Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Conservative65]

God defines a church. The people are the church not the buildings or anything else.

Really? Well we have a problem then.

See there are legal exemptions for churches and other houses of worship- and if we have to leave it to God to tell us which is really a church....well he hasn't been available for consultation for a couple thousand years(I mean if you believe that sort of thing).....

I would stick with the legal definition instead.

I can look at God's word to see how He defines a church.

Okay- well legally 'churches'- and all houses of worship are treated differently than business'.

How does God define a synogogue? How does God define a Mosque? How does God define a Buddhist Temple?

And does the government come to you each time to tell them whether that institution meets God's word?

God doesn't define a mosque. It's Islam. You'll have to ask the pedophile that started it. God isn't a Buddhist. You'll have to ask one.

Yet legally a church is exactly the same thing as a temple, is exactly the same thing as a mosque- and the same laws applies to all houses of worship- regardless of which God you happen to believe in.

Who decides which house of worship is a bonavide house of worship- you? Me? Or the law?

God when it comes to the purpose of the church. Man can set procedural, God sets theological. You don't have to agree as God does not require you to do so.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

Once again- I am glad to quote from the Colorado PA laws which specifies the specific exemptions

(1) As used in this part 6, "place of public accommodation" means any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public; any place to eat, drink, sleep, or rest, or any combination thereof; any sporting or recreational area and facility; any public transportation facility; a barber shop, bathhouse, swimming pool, bath, steam or massage parlor, gymnasium, or other establishment conducted to serve the health, appearance, or physical condition of a person; a campsite or trailer camp; a dispensary, clinic, hospital, convalescent home, or other institution for the sick, ailing, aged, or infirm; a mortuary, undertaking parlor, or cemetery; an educational institution; or any public building, park, arena, theater, hall, auditorium, museum, library, exhibit, or public facility of any kind whether indoor or outdoor.

"Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.

Once again, my State's law said marriage was between a man and a woman. A judge overruled it. I didn't think that would happen but you seem to think it can't happen with PA laws. I can post what my State has on its books. Means nothing when judges come in an change what the people supported. May not happen tomorrow or a year from now but don't be stupid enough to believe it can't.

The only thing that a court could do is find the PA law itself unconstitutional- which would eliminate the problem.

The reality is that PA laws have been in effect since the 1964 Civil Rights Act- and in those 50 years- no one has successfully sued any Church for refusing to perform any religious rituals on anyone the church refuses to do. And that includes the Church of Latter Day Saints who did not provide fully equality within the church to African Americans- and that includes the Catholic Church which does not allow women in the priesthood.

The law in my State saying marriage is between a man and a woman has been in effect much longer. Seems it took a while for the fags to successfully sue and get their panties untwisted.

Courts can find portions of laws unconstitutional. Don't think so, continue to be a Liberal moron.

If the court found that portion of the law 'unconstitutional' then they would still be exempt- because if you read the PA laws they describe very clearly the business's that are subject to the PA laws

The only thing that a court could do is find the PA law itself unconstitutional- which would eliminate the problem.

The reality is that PA laws have been in effect since the 1964 Civil Rights Act- and in those 50 years- no one has successfully sued any Church for refusing to perform any religious rituals on anyone the church refuses to do. And that includes the Church of Latter Day Saints who did not provide fully equality within the church to African Americans- and that includes the Catholic Church which does not allow women in the priesthood.

 

[Conservative65]

Don't confuse requirements of what a body of people wanting to be considered a church must meet with what a church is. The regulations can be there all day long and mean nothing until that body of people, what is truly the church under God's law, decided to apply them.

You can believe whatever you want....but you must follow the secular laws. A person is not a church until the legal requirements are met.

What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com

Again, don't confuse the process with the result.

While you may enjoy the secular laws now with you sexual deviance, God's laws will be the only thing that matters eventually. The secular ones mean nothing to Him. Good luck munching that carpet when it's hot.

Ah nothing is more 'Christian' than having a poster say your going to hell.

Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.

I'm not saying. Just passing along what has already been said.

And I am saying

Ah nothing is more 'Christian' than having a poster say your going to hell.

Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.

You'll be warm alright.

 

[Vigilante]

All QUEER weddings should have to go to muslim mosques for their religious ceremonies....

 

[Conservative65]

What is a church?

