Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[JakeStarkey]

They are both about equality in the secular public world.

 

[Silhouette]

They are both about equality in the secular public world.

The secular world under the question of two conflicting dogmas/lifestyles is not dominant to the 1st Amendment. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say "gays lifestylists have the right to marry/comprise the formative environment that states incentivize for raising children". I don't see that as a right anywhere.

Children have the most dominant civil rights beef in this debate, because they are the group most repressed/suppressed in this conversation and the ones with the least power to vote to affect their future. I believe that is the litmus test to discern if one's class is having its civil rights repressed.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

They are both about equality in the secular public world.

The secular world under the question of two conflicting dogmas/lifestyles is not dominant to the 1st Amendment. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say "gays lifestylists have the right to marry/comprise the formative environment that states incentivize for raising children". I don't see that as a right anywhere.

Children have the most dominant civil rights beef in this debate, because they are the group most repressed/suppressed in this conversation and the ones with the least power to vote to affect their future. I believe that is the litmus test to discern if one's class is having its civil rights repressed.

Marriage is not about children, they have nothing to do with the debate. How long before you understand that?

We don't do for children what is best for them, and never have.

 

[Silhouette]

Marriage is not about children, they have nothing to do with the debate. How long before you understand that?

We don't do for children what is best for them, and never have.

Back in the day the KKK said "Voting is not about slaves, they have nothing to do with the debate. How long before you understand that?"

An oppressed group is most simply and historically defined by their inability to act to affect change in their lives. Not being able to vote was one of those acts. Children have no control over their formative environment. The only hope they have is of a state incentivizing that best situation for them; for they cannot do it for themselves.

A state derives a net loss from sanctioning marriage for any other reason. Can you conceive of any reason why a state would benefit from no guidelines for the formative environment for kids?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Marriage is not about children, they have nothing to do with the debate. How long before you understand that?

We don't do for children what is best for them, and never have.

Back in the day the KKK said "Voting is not about slaves, they have nothing to do with the debate. How long before you understand that?"

I don't give a damn who said what about what. What I said is entirely true.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Nowhere in the Constitution does it say "gays lifestylists have the right to marry/comprise the formative environment that states incentivize for raising children"".

And we all agree with you if that were the case, but it is not.

Marriage equality is not perverse or obscene.

But you are with you continued whining, pissing, and moaning.

 

[JakeStarkey]

PMH is wrong, and Sil is similar to the KKK indeed.

 

[Skylar]

Children have the most dominant civil rights beef in this debate, because they are the group most repressed/suppressed in this conversation and the ones with the least power to vote to affect their future. I believe that is the litmus test to discern if one's class is having its civil rights repressed.

If your interested in how harm to children may effect the SCOTUS decision on gay marriage, you may want to look at Kennedy's elaborate documentation of the harm caused to the children of same sex couples when the marriages of their parents are not recognized:

And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives...

.....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.

Justice Kennedy Delivering the Majority Opinion in Windsor v. US

Its highly unlikely that Kennedy is going to ignore himself for whatever pseudo-legal gibberish you've made up this week.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil writes, "The secular world under the question of two conflicting dogmas/lifestyles is not dominant to the 1st Amendment." She is, of course, wrong. The Constitution is a secular dominant first and always.

Kennedy is far more concerned about single parent households and divorce effects on children than the sex of the parents.

 

[Paperman299]

That's your opinion. My opinion the election of 2016 will not effect this summer's ruling at all. The Senate Dems, narrow majority or narrow minority, and several Pubs will prevent the appointments of SCOTUS candidates who have given any indication they do not accept marriage equality.

Yeah, right...because politicians haven't been paying attention to Chic-Fil-a, Boycott A&E's million "likes" on Facebook in less than 24 hours and this poll at the top of this page..

The pols have been reading this for grins and giggles. Your poll is a farce as you well know.

The pols have been following the Courts, the polling, the argumentation. In no way, shape, or form are they going to try to overturn the ruling. They know they would be voted out of office in many districts.

The tide for marriage equality has turned in favor the last five years.

Who would have ever thought that the founding documents and system created in this nation, would have not been created in a way that would keep people from exploiting it in the way that it is being exploited right now today in America? It's a sad day for America, and for the future of this nation's Christian beliefs and/or teachings that were a huge part of America's founding and it's future from that point onward. This nation now has people who can tell you that up is down and down is up, and then make you a believer of that very ridiculous thinking anymore. WOW!

Or...that Christians are expected to follow the same laws as everyone else.

How do Christians practice what they preach anymore then, and where are they allowed to practice what they preach in their lives ? They teach their children that homosexuality is a sin right, and they are not going to end that teaching, so what do you do with the millions of up and coming citizens who don't believe in Gay Marriage or even being gay at all ? What, maybe lock them all away until they are changed by the government somehow ? I mean how does it play out between all the religious and non-religious groups in this nation in the future, otherwise I mean one has to wonder about such things right ? Can they all co-exist by themselves or does the government have to force it all somehow ?

