Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

Yes it is. Marriage laws were already equal, allowing any adult to marry any unrelated adult of the opposite sex. It was applied regardless of race, gender, or even sexual orientation. But you people wanted special rights, insisting that the right to marry means the right to marry whoever you want, same sex, sister, aunt, goat, whatever. Equality was not enough for you, you wanted special rights just for your little faggot group.

 

[beagle9]

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!!!!!!!!!

Do you have something of intelligence to say in response to the topic or not ? So far you are just flaming another poster, and I think that is against the rules isn't it ?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Are you a sock for Silly or is she a sock for you?

 

[beagle9]

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?

Yes, so the question is how does one separate themselves from their religion and faith, and become enablers of things in which the Bible speaks against ? I mean why would a Christian even waist all that time if they can't use it in their everyday lives as it should be used by them ? This nation has acknowledged the Christian religion since it's founding, but now it is under assault from many directions anymore. Is it that the nation has become so evil in it's ways, that Christianity has to be shrunken down to a minority in which would make it toothless and useless to it's faithful followers while out and about in society now ?

 

[Skylar]

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?

As has been explained to you at least a dozen times, and ignore by you a dozen more.... Christians aren't churches. You hopelessly unable to recognize any such distinctions.

The law does.

 

[Skylar]

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?

Yes, so the question is how does one separate themselves from their religion and faith, and become enablers of things in which the Bible speaks against ?

Nope. PA laws explicitly exempt religious corporations. If you're not a religious corporation, you're not exempt.

The question is....why do you keep ignoring this crystal clear distinction? Surely you realize that the law doesn't change just because you ignore it.

Oh, and the Bible says nothing about selling wedding cake.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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?

Technically speaking, no baker was fined $150,000. That figure is used in reference to the Sweetcakes by Melissa case. However the hearing to set the fine is scheduled for March 10th. Kind of hard to have been fined when the hearing hasn't taken place yet.




>>>>

 

[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?

Technically speaking, no baker was fined $150,000. That figure is used in reference to the Sweetcakes by Melissa case. However the hearing to set the fine is scheduled for March 10th. Kind of hard to have been fined when the hearing hasn't taken place yet.




>>>>

Then let me restate it. Given that the bakers that were recently found culpable for anti-gay discrimination and could be fined as much as $150,000 refused to do either, what's your point?

 

[WorldWatcher]

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?

Technically speaking, no baker was fined $150,000. That figure is used in reference to the Sweetcakes by Melissa case. However the hearing to set the fine is scheduled for March 10th. Kind of hard to have been fined when the hearing hasn't taken place yet.




>>>>

Then let me restate it. Given that the bakers that were recently found culpable for anti-gay discrimination and could be fined as much as $150,000 refused to do either, what's your point?

Just pointing out that the assumption that Aaron and Melissa Klein have been fined $150,000 in that case is wrong.

To date their has been no fine and the actual fine could be much less. Some news outlets have reported scare headlines indicating that that amount is a done deal - it isn't.

Considering that it is a first offense - it appears - then the likely fine would be much less.


Paragraph (1) - in my reading - would be applicable because Para (2) deals with disability and housing. Under Para (1) the fine is $1,000. Since Aaron and Melissa Klein were charged as individuals (one for performing the discrimination and [IIRC] one for aiding and abetting the discrimination) then the maximum fine they would face together is $2,000. (ORS 659A.855 - Civil penalty for certain complaints filed by commissioner - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes

Now in addition to the fine, the owners could be required to pay actual damages to the couple refused, the key word being "actual" meaning that the couple would have to show some form of monetary loss to qualify for actual damages. (ORS 659A.850 - Hearing - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes

(I could be wrong though, anyone familiar with the Oregon laws on the matter that can show me where a 1st offense Public Accommodation law offender can be fined $75,000 (each) - feel free to post the law. )


>>>>

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Yes it is. Marriage laws were already equal, allowing any adult to marry any unrelated adult of the opposite sex. It was applied regardless of race, gender, or even sexual orientation. But you people wanted special rights, insisting that the right to marry means the right to marry whoever you want, same sex, sister, aunt, goat, whatever. Equality was not enough for you, you wanted special rights just for your little faggot group.

little f*ggot group.....little n*gger group.....little c*nt group....little k*ke group.....you think all of those groups just want special rights when they want to be treated equally

 

[Thoughts N Views]

Let me state from the start that I do not believe that the government can discriminate in these matters. According to Article IV section 2 of the Constitution I believe that Gays have the same right to be married under the law as do straights.

