Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Conservative65]

Seems you simply another fag lover that claims equality of marriage yet denies it when it comes to marriages you don't agree with.

Where did anyone say that?

Either the people you are arguing for have a valid argument or they don't. Marriage equality for gays has nothing to do with it.

I wish you luck with your fight.

If you argue for marriage equality, shouldn't that apply to all consenting adults? You're not for equality. You're for an agenda for freaks like you.

I am. Like I said, good luck.

No you're not or you would be arguing for equality of other types of marriages.

Why? I don't care. Good luck.

You got what you wanted.

 

[Skylar]

Here we go again..

Let's see what the theater group is trying to bury with their role-player Conservative (did Kaz and St. Mike take the day off today?) back in the game trying to shut down the thread with yet another manufactured flame-war.....oh...yes...two pages back...here we go..

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.

So you openly admit that no polygamy law nor incest law is being challenged in any case before the USSC this year.

Why then would the USSC rule on laws that aren't being challenged nor even addressed in the cases its hearing this year?

You never could explain that.

 

[Coyote]

Let's get back on topic folks....

 

[Skylar]

Fair enough.

If you're going to deny gays the right to marry, you'll need a valid state interest and a very good reason. Opponents of gay marriage have neither.

Which might explain their near perfect record of failure in the federal courts.

 

[beagle9]

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.

You like saying those things, but you are wrong because without the people who believe in what the Church teaches, then there is no church at all. Like I ask Jake before, and so I'll let you tell me then, how does a person practice their faith and avoid the things that the faith teaches them to avoid in life, if they are not allowed to do so by another's yoke now being upon them ? Are Christians slaves in this nation now, where as are they allowed to go and play Church only, and this just as long as they leave there afterwards maybe laughing about it all, and to not dare practice afterwards ? What then, are they not to abide by the teachings in which they went there to learn about in life now ? Where is the freedom of religion or the practice there of in this nation, otherwise if the Christians are now under another's yoke in the nation now, then who is the judge and jury over the Christians now in this nation (the government) ?

There was not a problem in the past, because Christianity was a great thing in which the nation recognized as such, and it even sank it into just about every asset or facet of the American traditions it had, and It placed it into it's mindset along with it's history, but now it is all a problem eh ? Hmm, now why is that you suppose ?

 

[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.

You like saying those things, but you are wrong because without the people who believe in what the Church teaches, then there is no church at all.

Nonsense. I'm obviously right. A person is not a church. Not semantically, linguistically, rationally, or legally. The last being most germane to our discussion. A church is not a business. And PA laws only apply to businesses.

You're trying so, so hard to apply PA laws to churches. And they just don't apply. Churches are explicitly exempt. Which of course you know. But really hope we don't.

Are Christians slaves in this nation now, where as are they allowed to go and play Church only, and this just as long as they leave there afterwards maybe laughing about it all, and to not dare practice afterwards ?

Nope. Christians simply aren't given special exemptions for any laws they don't like. You're demanding special treatment, special privileges, special immunities.....and whining melodramatically when you're treated like everyone else.

And the most stunning part? The part that just drops jaws? All you're held under the law to do....is treat your customers fairly and equally when conducting business.

That's it. There's no need for the running mascara, the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth. Dry those eyes, get up off your fainting couch....and just treat others with simple human dignity. And you'll be fine.

 

[Paperman299]

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.

You like saying those things, but you are wrong because without the people who believe in what the Church teaches, then there is no church at all. Like I ask Jake before, and so I'll let you tell me then, how does a person practice their faith and avoid the things that the faith teaches them to avoid in life, if they are not allowed to do so by another's yoke now being upon them ? Are Christians slaves in this nation now, where as are they allowed to go and play Church only, and this just as long as they leave there afterwards maybe laughing about it all, and to not dare practice afterwards ? What then, are they not to abide by the teachings in which they went there to learn about in life now ? Where is the freedom of religion or the practice there of in this nation, otherwise if the Christians are now under another's yoke in the nation now, then who is the judge and jury over the Christians now in this nation (the government) ?

There was not a problem in the past, because Christianity was a great thing in which the nation recognized as such, and it even sank it into just about every asset or facet of the American traditions it had, and It placed it into it's mindset along with it's history, but now it is all a problem eh ? Hmm, now why is that you suppose ?

You're arguing that Christians should be allowed to break the law.

 

[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.