Once again- I am glad to quote from the Colorado PA laws which specifies the specific exemptions

(1) As used in this part 6, "place of public accommodation" means any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public; any place to eat, drink, sleep, or rest, or any combination thereof; any sporting or recreational area and facility; any public transportation facility; a barber shop, bathhouse, swimming pool, bath, steam or massage parlor, gymnasium, or other establishment conducted to serve the health, appearance, or physical condition of a person; a campsite or trailer camp; a dispensary, clinic, hospital, convalescent home, or other institution for the sick, ailing, aged, or infirm; a mortuary, undertaking parlor, or cemetery; an educational institution; or any public building, park, arena, theater, hall, auditorium, museum, library, exhibit, or public facility of any kind whether indoor or outdoor.

"Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.

Once again, my State's law said marriage was between a man and a woman. A judge overruled it. I didn't think that would happen but you seem to think it can't happen with PA laws. I can post what my State has on its books. Means nothing when judges come in an change what the people supported. May not happen tomorrow or a year from now but don't be stupid enough to believe it can't.

The only thing that a court could do is find the PA law itself unconstitutional- which would eliminate the problem.

The reality is that PA laws have been in effect since the 1964 Civil Rights Act- and in those 50 years- no one has successfully sued any Church for refusing to perform any religious rituals on anyone the church refuses to do. And that includes the Church of Latter Day Saints who did not provide fully equality within the church to African Americans- and that includes the Catholic Church which does not allow women in the priesthood.

The law in my State saying marriage is between a man and a woman has been in effect much longer. Seems it took a while for the fags to successfully sue and get their panties untwisted.

Courts can find portions of laws unconstitutional. Don't think so, continue to be a Liberal moron.

If the court found that portion of the law 'unconstitutional' then they would still be exempt- because if you read the PA laws they describe very clearly the business's that are subject to the PA laws

The only thing that a court could do is find the PA law itself unconstitutional- which would eliminate the problem.

The reality is that PA laws have been in effect since the 1964 Civil Rights Act- and in those 50 years- no one has successfully sued any Church for refusing to perform any religious rituals on anyone the church refuses to do. And that includes the Church of Latter Day Saints who did not provide fully equality within the church to African Americans- and that includes the Catholic Church which does not allow women in the priesthood.

If the court found the portion that says a place of public accommodation does not include a church, a church would then be considered a public accommodation.

 

[beagle9]

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.

Exactly...Thanks

 

[Syriusly]

You can believe whatever you want....but you must follow the secular laws. A person is not a church until the legal requirements are met.

What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com

Again, don't confuse the process with the result.

While you may enjoy the secular laws now with you sexual deviance, God's laws will be the only thing that matters eventually. The secular ones mean nothing to Him. Good luck munching that carpet when it's hot.

Ah nothing is more 'Christian' than having a poster say your going to hell.

Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.

I'm not saying. Just passing along what has already been said.

And I am saying

Ah nothing is more 'Christian' than having a poster say your going to hell.

Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.

You'll be warm alright.

I feel all warm and fuzzy right now. Just feeling your Christian love for me.

 

[Syriusly]

Once again- I am glad to quote from the Colorado PA laws which specifies the specific exemptions

(1) As used in this part 6, "place of public accommodation" means any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public; any place to eat, drink, sleep, or rest, or any combination thereof; any sporting or recreational area and facility; any public transportation facility; a barber shop, bathhouse, swimming pool, bath, steam or massage parlor, gymnasium, or other establishment conducted to serve the health, appearance, or physical condition of a person; a campsite or trailer camp; a dispensary, clinic, hospital, convalescent home, or other institution for the sick, ailing, aged, or infirm; a mortuary, undertaking parlor, or cemetery; an educational institution; or any public building, park, arena, theater, hall, auditorium, museum, library, exhibit, or public facility of any kind whether indoor or outdoor.

"Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.

Once again, my State's law said marriage was between a man and a woman. A judge overruled it. I didn't think that would happen but you seem to think it can't happen with PA laws. I can post what my State has on its books. Means nothing when judges come in an change what the people supported. May not happen tomorrow or a year from now but don't be stupid enough to believe it can't.

The only thing that a court could do is find the PA law itself unconstitutional- which would eliminate the problem.

The reality is that PA laws have been in effect since the 1964 Civil Rights Act- and in those 50 years- no one has successfully sued any Church for refusing to perform any religious rituals on anyone the church refuses to do. And that includes the Church of Latter Day Saints who did not provide fully equality within the church to African Americans- and that includes the Catholic Church which does not allow women in the priesthood.

The law in my State saying marriage is between a man and a woman has been in effect much longer. Seems it took a while for the fags to successfully sue and get their panties untwisted.

