Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Skylar]

One, why would you want to force anyone to attend your wedding, especially if you knew they would find it offensive? Who does that? Put aside all blabber about "rights" and "born that way." Just as a matter of basic human decency and tolerance, why would you want to force anyone to attend your wedding against their will? Why?

Two, whatever happened to the often-repeated guarantee that "if you're not gay, gay marriage won't affect you"? Hey? What happened to that line? Now we're finding out that gay rights activists are trying to use gay marriage laws to force churches and Christian businesses to host/service gay ceremonies against their will. Gee, what about "tolerance" and "live and let live"?

Just as a matter of basic human decency and respect for others' beliefs, why don't gays just use the many liberal churches and secular businesses that would be glad to host or service their sick little ceremonies?

Which churches? Because I think you'll find that no church has been forced to accommodate a gay wedding. As for 'Christian Business', if they're religious corporations, they're exempt from PA laws. If they're not....then they're just plain old businesses.

And a plain old business can't discriminate against customers based on race or sex or sexual orientation. At least in many States.

 

[Skylar]

..Just as a matter of basic human decency and respect for others' beliefs, why don't gays just use the many liberal churches and secular businesses that would be glad to host or service their sick little ceremonies?

Because the legal system allows them to force people to particpate in their cult.

More accurately, public accommodation laws require that those doing business treat their customers fairly and equally. So if you make cake, and a gay person wants to buy a cake, you sell them a cake. That's not 'forcing you to participate in their cult'.

That's just selling cake.

 

[Silhouette]

..Just as a matter of basic human decency and respect for others' beliefs, why don't gays just use the many liberal churches and secular businesses that would be glad to host or service their sick little ceremonies?

Because the legal system allows them to force people to particpate in their cult.

More accurately, public accommodation laws require that those doing business treat their customers fairly and equally. So if you make cake, and a gay person wants to buy a cake, you sell them a cake. That's not 'forcing you to participate in their cult'.

That's just selling cake.

Public accomodation laws on behaviors that must be tolerated and assisted/promoted vs 1st Amendment rights to the EXERCISE (an activity) of one's faith in day to day life..

Hmmm...should be interesting to see how the US Supreme Court gives weight in that question when it comes before them.

 

[Skylar]

..Just as a matter of basic human decency and respect for others' beliefs, why don't gays just use the many liberal churches and secular businesses that would be glad to host or service their sick little ceremonies?

Because the legal system allows them to force people to particpate in their cult.

More accurately, public accommodation laws require that those doing business treat their customers fairly and equally. So if you make cake, and a gay person wants to buy a cake, you sell them a cake. That's not 'forcing you to participate in their cult'.

That's just selling cake.

Public accomodation laws on behaviors that must be tolerated and assisted/promoted vs 1st Amendment rights to the EXERCISE (an activity) of one's faith in day to day life..

Hmmm...should be interesting to see how the US Supreme Court gives weight in that question when it comes before them.

So religion trumps civil law? The court has already addressed that topic, and explicitly rejected it.

No law can target religion specifically. PA laws apply to everyone. You can't discriminate against a customer due to sex. Or race. Or creed. Or religion. Or sexual orientation. The motivations for the discrimination are irrelevant.

Its the act the laws prohibit. And Christians are subject to the same laws as everyone else.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

..Just as a matter of basic human decency and respect for others' beliefs, why don't gays just use the many liberal churches and secular businesses that would be glad to host or service their sick little ceremonies?

Because the legal system allows them to force people to particpate in their cult.

More accurately, public accommodation laws require that those doing business treat their customers fairly and equally. So if you make cake, and a gay person wants to buy a cake, you sell them a cake. That's not 'forcing you to participate in their cult'.

That's just selling cake.

Public accomodation laws on behaviors that must be tolerated and assisted/promoted vs 1st Amendment rights to the EXERCISE (an activity) of one's faith in day to day life..

Hmmm...should be interesting to see how the US Supreme Court gives weight in that question when it comes before them.

Public accommodations laws are predicated on settled, accepted Commerce Clause jurisprudence, where the prohibition of businesses to deny service to a potential patron based on race, religion, or sexual orientation is necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy (Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964)).