There is, however, separation of Church and State in this country. Liberals only seem to like this when it favor their anti religion (read: Christianity) views. In other words they do not want the church setting state policy. They are correct in this. No church should set government policy.

The other side of separation of church and state (the side Liberals do not like) is that the state cannot set church policy either. So long as church policy is not endangering anyone's life or safety the government cannot interfere.

You are free to worship or not worship as you wish in the United States. If you do not like a particular church's views on Gay marriage (or any other topic) you are free to leave that church and join another. No one is forced to belong to a church.

Government policy is something else We are all citizens of this country and therefore must all enjoy the same rights and privileges as our fellow citizens, so long as we are not endangering anyone's life or safety.

 

[beagle9]

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?

Yes, so the question is how does one separate themselves from their religion and faith, and become enablers of things in which the Bible speaks against ?

Nope. PA laws explicitly exempt religious corporations. If you're not a religious corporation, you're not exempt.

The question is....why do you keep ignoring this crystal clear distinction? Surely you realize that the law doesn't change just because you ignore it.

Oh, and the Bible says nothing about selling wedding cake.

No one is ignoring anything, but rather just challenging the rational and validity behind the laws at hand. Do you think that man isn't or can't be fallible in life? Judges and lawmakers are men and women, and yes they can make huge mistakes when making rulings, interpretations, or laws.

 

[Skylar]

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?

Yes, so the question is how does one separate themselves from their religion and faith, and become enablers of things in which the Bible speaks against ?

Nope. PA laws explicitly exempt religious corporations. If you're not a religious corporation, you're not exempt.

The question is....why do you keep ignoring this crystal clear distinction? Surely you realize that the law doesn't change just because you ignore it.

Oh, and the Bible says nothing about selling wedding cake.

No one is ignoring anything, but rather just challenging the rational and validity behind the laws at hand. Do you think that man isn't or can't be falable in life? Judges and lawmakers are men and women, and yes they can make huge mistakes when making rulings, interpretations, or laws.

I think that the law should apply the same way to everyone. And that Christians should be treated with the same respect and consideration that everyone else receives under these laws.

If you don't like PA laws, change them.

 

[beagle9]

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?

Yes, so the question is how does one separate themselves from their religion and faith, and become enablers of things in which the Bible speaks against ?

Nope. PA laws explicitly exempt religious corporations. If you're not a religious corporation, you're not exempt.

The question is....why do you keep ignoring this crystal clear distinction? Surely you realize that the law doesn't change just because you ignore it.

Oh, and the Bible says nothing about selling wedding cake.

No one is ignoring anything, but rather just challenging the rational and validity behind the laws at hand. Do you think that man isn't or can't be falable in life? Judges and lawmakers are men and women, and yes they can make huge mistakes when making rulings, interpretations, or laws.

I think that the law should apply the same way to everyone. And that Christians should be treated with the same respect and consideration that everyone else receives under these laws.

If you don't like PA laws, change them.

They may need to be changed some, and that might be what the court will recognize if the right lawyers with their presentations and interpretations being presented can convince them of. They need another way of looking at things finally in the end. The cake baker should have been able to opt out of the situation as based upon his religion and faith. The Church exist within the person as it is carried within that person's heart and soul, and it really amazes me how the courts can't see it that away when they should see it that way according to the constitution. Like I said how does one practice ones faith and religion in his or her life, if the state or feds say otherwise about it ? So as one comes out of the shadows, then the other has to go in to the shadows I guess.

Once the Christians were free and offended no one, but now their religion and faith is offensive in America ? Now the President is on the bandwagon against the Christians in America as well ? How did this happen, because this is absolutely not the America that our families and forefathers grew up in, so what is it then ? Is it a police state for some that are considered as the others now, where as they are no longer granted their freedoms as it were, but instead they are chastised and harassed under the current conditions in which they are living under ? The Bible tells of these things in it's writings that are over hundreds and hundreds of years old, but it is being scoffed at by an evil generation now ? WOW!

 

[Skylar]

They may need to be changed some, and that might be what the court will recognize if the right lawyers with their presentations and interpretations being presented can convince them of.