Courts can find portions of laws unconstitutional. Don't think so, continue to be a Liberal moron.

If the court found that portion of the law 'unconstitutional' then they would still be exempt- because if you read the PA laws they describe very clearly the business's that are subject to the PA laws

The only thing that a court could do is find the PA law itself unconstitutional- which would eliminate the problem.

The reality is that PA laws have been in effect since the 1964 Civil Rights Act- and in those 50 years- no one has successfully sued any Church for refusing to perform any religious rituals on anyone the church refuses to do. And that includes the Church of Latter Day Saints who did not provide fully equality within the church to African Americans- and that includes the Catholic Church which does not allow women in the priesthood.

If the court found the portion that says a place of public accommodation does not include a church, a church would then be considered a public accommodation.

Feel free to point it out here:

(1) As used in this part 6, "place of public accommodation" means any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public; any place to eat, drink, sleep, or rest, or any combination thereof; any sporting or recreational area and facility; any public transportation facility; a barber shop, bathhouse, swimming pool, bath, steam or massage parlor, gymnasium, or other establishment conducted to serve the health, appearance, or physical condition of a person; a campsite or trailer camp; a dispensary, clinic, hospital, convalescent home, or other institution for the sick, ailing, aged, or infirm; a mortuary, undertaking parlor, or cemetery; an educational institution; or any public building, park, arena, theater, hall, auditorium, museum, library, exhibit, or public facility of any kind whether indoor or outdoor.

 

[Syriusly]

All QUEER weddings should have to go to muslim mosques for their religious ceremonies....

So you think Mosques should be forced to marry homosexuals.......because they are Muslim....but Christian churches are somehow too special for that?

 

[beagle9]

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?

Matters that reside within the Church, are matters in which are handled by the Church and within the Church as according to it's members and the council in which resides over such matters. This usually is in concerning a member and his actions or violations of his oath in which he may have taken to become a member of when joining the Church in the beginning.

How is the Church attacking a member in the way that you put this, and especially in accordance to my words written about the outside attacks being waged against the Church through it's members when they are attacked from the outside, and they are attacked against their person in which is a representative of the Church when the attack on their belief or religion occurs ?

Every Church has the right to handle a matter of a member who may be violating the oath or his or her membership that was agreed to in the Church when joining it. We are talking about outsiders attacking members of a Church in order to get at the whole Church eventually, and we are not talking about matters that go on within a Church as you are speaking about here..I mean your "Kidding me" right ? This was so desperate on your part to hang yourself out there like this, that it was purely laughable when I read it...LOL.

 

[Vigilante]

All QUEER weddings should have to go to muslim mosques for their religious ceremonies....

So you think Mosques should be forced to marry homosexuals.......because they are Muslim....but Christian churches are somehow too special for that?

No, I think all the queers that want to start shit with religious institutions should start with muslims, and those that are left after a few ALLAH AKBAR'S can then concentrate on Christian religions!

 

[Skylar]

Matters that reside within the Church, are matters in which are handled by the Church and within the Church as according to it's members and the council in which resides over such matters. This usually is in concerning a member and his actions or violations of his oath in which he may have taken to become a member of when joining the Church in the beginning.

Then apply your own logic.

Matter that reside within the State are matters in which are handled by the State law enforcement officers in according to its citizens and laws in which resides over such matters. This usually is in concerning a resident and his actions or violations of the law. Like, Public Accommodation laws.

Every Church has the right to handle a matter of a member who may be violating the oath or his or her membership that was agreed to in the Church when joining it.

Wouldn't every State have the right to handle a matter of a resident who may be violating the laws of his or her state that was agreed to in the State when choosing to live there?

 

[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?

Matters that reside within the Church, .

Great- now we agree that the Church is separate from the individual.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Don't confuse requirements of what a body of people wanting to be considered a church must meet with what a church is. The regulations can be there all day long and mean nothing until that body of people, what is truly the church under God's law, decided to apply them.

You can believe whatever you want....but you must follow the secular laws. A person is not a church until the legal requirements are met.

What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com

Again, don't confuse the process with the result.

While you may enjoy the secular laws now with you sexual deviance, God's laws will be the only thing that matters eventually. The secular ones mean nothing to Him. Good luck munching that carpet when it's hot.

Ah nothing is more 'Christian' than having a poster say your going to hell.

Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.

I'm not saying. Just passing along what has already been said.