Consequently it's ignorant nonsense to infer that public accommodations laws in any manner 'violate' the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment (Employment Division v. Smith (1990)).

Business owners with an unwarranted hostility toward gay Americans motivated by an erroneous perception of religious dogma remain at liberty to practice their religion of fear, ignorance, and hate unrestricted by state public accommodations laws.

Last, the Supreme Court has already reviewed the Constitutionality of state and local laws incorrectly perceived by some to 'violate' religious liberty and determined them to be valid (City of Boerne v. Flores (1997)).

 

[beagle9]

..Just as a matter of basic human decency and respect for others' beliefs, why don't gays just use the many liberal churches and secular businesses that would be glad to host or service their sick little ceremonies?

Because the legal system allows them to force people to particpate in their cult.

More accurately, public accommodation laws require that those doing business treat their customers fairly and equally. So if you make cake, and a gay person wants to buy a cake, you sell them a cake. That's not 'forcing you to participate in their cult'.

That's just selling cake.

Yes, selling an undressed or plain dressed cake in the display counter is one thing, but to have the cake maker dress the cake out for a specific wedding is quite another thing altogether wouldn't you agree ? This is when it gets personal for the baker, and it could involve the baker opting out due to his religious convictions concerning things in which he doesn't want to promote or participate in as according to his learning's or upbringings in life. Now what's wrong with that baker referring the customer to another baker who may not have had a problem with dressing a cake out for the occasion as was requested for ? There is nothing wrong with that I'm guessing. Was it the intent to make the baker participate in order to teach him a lesson on how not to refuse a person's lifestyle choices in life, and was this refusal based upon the bakers religious convictions and/or faith in which he used when refused the customer ? Why can't it also be instead about the customer respecting the bakers position on such a thing in accordance with his religious convictions in which was being stated on such a thing by the baker in the case ? Respect is always a two way street don't you think ?

Like I said before the law's are never concrete, and there have always been wiggle room within the laws of this land as we have seen, and this is because every case or scenario can't be addressed during the lawmaking or rulings in which are handed down for all to try and follow (i.e. laws and law making are not a perfect science by no means). This is why the people have to bring their unique circumstances before the courts again and again sometimes. Why is this ? It is in order that a law might be re-visited as based upon the circumstances or findings that were maybe not considered before in a situation when the law was written or handed down, and then a judge is to review what maybe went wrong or wasn't considered before next. This review may cause him or her to make some adjustments or exceptions within a law or laws as they were written down but were not completed in total by his or her understandings of such things when a law was enacted and enforced. I mean just look at Obamacare for example or illegal immigration and such. How bad are the laws being bent in those cases now ?

 

[beagle9]

..Just as a matter of basic human decency and respect for others' beliefs, why don't gays just use the many liberal churches and secular businesses that would be glad to host or service their sick little ceremonies?

Because the legal system allows them to force people to particpate in their cult.

More accurately, public accommodation laws require that those doing business treat their customers fairly and equally. So if you make cake, and a gay person wants to buy a cake, you sell them a cake. That's not 'forcing you to participate in their cult'.

That's just selling cake.

Public accomodation laws on behaviors that must be tolerated and assisted/promoted vs 1st Amendment rights to the EXERCISE (an activity) of one's faith in day to day life..

Hmmm...should be interesting to see how the US Supreme Court gives weight in that question when it comes before them.

Public accommodations laws are predicated on settled, accepted Commerce Clause jurisprudence, where the prohibition of businesses to deny service to a potential patron based on race, religion, or sexual orientation is necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy (Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964)).

Consequently it's ignorant nonsense to infer that public accommodations laws in any manner 'violate' the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment (Employment Division v. Smith (1990)).

Business owners with an unwarranted hostility toward gay Americans motivated by an erroneous perception of religious dogma remain at liberty to practice their religion of fear, ignorance, and hate unrestricted by state public accommodations laws.

Last, the Supreme Court has already reviewed the Constitutionality of state and local laws incorrectly perceived by some to 'violate' religious liberty and determined them to be valid (City of Boerne v. Flores (1997)).

