are fighting to deny marriage equality to all. You want special treatment just for homosexuals! It's a religion and right now polygamists and incest groups are "heresy" so you "reject" them, because they aren't politically expedient, not because you fundamentally disagree with their "right to marry" alongside any you might gain. (marriage is currently a privelege). They are happy to stand quietly by too. They know their kink is too weird even now for society to accept. The majority sure would turn on a dime if they knew those were coming along for the ride. So y'all have a gentleman's agreement for your weirder legal first cousins to stay mute while your tsunami attempts to wash away states' rights to define marriage so that all the other flotsam and jetsum can roll in behind you.

Your despicable. You really are. Only mental people would stretch to such machinations to pull off a ruse. Even the numbers at the top of this thread are denied. Smoke and mirrors employed to trick the herd into balling up on your side of the fence. There really is no subterfuge you won't try. And your ilk are supposed to be the next 70 generations of "parents" to kids? I think we've seen enough..

 

[Skylar]

^^ See, there it is, right there! ^^ You didn't even wait two posts and you admitted what I said was true.

So you admit that this years hearings don't involve any challenges to any laws regarding polygamy or incest.

So....um....why would the USSC rule on those issue this year....when they aren't hearing any legal challenges to either?

 

[Conservative65]

Neither are unlimited unless they are abused, then they become limited at that point. It (IMHO) was the right of the individual Christian to not bake a cake for a gay couple if his religion prohibited him from doing so once he found that out.

You're demanding special rules for Christians, where a Christian doesn't have to follow any laws they don't want to follow.

Um, no. Christians will be treated like everyone else. There get no special exemptions from generally applied laws. They get no special treatment. And if they want to do business with the public, they'll need to treat the public with the same fairness and equality as any other business person would.

That's not an 'attack'. That's merely consistency.

When your group talks about excluding polygamists and incest couples in this year's hearing on marriage equality, you are arguing for special treatment for homosexuals.

This years hearing doesn't include any polygamists or incest couples. Nor the challenge of any laws outlawing polygamy or incest.

This years hearings are about the constitutionality of gay marriage bans. And its not 'special treatment' for the court to answer the legal question its being asked.

Yet people like you use Loving v. Virginia as support for same sex marriage being a right. It had nothing specifically to do with same sex marriage but you apply the principle of equality you claim came from it to same sex marriages then deny equality to other types of marriages because you don't like them.

 

[Skylar]

Neither are unlimited unless they are abused, then they become limited at that point. It (IMHO) was the right of the individual Christian to not bake a cake for a gay couple if his religion prohibited him from doing so once he found that out.

You're demanding special rules for Christians, where a Christian doesn't have to follow any laws they don't want to follow.

Um, no. Christians will be treated like everyone else. There get no special exemptions from generally applied laws. They get no special treatment. And if they want to do business with the public, they'll need to treat the public with the same fairness and equality as any other business person would.

That's not an 'attack'. That's merely consistency.

When your group talks about excluding polygamists and incest couples in this year's hearing on marriage equality, you are arguing for special treatment for homosexuals.

This years hearing doesn't include any polygamists or incest couples. Nor the challenge of any laws outlawing polygamy or incest.

This years hearings are about the constitutionality of gay marriage bans. And its not 'special treatment' for the court to answer the legal question its being asked.

Yet people like you use Loving v. Virginia as support for same sex marriage being a right. It had nothing specifically to do with same sex marriage but you apply the principle of equality you claim came from it to same sex marriages then deny equality to other types of marriages because you don't like them.

Marriage being a right is immediately relevant to same sex marriage. As those same sex couples that want to marry are both Federal Citizens. And as such both retain the right to marry.

If you're going to deny them that right, then you need a compelling state interest in doing so and a very good reason. And opponents of gay marriage have neither.

 

[Conservative65]

Neither are unlimited unless they are abused, then they become limited at that point. It (IMHO) was the right of the individual Christian to not bake a cake for a gay couple if his religion prohibited him from doing so once he found that out.

You're demanding special rules for Christians, where a Christian doesn't have to follow any laws they don't want to follow.

Um, no. Christians will be treated like everyone else. There get no special exemptions from generally applied laws. They get no special treatment. And if they want to do business with the public, they'll need to treat the public with the same fairness and equality as any other business person would.

That's not an 'attack'. That's merely consistency.

When your group talks about excluding polygamists and incest couples in this year's hearing on marriage equality, you are arguing for special treatment for homosexuals.

This years hearing doesn't include any polygamists or incest couples. Nor the challenge of any laws outlawing polygamy or incest.

This years hearings are about the constitutionality of gay marriage bans. And its not 'special treatment' for the court to answer the legal question its being asked.