And I am saying

Ah nothing is more 'Christian' than having a poster say your going to hell.

Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.

You're an idiot. It's very Christian to warn people about hellfire. Where the "hell" did you get your information on Christian conduct?

 

[Conservative65]

You can believe whatever you want....but you must follow the secular laws. A person is not a church until the legal requirements are met.

What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com

Again, don't confuse the process with the result.

While you may enjoy the secular laws now with you sexual deviance, God's laws will be the only thing that matters eventually. The secular ones mean nothing to Him. Good luck munching that carpet when it's hot.

Ah nothing is more 'Christian' than having a poster say your going to hell.

Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.

I'm not saying. Just passing along what has already been said.

And I am saying

Ah nothing is more 'Christian' than having a poster say your going to hell.

Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.

You're an idiot. It's very Christian to warn people about hellfire. Where the "hell" did you get your information on Christian conduct?

He's one that thinks he knows more about the Bible than someone that actually reads it in the theological manner in which is supposed to be read. He reads it from a secular standpoint then can't understand why he doesn't get what it says.

 

[Paperman299]

"And yay," Jesus did say, "when you meet the non-believers, do tell them they are beneath you, and hurl epithets at them. Above all remember that when I say to ye do not be prideful, that I am totally joking. Know ye that you are better than other people, and they must know it also."

 

[beagle9]

Matters that reside within the Church, are matters in which are handled by the Church and within the Church as according to it's members and the council in which resides over such matters. This usually is in concerning a member and his actions or violations of his oath in which he may have taken to become a member of when joining the Church in the beginning.

Then apply your own logic.

Matter that reside within the State are matters in which are handled by the State law enforcement officers in according to its citizens and laws in which resides over such matters. This usually is in concerning a resident and his actions or violations of the law. Like, Public Accommodation laws.

Every Church has the right to handle a matter of a member who may be violating the oath or his or her membership that was agreed to in the Church when joining it.

Wouldn't every State have the right to handle a matter of a resident who may be violating the laws of his or her state that was agreed to in the State when choosing to live there?

The key word is agreed to or was it a forced situation that most did not agree to, but are now being forced to by an out of control government ?

 

[Skylar]

Matters that reside within the Church, are matters in which are handled by the Church and within the Church as according to it's members and the council in which resides over such matters. This usually is in concerning a member and his actions or violations of his oath in which he may have taken to become a member of when joining the Church in the beginning.

Then apply your own logic.

Matter that reside within the State are matters in which are handled by the State law enforcement officers in according to its citizens and laws in which resides over such matters. This usually is in concerning a resident and his actions or violations of the law. Like, Public Accommodation laws.

Every Church has the right to handle a matter of a member who may be violating the oath or his or her membership that was agreed to in the Church when joining it.

Wouldn't every State have the right to handle a matter of a resident who may be violating the laws of his or her state that was agreed to in the State when choosing to live there?

The key word is agreed to or was it a forced situation that most did not agree to, but are now being forced to by an out of control government ?

PA laws exist with the consent of the governed. Are you saying that you don't have to follow any law that you don't agree with?

 

[beagle9]

"And yay," Jesus did say, "when you meet the non-believers, do tell them they are beneath you, and hurl epithets at them. Above all remember that when I say to ye do not be prideful, that I am totally joking. Know ye that you are better than other people, and they must know it also."

You make a mockery of the word, and you do this because you are attempting to defend the indefensible...

 

[beagle9]

Matters that reside within the Church, are matters in which are handled by the Church and within the Church as according to it's members and the council in which resides over such matters. This usually is in concerning a member and his actions or violations of his oath in which he may have taken to become a member of when joining the Church in the beginning.

Then apply your own logic.

Matter that reside within the State are matters in which are handled by the State law enforcement officers in according to its citizens and laws in which resides over such matters. This usually is in concerning a resident and his actions or violations of the law. Like, Public Accommodation laws.

Every Church has the right to handle a matter of a member who may be violating the oath or his or her membership that was agreed to in the Church when joining it.

Wouldn't every State have the right to handle a matter of a resident who may be violating the laws of his or her state that was agreed to in the State when choosing to live there?

The key word is agreed to or was it a forced situation that most did not agree to, but are now being forced to by an out of control government ?

PA laws exist with the consent of the governed. Are you saying that you don't have to follow any law that you don't agree with?

Last I checked consent was no where in the room when these new things that are yes new did arise in our midst, and then the laws are merely being adopted by those things in which to club another over the head with them.