Judges can be wrong in their one size fits all concept when making rulings and laws apply to everyone also, and as soon as people realize this, then maybe the system can be tweaked to a better level of acceptance and understanding by all that participate in society once more, and this when cases go before the courts for further review. How do you take some cases and apply that to all in the future ? Anything can be revisited and re-reviewed for better results always.

 

[Silhouette]

Judges can be wrong in their one size fits all concept when making rulings and laws apply to everyone also, and as soon as people realize this, then maybe the system can be tweaked to a better level of acceptance and understanding by all that participate in society once more, and this when cases go before the courts for further review. How do you take some cases and apply that to all in the future ? Anything can be revisited and re-reviewed for better results always.

If you look at the Gay vs the Separate Sovereign States of America case coming up this next month or so, there really is also a base mechanical legal consideration that has to be going through the Justices's minds.

If they reiterate Windsor, reminding everyone how they said 56 times in that Decision that gay marriage was and is up to the separate states, then there is no harm at all done to any type of law; no revisions to the Constitution inserting any conceivable lifestyle (in the name of equality, remember) "as protected federally", and leaving behaviors to be regulated locally, by discreet communities as they always have been.

However, the quagmire the Court would create in granting special federal protection for any conceivable lifestyle that wants legal access to kids (through the loophole of marriage perks) and money from states in tax breaks ...could have no limits. Into the future my mind reels at the numbers that will follow in the "well you let people who do gay sex have special protections..even while that was repugnant to the majority...what makes gay sex so special when [fill in the blank behavior here of any type or form] is just as harmless? It wouldn't just end at marriage either. All manner of [fill in the blank] lifestyles would want special access to things they are currently forbidden from accessing. And once the standard of "behaviors repugnant to the majority are protected" has been set, how can the Court fairly tease out one from another without appearing biased against them?

I see this going back to the states, for many reasons, and I haven't even touched in this post on how the 1st Amendment will be ramrodded the second the ink is dry on any extremely foolish myopic "empathy Decision" granting federal protections for gays in marriage. Churches will be hauled into court as their individual parishoners already are by this very powerful cult.

 

[Syriusly]

..Just as a matter of basic human decency and respect for others' beliefs, why don't gays just use the many liberal churches and secular businesses that would be glad to host or service their sick little ceremonies?

Because the legal system allows them to force people to particpate in their cult.

More accurately, public accommodation laws require that those doing business treat their customers fairly and equally. So if you make cake, and a gay person wants to buy a cake, you sell them a cake. That's not 'forcing you to participate in their cult'.

That's just selling cake.

Public accomodation laws on behaviors that must be tolerated and assisted/promoted vs 1st Amendment rights to the EXERCISE (an activity) of one's faith in day to day life..

Hmmm...should be interesting to see how the US Supreme Court gives weight in that question when it comes before them.

Judges can be wrong in their one size fits all concept when making rulings and laws apply to everyone also, and as soon as people realize this, then maybe the system can be tweaked to a better level of acceptance and understanding by all that participate in society once more, and this when cases go before the courts for further review. How do you take some cases and apply that to all in the future ? Anything can be revisited and re-reviewed for better results always.

If you look at the Gay vs the Separate Sovereign States of America case coming up this next month or so, there really is also a base mechanical legal consideration that has to be going through the Justices's minds.

If they reiterate Windsor, reminding everyone how they.

If the courts refer to Windsor, they will be referring to a case where they specifically stated that State laws must meet constitutional requirements.

And of course that is exactly one of the questions that is before the Court.

 

[Jarlaxle]

That isn't why I got married. At least not the government part of it. I think government in marriage is irrelevant.

What Seawytch is saying is she got married for the same reason I did, she is married to an upper class Korean who's family is traditional, Christian, Republican and conservative and her parents in law weren't letting their daughter out of their house and she wasn't going without the paper. I personally find that hard to believe, but it's what she keeps saying, she got a government marriage for the same reason I did.

Plan B: If an orchestrated flame war doesn't work, begin discussing personal details of poster's lives; another thing the moderators forbid and that almost always succeeds in getting a thread shut down.