If the government has to force it all, then I guess we have been seeing a preview of that right ?

Why CAN'T Christians still practice what they preach? No one is forcing any Christians to get gay married. And if you want to teach your kids that homosexuality is a sin, no one can stop you from doing something that wretched. You can live your life the exact same way you did before, you just have to serve people at your business without discrimination, including black people at your diner...Sorry, I meant gay people at your bakery.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The social cons heretics on the Christian far right want to make everyone do what they say they do, even though they don't.

 

[beagle9]

Yeah, right...because politicians haven't been paying attention to Chic-Fil-a, Boycott A&E's million "likes" on Facebook in less than 24 hours and this poll at the top of this page..

The pols have been reading this for grins and giggles. Your poll is a farce as you well know.

The pols have been following the Courts, the polling, the argumentation. In no way, shape, or form are they going to try to overturn the ruling. They know they would be voted out of office in many districts.

The tide for marriage equality has turned in favor the last five years.

Who would have ever thought that the founding documents and system created in this nation, would have not been created in a way that would keep people from exploiting it in the way that it is being exploited right now today in America? It's a sad day for America, and for the future of this nation's Christian beliefs and/or teachings that were a huge part of America's founding and it's future from that point onward. This nation now has people who can tell you that up is down and down is up, and then make you a believer of that very ridiculous thinking anymore. WOW!

Or...that Christians are expected to follow the same laws as everyone else.

How do Christians practice what they preach anymore then, and where are they allowed to practice what they preach in their lives ? They teach their children that homosexuality is a sin right, and they are not going to end that teaching, so what do you do with the millions of up and coming citizens who don't believe in Gay Marriage or even being gay at all ? What, maybe lock them all away until they are changed by the government somehow ? I mean how does it play out between all the religious and non-religious groups in this nation in the future, otherwise I mean one has to wonder about such things right ? Can they all co-exist by themselves or does the government have to force it all somehow ?

If the government has to force it all, then I guess we have been seeing a preview of that right ?

Why CAN'T Christians still practice what they preach? No one is forcing any Christians to get gay married. And if you want to teach your kids that homosexuality is a sin, no one can stop you from doing something that wretched. You can live your life the exact same way you did before, you just have to serve people at your business without discrimination, including black people at your diner...Sorry, I meant gay people at your bakery.

No problem serving anyone, just as long as it remains non-personal when the transactions take place. When a person makes what they do known, and then expects a person to support that in some way, then should a person be forced to do so by the government telling them to do so ? I think this is what happened in the case of the baker and others maybe wouldn't you agree ? I agree that you can sell a product without worrying about who the customer is or trying to find out anything about the customer, but if the transaction becomes personal somehow, then that is when people want to opt out of a situation in order for them to not do something they think is wrong for them to do right ? It could be that a person could direct the person to someone who may do the job for them, and shouldn't that be OK also ? I mean directing someone to another bakery makes the situation for the Christian baker non-personal, because he may not even know the other baker, but just knows that it would suit the customer more better than he could.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Good thinking, beagle9, but it will depend on the PA law and the customer/provider reasonableness.

 

[Skylar]

No problem serving anyone, just as long as it remains non-personal when the transactions take place. When a person makes what they do known, and then expects a person to support that in some way, then should a person be forced to do so by the government telling them to do so ?

Its completely non-personal. The PA laws in questions aren't targeting Christians by name or by faith, or even the concept of religion. They apply to everyone of any faith, of any sex, of any gender or sexual orientation. IF you're going do business with the public, you are required to treat your customers fairly and equally.

You don't get a special exemption from the law because you're Christian. You don't get special treatment. You are treated like everyone else. Which is the exact opposite of 'personal'.

 

[beagle9]

Yeah, right...because politicians haven't been paying attention to Chic-Fil-a, Boycott A&E's million "likes" on Facebook in less than 24 hours and this poll at the top of this page..

The pols have been reading this for grins and giggles. Your poll is a farce as you well know.

The pols have been following the Courts, the polling, the argumentation. In no way, shape, or form are they going to try to overturn the ruling. They know they would be voted out of office in many districts.

The tide for marriage equality has turned in favor the last five years.

Who would have ever thought that the founding documents and system created in this nation, would have not been created in a way that would keep people from exploiting it in the way that it is being exploited right now today in America? It's a sad day for America, and for the future of this nation's Christian beliefs and/or teachings that were a huge part of America's founding and it's future from that point onward. This nation now has people who can tell you that up is down and down is up, and then make you a believer of that very ridiculous thinking anymore. WOW!

Or...that Christians are expected to follow the same laws as everyone else.

How do Christians practice what they preach anymore then, and where are they allowed to practice what they preach in their lives ? They teach their children that homosexuality is a sin right, and they are not going to end that teaching, so what do you do with the millions of up and coming citizens who don't believe in Gay Marriage or even being gay at all ? What, maybe lock them all away until they are changed by the government somehow ? I mean how does it play out between all the religious and non-religious groups in this nation in the future, otherwise I mean one has to wonder about such things right ? Can they all co-exist by themselves or does the government have to force it all somehow ?