You like saying those things, but you are wrong because without the people who believe in what the Church teaches, then there is no church at all. Like I ask Jake before, and so I'll let you tell me then, how does a person practice their faith and avoid the things that the faith teaches them to avoid in life, if they are not allowed to do so by another's yoke now being upon them ? Are Christians slaves in this nation now, where as are they allowed to go and play Church only, and this just as long as they leave there afterwards maybe laughing about it all, and to not dare practice afterwards ? What then, are they not to abide by the teachings in which they went there to learn about in life now ? Where is the freedom of religion or the practice there of in this nation, otherwise if the Christians are now under another's yoke in the nation now, then who is the judge and jury over the Christians now in this nation (the government) ?

There was not a problem in the past, because Christianity was a great thing in which the nation recognized as such, and it even sank it into just about every asset or facet of the American traditions it had, and It placed it into it's mindset along with it's history, but now it is all a problem eh ? Hmm, now why is that you suppose ?

You're arguing that Christians should be allowed to break the law.

Not just break the law. But ignore any law they don't like. Making this distinction individually.

Its nothing more than a religiously based Sovereign Citizen argument.

 

[Paperman299]

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.

You like saying those things, but you are wrong because without the people who believe in what the Church teaches, then there is no church at all. Like I ask Jake before, and so I'll let you tell me then, how does a person practice their faith and avoid the things that the faith teaches them to avoid in life, if they are not allowed to do so by another's yoke now being upon them ? Are Christians slaves in this nation now, where as are they allowed to go and play Church only, and this just as long as they leave there afterwards maybe laughing about it all, and to not dare practice afterwards ? What then, are they not to abide by the teachings in which they went there to learn about in life now ? Where is the freedom of religion or the practice there of in this nation, otherwise if the Christians are now under another's yoke in the nation now, then who is the judge and jury over the Christians now in this nation (the government) ?

There was not a problem in the past, because Christianity was a great thing in which the nation recognized as such, and it even sank it into just about every asset or facet of the American traditions it had, and It placed it into it's mindset along with it's history, but now it is all a problem eh ? Hmm, now why is that you suppose ?

You're arguing that Christians should be allowed to break the law.

Not just break the law. But ignore any law they don't like. Making this distinction individually.

Its nothing more than a religiously based Sovereign Citizen argument.

It really is. They might as well argue that they shouldn't have to abdicate their faith by putting license plates on their cars.

 

[beagle9]

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.

Only when the attack is directed at that part of the person's make up or belief system in life specifically, would I say that yes it is an attack on the Church indirectly, and even when one of it's flock is attacked as an individual yet he or she is a representative of the Church.

 

[Silhouette]

Only when the attack is directed at that part of the person's make up or belief system in life specifically, would I say that yes it is an attack on the Church indirectly, and even when one of it's flock is attacked as an individual yet he or she is a representative of the Church.

Or, more properly, an attack on an individual christian is an attack on the church and the 1st Amendment that individual enjoys. His ultimate place of worship is in his heart.

 

[Silhouette]

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.

hmmm... *Thumbs through Constitution*.... still cannot find "Freedom of Church" in here... all it says is freedom of the exercise of religion. Hey, aren't individuals the ones that are religious? I've never seen a church building genuflect before.

 

[Syriusly]

Only when the attack is directed at that part of the person's make up or belief system in life specifically, would I say that yes it is an attack on the Church indirectly, and even when one of it's flock is attacked as an individual yet he or she is a representative of the Church.

Or, more properly, an attack on an individual christian is an attack on the church and the 1st Amendment that individual enjoys. His ultimate place of worship is in his heart.

So is this guy being attacked- and is this an attack on his church- when the attacker is his church?

Prominent Mormon Podcaster May Face Excommunication

Dehlin is a Mormon who has doubts about his faith. But his public search for answers may banish him from the church that is his spiritual home.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has made moves to excommunicate Dehlin, The New York Times reported on Thursday.

Dehlin is the founder of "Mormon Stories," a well-known website and podcast that has discussed controversial topics within the faith, including same-sex marriage and the ordination of women.

According to the Associated Press, Dehlin was told by a regional church leader that he's been summoned to a disciplinary hearing on Jan. 25, at which he could be either censured or excommunicated.

To recap: this gentleman is a Mormon- who is being attacked because of his religious beliefs- by his own church.

But you have argued that an attack on a religious individual is an attack on the church.

So- is the church guilty of attacking itself?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

hmmm... *Thumbs through Constitution*.... still cannot find "Freedom of Church" in here... all it says is freedom of the exercise of religion. Hey, aren't individuals the ones that are religious? I've never seen a church building genuflect before.

From the Supreme Court:
Our decisions reveal that the latter reading is the correct one. We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs[p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition. As described succinctly

 

[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.

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.

You like saying those things, but you are wrong because without the people who believe in what the Church teaches, then there is no church at all.