Y'all really don't like the poll results at the top of the page, do you?

"Y'all" are projection-flailing yet again, Silly.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Reporting me for what, you horse's ass?

Well, like Paint said, "the right to bash gays" which he was arguing to defend here. And that seems odd since a person rabidly defending gays like Paint always does wouldn't seem eager to encourage people's "right to bash gays".

You are playing a role. I've called you out on it before. Paint spilled the beans. Your gig is up, the game is out in the open. Run along before you get banned.

Does anyone but you not realize yet that almost everyone here is basically pointing and laughing at you? You have turned into the nut running around screaming, "THE END IS NEAR!" with a pair of Depends on his head.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Staidhup, the problem for you is, of course, mr. hypocrite, the far right social con Christians are getting what they deserve.

Yep...It will be about one week after if SCOTUS removes states' rights (Windsor 2013) to regulate which lifestyles can be married that lawsuits will be filed against congregations of individual christians (churches) to force them to accomodate gay marriage...just like what was done to christian bakers and florists etc.

One week +/-

No matter how many times you squeak this bullshit, it is still bullshit, Silly!

 

[Jarlaxle]

St Mike, you still trying to make the bad old poll results at the top go away by role-playing the thread derailer/gay basher? If I was a moderator you'd have been packin' up ages ago..

Of course you would, Silly.

Let me guess: growing up, your two favorite words were, "I'M TELLING!!!!!!!!!

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I support marriage equality for homosexuals- and I am opposed to any efforts to make churches do anything.

Do you support parenting-equality for children? ie: do you believe every child should have their state encourage both a father and a mother in their home?

You do realize that 'parenting-equality' is a term you just made up, right?

He makes a lot of things up. It's all he has.

 

[Skylar]

..Just as a matter of basic human decency and respect for others' beliefs, why don't gays just use the many liberal churches and secular businesses that would be glad to host or service their sick little ceremonies?

Because the legal system allows them to force people to particpate in their cult.

More accurately, public accommodation laws require that those doing business treat their customers fairly and equally. So if you make cake, and a gay person wants to buy a cake, you sell them a cake. That's not 'forcing you to participate in their cult'.

That's just selling cake.

Public accomodation laws on behaviors that must be tolerated and assisted/promoted vs 1st Amendment rights to the EXERCISE (an activity) of one's faith in day to day life..

Hmmm...should be interesting to see how the US Supreme Court gives weight in that question when it comes before them.

Public accommodations laws are predicated on settled, accepted Commerce Clause jurisprudence, where the prohibition of businesses to deny service to a potential patron based on race, religion, or sexual orientation is necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy (Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964)).

Consequently it's ignorant nonsense to infer that public accommodations laws in any manner 'violate' the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment (Employment Division v. Smith (1990)).

Business owners with an unwarranted hostility toward gay Americans motivated by an erroneous perception of religious dogma remain at liberty to practice their religion of fear, ignorance, and hate unrestricted by state public accommodations laws.

Last, the Supreme Court has already reviewed the Constitutionality of state and local laws incorrectly perceived by some to 'violate' religious liberty and determined them to be valid (City of Boerne v. Flores (1997)).

Judges can be wrong in their one size fits all concept when making rulings and laws apply to everyone also, and as soon as people realize this, then maybe the system can be tweaked to a better level of acceptance and understanding by all that participate in society once more, and this when cases go before the courts for further review. How do you take some cases and apply that to all in the future ? Anything can be revisited and re-reviewed for better results always.

And by 'tweaking', you mean that Christians can ignore any law they don't like.

Yeah, I've got a better idea. Let's treat Christians just like anyone else.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

..Just as a matter of basic human decency and respect for others' beliefs, why don't gays just use the many liberal churches and secular businesses that would be glad to host or service their sick little ceremonies?

Because the legal system allows them to force people to particpate in their cult.

More accurately, public accommodation laws require that those doing business treat their customers fairly and equally. So if you make cake, and a gay person wants to buy a cake, you sell them a cake. That's not 'forcing you to participate in their cult'.