If the government has to force it all, then I guess we have been seeing a preview of that right ?

Why CAN'T Christians still practice what they preach? No one is forcing any Christians to get gay married. And if you want to teach your kids that homosexuality is a sin, no one can stop you from doing something that wretched. You can live your life the exact same way you did before, you just have to serve people at your business without discrimination, including black people at your diner...Sorry, I meant gay people at your bakery.

Doing something that wretched eh ? So you think that the Lord would have the Christians do something as wretched as to teach their children about those things in which are deemed as being sinful in the Bible ?

The thing is that all should be compassionate and empathetic to those who are living in sin, and to pray for them daily as Christians should do.

It can be done without becoming guilty of big time sinning in respect to ones own self in life also, but boundaries must be respected and held upon the belief in those boundaries, and this if one is going to be a helper instead of a victim themselves in life. Those who condemn the sinners (cutting them off completely), are not Christians at all, but rather they are weak and afraid. A Christian must be strong in order to be of good character in life, and one should be merciful, compassionate and full of love for his fellow human beings in life (all of them), but in that strength gained, he or she is able to endure without falling into the pit themselves while doing the Lord's work when or if called upon to do so.

 

[Skylar]

The thing is that all should be compassionate and empathetic to those who are living in sin, and to pray for them daily as Christians should do.

And how is treating a gay person as less by pointlessly discriminating against them in business an act of 'compassion' or 'empathy'? Its obvious not. Believe as you wish. But in business with the public, treat your customers with fairness and equality.

And you'll do fine.

 

[beagle9]

No problem serving anyone, just as long as it remains non-personal when the transactions take place. When a person makes what they do known, and then expects a person to support that in some way, then should a person be forced to do so by the government telling them to do so ?

Its completely non-personal. The PA laws in questions aren't targeting Christians by name or by faith, or even the concept of religion. They apply to everyone of any faith, of any sex, of any gender or sexual orientation. IF you're going do business with the public, you are required to treat your customers fairly and equally.

You don't get a special exemption from the law because you're Christian. You don't get special treatment. You are treated like everyone else. Which is the exact opposite of 'personal'.

Of course the law is non-personal and targets no one, but when you introduce people into the equation, that's when things can get tricky.

I'll take it back to a Christian book store analogy, where as if a person walks in and the book store is a Christian book store, but lets say that the person didn't notice the sign out front that says it is a Christian book store, and so then the person ask for a copy of playboy, but the book store or shop keeper doesn't realize the person didn't see the sign, and next becomes angry and shocked at the request because he thinks he is being set up somehow..Now what ?

OK, so now the customer doesn't want to apologize and just walk out, but instead he wants to get his lawyer to make the book store change the sign to a huge and neon glowing sign, and also he wants restitution for the attitude that the shocked shop keeper gave him in the situation. Now a negotiation between the two could solve the situation, but both heads have got to cool down (a cool off period), and this can be done without the government clobbering someone over the head wouldn't you agree ?

 

[beagle9]

The thing is that all should be compassionate and empathetic to those who are living in sin, and to pray for them daily as Christians should do.

And how is treating a gay person as less by pointlessly discriminating against them in business an act of 'compassion' or 'empathy'? Its obvious not. Believe as you wish. But in business with the public, treat your customers with fairness and equality.

And you'll do fine.

Are you actually following along, or are you just blabbering without reading more closely the conversation ?

 

[Skylar]

No problem serving anyone, just as long as it remains non-personal when the transactions take place. When a person makes what they do known, and then expects a person to support that in some way, then should a person be forced to do so by the government telling them to do so ?

Its completely non-personal. The PA laws in questions aren't targeting Christians by name or by faith, or even the concept of religion. They apply to everyone of any faith, of any sex, of any gender or sexual orientation. IF you're going do business with the public, you are required to treat your customers fairly and equally.

You don't get a special exemption from the law because you're Christian. You don't get special treatment. You are treated like everyone else. Which is the exact opposite of 'personal'.

Of course the law is non-personal and targets no one, but when you introduce people into the equation, that's when things can get tricky.

Only if you're demanding special treatment and a privileged exemption from the law. If we treat you like everyone else, as the law demands, its remarkably simple.

Which is exactly what is happening: you're being treated like everyone else and required in business with the public to treat your customers fairly and equally.

See how simple that is?

 

[Skylar]

The thing is that all should be compassionate and empathetic to those who are living in sin, and to pray for them daily as Christians should do.

And how is treating a gay person as less by pointlessly discriminating against them in business an act of 'compassion' or 'empathy'? Its obvious not. Believe as you wish. But in business with the public, treat your customers with fairness and equality.

And you'll do fine.

Are you actually following along, or are you just blabbering without reading more closely the conversation ?

I'm actually following along. And discrimination in business isn't an act of compassion or empathy. But inequity, injustice and callous disregard.

Which might explain why the PA laws of many states forbids it.