Nonsense. I'm obviously right. A person is not a church. Not semantically, linguistically, rationally, or legally. The last being most germane to our discussion. A church is not a business. And PA laws only apply to businesses.

You're trying so, so hard to apply PA laws to churches. And they just don't apply. Churches are explicitly exempt. Which of course you know. But really hope we don't..

They are trying so hard to manufacture outrage.

And claim special priveleges for Christians from laws that apply equally to everyone.

 

[Skylar]

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.

You like saying those things, but you are wrong because without the people who believe in what the Church teaches, then there is no church at all.

Nonsense. I'm obviously right. A person is not a church. Not semantically, linguistically, rationally, or legally. The last being most germane to our discussion. A church is not a business. And PA laws only apply to businesses.

You're trying so, so hard to apply PA laws to churches. And they just don't apply. Churches are explicitly exempt. Which of course you know. But really hope we don't..

They are trying so hard to manufacture outrage.

And claim special priveleges for Christians from laws that apply equally to everyone.

Read Beagle's earlier posts about the position of Christianity in American culture in the past. Theirs isn't an argument for equality, fairness or freedom. But instead, entitlement and special status. Where many Christians are lamenting that they no longer hold the position of privilege that they once did. That they are being treated like everyone else.

Which astonishingly they interpret as 'attacks', with Christians now 'slaves' because they no longer receive the special treatment they once did.

Its like watching a spoiled brat insist that not buying them a new toy is 'child abuse'.

 

[Skylar]

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.

hmmm... *Thumbs through Constitution*.... still cannot find "Freedom of Church" in here... all it says is freedom of the exercise of religion. Hey, aren't individuals the ones that are religious? I've never seen a church building genuflect before.

You don't get to ignore any law you don't like on religious grounds. We don't have theocratic anarchy. We're a constitutional republic. And the laws being applied to you are the same ones being applied to everyone else.

As for churches, they aren't being forced to accommodate weddings. PA laws don't apply to churches. And try as you might to claim otherwise, a person is not a church.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

hmmm... *Thumbs through Constitution*.... still cannot find "Freedom of Church" in here... all it says is freedom of the exercise of religion. Hey, aren't individuals the ones that are religious? I've never seen a church building genuflect before.

You don't get to ignore any law you don't like on religious grounds. We don't have theocratic anarchy. We're a constitutional republic. And the laws being applied to you are the same ones being applied to everyone else.

As for churches, they aren't being forced to accommodate weddings. PA laws don't apply to churches. And try as you might to claim otherwise, a person is not a church.

What is a church?

 

[Skylar]

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.

You like saying those things, but you are wrong because without the people who believe in what the Church teaches, then there is no church at all. Like I ask Jake before, and so I'll let you tell me then, how does a person practice their faith and avoid the things that the faith teaches them to avoid in life, if they are not allowed to do so by another's yoke now being upon them ? Are Christians slaves in this nation now, where as are they allowed to go and play Church only, and this just as long as they leave there afterwards maybe laughing about it all, and to not dare practice afterwards ? What then, are they not to abide by the teachings in which they went there to learn about in life now ? Where is the freedom of religion or the practice there of in this nation, otherwise if the Christians are now under another's yoke in the nation now, then who is the judge and jury over the Christians now in this nation (the government) ?

There was not a problem in the past, because Christianity was a great thing in which the nation recognized as such, and it even sank it into just about every asset or facet of the American traditions it had, and It placed it into it's mindset along with it's history, but now it is all a problem eh ? Hmm, now why is that you suppose ?

You're arguing that Christians should be allowed to break the law.

Not just break the law. But ignore any law they don't like. Making this distinction individually.

Its nothing more than a religiously based Sovereign Citizen argument.

It really is. They might as well argue that they shouldn't have to abdicate their faith by putting license plates on their cars.

There is no distinction whatsoever. Its the exact same argument. And its been rejected explicitly and repeated by the USSC. You don't get to pick which laws apply to you and which don't. Not on the basis of 'personal freedom'. Not on the basis of 'religion'.

 

[Skylar]

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.

hmmm... *Thumbs through Constitution*.... still cannot find "Freedom of Church" in here... all it says is freedom of the exercise of religion. Hey, aren't individuals the ones that are religious? I've never seen a church building genuflect before.

You don't get to ignore any law you don't like on religious grounds. We don't have theocratic anarchy. We're a constitutional republic. And the laws being applied to you are the same ones being applied to everyone else.

As for churches, they aren't being forced to accommodate weddings. PA laws don't apply to churches. And try as you might to claim otherwise, a person is not a church.

What is a church?

By and large, a religious corporation.