That's just selling cake.

Public accomodation laws on behaviors that must be tolerated and assisted/promoted vs 1st Amendment rights to the EXERCISE (an activity) of one's faith in day to day life..

Hmmm...should be interesting to see how the US Supreme Court gives weight in that question when it comes before them.

Public accommodations laws are predicated on settled, accepted Commerce Clause jurisprudence, where the prohibition of businesses to deny service to a potential patron based on race, religion, or sexual orientation is necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy (Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964)).

Consequently it's ignorant nonsense to infer that public accommodations laws in any manner 'violate' the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment (Employment Division v. Smith (1990)).

Business owners with an unwarranted hostility toward gay Americans motivated by an erroneous perception of religious dogma remain at liberty to practice their religion of fear, ignorance, and hate unrestricted by state public accommodations laws.

Last, the Supreme Court has already reviewed the Constitutionality of state and local laws incorrectly perceived by some to 'violate' religious liberty and determined them to be valid (City of Boerne v. Flores (1997)).

Judges can be wrong in their one size fits all concept when making rulings and laws apply to everyone also, and as soon as people realize this, then maybe the system can be tweaked to a better level of acceptance and understanding by all that participate in society once more, and this when cases go before the courts for further review. How do you take some cases and apply that to all in the future ? Anything can be revisited and re-reviewed for better results always.

And by 'tweaking', you mean that Christians can ignore any law they don't like.

Yeah, I've got a better idea. Let's treat Christians just like anyone else.

So only gays get special rights? I see.

 

[Skylar]

Yes, selling an undressed or plain dressed cake in the display counter is one thing, but to have the cake maker dress the cake out for a specific wedding is quite another thing altogether wouldn't you agree ?

Given that the bakers that were recently fined $150,000 refused to do either, what's your point?

 

[Skylar]

Because the legal system allows them to force people to particpate in their cult.

More accurately, public accommodation laws require that those doing business treat their customers fairly and equally. So if you make cake, and a gay person wants to buy a cake, you sell them a cake. That's not 'forcing you to participate in their cult'.

That's just selling cake.

Public accomodation laws on behaviors that must be tolerated and assisted/promoted vs 1st Amendment rights to the EXERCISE (an activity) of one's faith in day to day life..

Hmmm...should be interesting to see how the US Supreme Court gives weight in that question when it comes before them.

Public accommodations laws are predicated on settled, accepted Commerce Clause jurisprudence, where the prohibition of businesses to deny service to a potential patron based on race, religion, or sexual orientation is necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy (Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964)).

Consequently it's ignorant nonsense to infer that public accommodations laws in any manner 'violate' the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment (Employment Division v. Smith (1990)).

Business owners with an unwarranted hostility toward gay Americans motivated by an erroneous perception of religious dogma remain at liberty to practice their religion of fear, ignorance, and hate unrestricted by state public accommodations laws.

Last, the Supreme Court has already reviewed the Constitutionality of state and local laws incorrectly perceived by some to 'violate' religious liberty and determined them to be valid (City of Boerne v. Flores (1997)).

Judges can be wrong in their one size fits all concept when making rulings and laws apply to everyone also, and as soon as people realize this, then maybe the system can be tweaked to a better level of acceptance and understanding by all that participate in society once more, and this when cases go before the courts for further review. How do you take some cases and apply that to all in the future ? Anything can be revisited and re-reviewed for better results always.

And by 'tweaking', you mean that Christians can ignore any law they don't like.

Yeah, I've got a better idea. Let's treat Christians just like anyone else.

So only gays get special rights? I see.

Having their marriages recognized isn't a 'special right'. Its an equal one.

 

[Silhouette]

No matter how many times you squeak this bullshit, it is still bullshit, Silly!

Can you please provide a link to where the US Supreme Court already decided the homosexuals vs the States case of 2015? I wasn't aware that had been heard and Decided yet..

Can you assure the readers here how if individual christians are being successfully sued by the aggressive LGBT cult/lobby, how collections of individual christians (churches) will be immune to those same lawsuits?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Squeak, squeak, squeak, Silly...just more trolling.