The courts have already considered the idea of laws being subject to religious beliefs, and rejected the idea soundly. And most of the justices who ruled against your interpretation of religious freedom are still on the bench.

They need another way of looking at things finally in the end. The cake baker should have been able to opt out of the situation as based upon his religion and faith.

No, he shouldn't. Christians are subject to the same laws as everyone else. If the baker had merely refused to put gay marriage related writing on the cake, I'd agree with you. But the baker refused to sell the cake at all. And it was explicitly because the customers were gay.

That's a clear violation of the PA laws of the state.

The Church exist within the person as it is carried within that person's heart and soul, and it really amazes me how the courts can't see it that away when they should see it that way according to the constitution.

Simple: because if the applicability of law were predicated on a person's 'heart and soul', then only those laws that they agreed with would apply to them. Which is not our system of law, nor ever has been.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

Yes, so the question is how does one separate themselves from their religion and faith, and become enablers of things in which the Bible speaks against ?

Nope. PA laws explicitly exempt religious corporations. If you're not a religious corporation, you're not exempt.

The question is....why do you keep ignoring this crystal clear distinction? Surely you realize that the law doesn't change just because you ignore it.

Oh, and the Bible says nothing about selling wedding cake.

No one is ignoring anything, but rather just challenging the rational and validity behind the laws at hand. Do you think that man isn't or can't be falable in life? Judges and lawmakers are men and women, and yes they can make huge mistakes when making rulings, interpretations, or laws.

I think that the law should apply the same way to everyone. And that Christians should be treated with the same respect and consideration that everyone else receives under these laws.

If you don't like PA laws, change them.

Once the Christians were free and offended no one, but now their religion and faith is offensive in America ? Now the President is on the bandwagon against the Christians in America as well ? !

Really- cry me a river.

Christians in America have offended plenty. I have nothing against Christianity or Christians- but I do have something against ignorance and revisionist history.

Christians in early America were quite discriminatory- most communities required church attendence, and payment of a church tax of sorts- enforced by secular authorities.

And heaven forbid you were the 'wrong' kind of Christian- look at the history of the early colonies and it was rife with stories of people being driven out of the colonies for not being the right kind of Protestant- let alone be a Catholic.

And if you were Jewish? Christians in early America had quite a few laws against Judaism.

Christianity is still the dominant religion in the United States and is still protected- like all religions- by the Constitution.

And no- President Obama is not against 'Christians' either- why would he be against himself, his wife and his daughter?

 

[Silhouette]

Really- cry me a river.

Christians in America have offended plenty. I have nothing against Christianity or Christians- but I do have something against ignorance and revisionist history.

Christians in early America were quite discriminatory- most communities required church attendence, and payment of a church tax of sorts- enforced by secular authorities.

And your religion is how much better than Christianity again? The cult of LGBT and the old punitive ways of puritan christans are two wrongs that don't make a right. I suggest if you want to sue churches (congregations merely of individual christians) into obedience, first make your religion official. At least have the decency to do that...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil is mentally degenerating, per the above.

SCOTUS ruling Alabama is clearing the way for complete national marriage equality in June.

Sil can move to Albania.

 

[Silhouette]

Sil is mentally degenerating, per the above.

SCOTUS ruling Alabama is clearing the way for complete national marriage equality in June.

Sil can move to Albania.

I'm imagining that individual christians are being forced to accomodate gay weddings against their will? Did I imagine that christian bakers, florists, photographers and caterers are being sued by gays?

Did I imagine that 82% of the general public strongly disagrees with that practice? (poll above)

 

[Jarlaxle]

Really- cry me a river.

Christians in America have offended plenty. I have nothing against Christianity or Christians- but I do have something against ignorance and revisionist history.

Christians in early America were quite discriminatory- most communities required church attendence, and payment of a church tax of sorts- enforced by secular authorities.

And your religion is how much better than Christianity again? The cult of LGBT and the old punitive ways of puritan christans are two wrongs that don't make a right. I suggest if you want to sue churches (congregations merely of individual christians) into obedience, first make your religion official. At least have the decency to do that...

Serious question, Silly: do you have all of your BS saved in Word documents? That would seem to save time when you regurgitate the same tired old BS for the thirtieth time in the same thread.