Yet people like you use Loving v. Virginia as support for same sex marriage being a right. It had nothing specifically to do with same sex marriage but you apply the principle of equality you claim came from it to same sex marriages then deny equality to other types of marriages because you don't like them.

Marriage being a right is immediately relevant to same sex marriage. As those same sex couples that want to marry are both Federal Citizens. And as such both retain the right to marry.

If you're going to deny them that right, then you need a compelling state interest in doing so and a very good reason. And opponents of gay marriage have neither.

If marriage is a right, it's relevant to any situation involving the argument used by you fags.

 

[kaz]

Read every post you wrote that I responded to when I said you are crying. Jesus you are dumb. I hope you're hot.

You are making absolutely no sense...but that seems to be a theme with you. YOU claim I'm "upset" and then you say I'm the one ascribing "feelings".

Yes, every time I said you were upset it was in direct response to a post you told me how I feel.

Except I didn't. I posted my perception of your victimhood.

And I posted my perception you did that because you are bawling your eyes out because you're a weeping mess. Same thing.

Except you're actually exhibiting victimy tendencies whereas I'm not exhibiting anything resembling sadness or upset.

Poor Kaz, he's so "subtle" nobody understands him.

It must stink to be so full of shit like that.

 

[bluedog1]

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?

no.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.."

 

[timslash]

No, they shouldn't, because wedding between man and woman - is tradition, very old tradition and the church is keeper of traditions. Wedding between man and man - is perversion. Church should not support perversions. Simple logic.

 

[Syriusly]

I know. Silo may be silly and overly dramatic but threatening and/or violent she is not. I disagree with most of her posts but I respect the fact that she remains mostly civil.

Thanks. And most people who disagree with "gay marriage" and the Gay Agenda in general are also not thuggish folk. They simple feel, know, believe and like me, have studied about how it is wrong and harmful to society.

You keep your private lives private. But do not demand they become part of the inherited fabric of society.

But we've wandered away from talking about how if individual christians can be sued, congregations of them (churches) most certainly are next.

To attack an individual Christian for an agenda or for political and power purposes, is the same as attacking the congregation or an entire Church or a "Christian" Church if so be it the target of an attack through it's members.
.

So you are offended every time President Obama is attacked for political or power purposes? You see every attack on Mitt Romney as an attack on the Mormon Church? When Joe Lieberman was being attacked for political purposes was it an attack on the Jewish religion?

Of course not. Because criticizing- or filing suit- or demanding that the law be followed- by a person who happens to be Christian or Mormon or Jewish is not the same thing as attacking a church or a faith.

 

[Syriusly]

Every time I bring up how congregations of individual christians (also known as churches) are vulnerable to the same type of lawsuits now felling the single soldiers in the trenches, this topic quickly and suddenly attracts weird posters
Very weird.

It is very weird that you keep bringing up 'congregations of individual christians'.

Churches are exempt from PA laws- and taxes
Business's are subject to PA laws- and taxes.

No church has been, should be, or will be forced to marry anyone it does not want to.

But to bake a cake maybe ?

Who bakes cakes for a profit- churches or business's?

Churches are exempt from PA laws- and taxes
Business's are subject to PA laws- and taxes.

No church has been, should be, or will be forced to marry anyone it does not want to.

 

[Syriusly]

Neither are unlimited unless they are abused, then they become limited at that point. It (IMHO) was the right of the individual Christian to not bake a cake for a gay couple if his religion prohibited him from doing so once he found that out.

You're demanding special rules for Christians, where a Christian doesn't have to follow any laws they don't want to follow.

Um, no. Christians will be treated like everyone else. There get no special exemptions from generally applied laws. They get no special treatment. And if they want to do business with the public, they'll need to treat the public with the same fairness and equality as any other business person would.

That's not an 'attack'. That's merely consistency.

When your group talks about excluding polygamists and incest couples in this year's hearing on marriage equality, you are arguing for special treatment for homosexuals.

This years hearing doesn't include any polygamists or incest couples. Nor the challenge of any laws outlawing polygamy or incest.

This years hearings are about the constitutionality of gay marriage bans. And its not 'special treatment' for the court to answer the legal question its being asked.

Yet people like you use Loving v. Virginia as support for same sex marriage being a right. It had nothing specifically to do with same sex marriage but you apply the principle of equality you claim came from it to same sex marriages then deny equality to other types of marriages because you don't like them.

Another strawman.

 

[Syriusly]

This years hearing doesn't include any polygamists or incest couples. Nor the challenge of any laws outlawing polygamy or incest.

This years hearings are about the constitutionality of gay marriage bans. And its not 'special treatment' for the court to answer the legal question its being asked.

^^ See, there it is, right there! ^^ You didn't even wait two posts and you admitted what I said was true. You are fighting to deny marriage equality to all.

Once again you are just lying. Which is rather redundant for me to post.