Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[JakeStarkey]

Almost any guy who picks up a book in 2100 and reads that there were folks like you, beagle9, is going to ask, "What was wrong with those folks?"

Or say wow look at where it all went wrong back then, and you know that beagle9 was right because look at where we are right now because of all of that back then. We are slaves now, so when can we steal another book to read about the past without our slave masters catching us, and thank God we can still read...

That's the moonshine talking, my friend.

A government of We the People is a republic with a constitution. Our Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment prevent the majority from keeping the civil rights from the minority that the majority enjoys.

No court has ever made a church marry folks of which the church disapproves, for whatever reason.

That is not going to change.

The militant atheists have no more chance of making that happen than your ilk has of preventing marriage equality: none.

 

[Syriusly]

Would you require muslims to perform gay weddings? I keep looking for a muslim baker, florist or photographer getting sued by gays but for some odd reason I cannot find them anywhere.

Links anyone?

This is not complicated

ANY business is obligated to follow public accomodation laws- if your local PA laws forbid discrimination against homosexuals, then it doesn't matter whether the business owner is Christian, Muslim, black, white, man, woman- he or she is obligated to do business with a person regardless of whether they are a homosexual or not.

Yes, but did the government, judges or lawmakers consider all angles l.

Does anyone bother to read these walls of text?

Lawmakers make laws. Hopefully they attempt to consider the ramifications, but I am not aware of any requirement to do so.

Meanwhile- each business is obligated to follow public accommodation laws.

If you don't like that- well change public accomodation laws.

But no- Christians don't get a special pass for being Christian.

 

[Syriusly]

Almost any guy who picks up a book in 2100 and reads that there were folks like you, beagle9, is going to ask, "What was wrong with those folks?"

Or say wow look at where it all went wrong back then, and you know that beagle9 was right because look at where we are right now because of all of that back then. We are slaves now, so when can we steal another book to read about the past without our slave masters catching us, and thank God we can still read...

If you think you are a slave you are as ignorant about history as you are about the law.

 

[beagle9]

Almost any guy who picks up a book in 2100 and reads that there were folks like you, beagle9, is going to ask, "What was wrong with those folks?"

Or say wow look at where it all went wrong back then, and you know that beagle9 was right because look at where we are right now because of all of that back then. We are slaves now, so when can we steal another book to read about the past without our slave masters catching us, and thank God we can still read...

If you think you are a slave you are as ignorant about history as you are about the law.

Umm, I said heading to become a slave, but not a slave right now or as of yet........Keep Up for crying out loud... LOL

 

[Skylar]

Almost any guy who picks up a book in 2100 and reads that there were folks like you, beagle9, is going to ask, "What was wrong with those folks?"

Or say wow look at where it all went wrong back then, and you know that beagle9 was right because look at where we are right now because of all of that back then. We are slaves now, so when can we steal another book to read about the past without our slave masters catching us, and thank God we can still read...

If you think you are a slave you are as ignorant about history as you are about the law.

Umm, I said heading to become a slave, but not a slave right now or as of yet........Keep Up for crying out loud... LOL

Yeah, because 'headed to becoming a slave' is not hysteric and melodramatic at all.

All because we refuse to give you special privileges and to ignore any law you don't like.

Sigh.....you are among the most downtrodden, victimized people that our old world has ever known, or ever could. Because you have to sell cake.

 

[orogenicman]

If a religious institution receives government funds, it should comply with government regulations/law. Otherwise, it can marry or not whomever they want or else forfeit those funds.

 

[Skylar]

If a religious institution receives government funds, it should comply with government regulations/law. Otherwise, it can marry or not whomever they want or else forfeit those funds.

This isn't about churches. Pretty much everyone agrees that churches shouldn't be forced to perform gay weddings they don't want to. This is about private businesses. Like say....cake sellers. Who refuse to sell cake to gay couples because they are gay.

 

[orogenicman]

If a religious institution receives government funds, it should comply with government regulations/law. Otherwise, it can marry or not whomever they want or else forfeit those funds.

This isn't about churches. Pretty much everyone agrees that churches shouldn't be forced to perform gay weddings they don't want to. This is about private businesses. Like say....cake sellers. Who refuse to sell cake to gay couples because they are gay.

Really? Then why the title (Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?)? It goes without saying that private business should not be allowed to discriminate. But that isn't what the OP was addressing?

 

[Skylar]

If a religious institution receives government funds, it should comply with government regulations/law. Otherwise, it can marry or not whomever they want or else forfeit those funds.

This isn't about churches. Pretty much everyone agrees that churches shouldn't be forced to perform gay weddings they don't want to. This is about private businesses. Like say....cake sellers. Who refuse to sell cake to gay couples because they are gay.

Really? Then why the title (Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?)? It goes without saying that private business should not be allowed to discriminate. But that isn't what the OP was addressing?

Let me rephrase that. This discussion isn't about churches. Pretty much everyone agreed from the outset that churches shouldn't be forced to accomidate churches. I think there was a grand total of one guy who thought they should.

So you really can't debate a point everyone agrees on.

What we're discussing now is private businesses being held to State Public Accommodation laws. With many Christians insisting that they should be exempted from such laws on the grounds that they conflict with their religious values.

 

[orogenicman]

If a religious institution receives government funds, it should comply with government regulations/law. Otherwise, it can marry or not whomever they want or else forfeit those funds.

This isn't about churches. Pretty much everyone agrees that churches shouldn't be forced to perform gay weddings they don't want to. This is about private businesses. Like say....cake sellers. Who refuse to sell cake to gay couples because they are gay.

Really? Then why the title (Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?)? It goes without saying that private business should not be allowed to discriminate. But that isn't what the OP was addressing?

Let me rephrase that. This discussion isn't about churches. Pretty much everyone agreed from the outset that churches shouldn't be forced to accomidate churches. I think there was a grand total of one guy who thought they should.

So you really can't debate a point everyone agrees on.

What we're discussing now is private businesses being held to State Public Accommodation laws. With many Christians insisting that they should be exempted from such laws on the grounds that they conflict with their religious values.

"Pretty much everyone agreed from the outset that churches shouldn't be forced to accomidate churches". Erm, what?

Sorry, I wasn't here at the outset so "everyone" could not have agreed from the "outset". I was posting an on topic response to the OP. If you guys want to change the subject, perhaps you should start another thread for that purpose.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

The Government will not be going around forcing Churches to marry anyone .

 

[Skylar]

If a religious institution receives government funds, it should comply with government regulations/law. Otherwise, it can marry or not whomever they want or else forfeit those funds.

This isn't about churches. Pretty much everyone agrees that churches shouldn't be forced to perform gay weddings they don't want to. This is about private businesses. Like say....cake sellers. Who refuse to sell cake to gay couples because they are gay.

Really? Then why the title (Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?)? It goes without saying that private business should not be allowed to discriminate. But that isn't what the OP was addressing?

Let me rephrase that. This discussion isn't about churches. Pretty much everyone agreed from the outset that churches shouldn't be forced to accomidate churches. I think there was a grand total of one guy who thought they should.

So you really can't debate a point everyone agrees on.

What we're discussing now is private businesses being held to State Public Accommodation laws. With many Christians insisting that they should be exempted from such laws on the grounds that they conflict with their religious values.

"Pretty much everyone agreed from the outset that churches shouldn't be forced to accomidate churches". Erm, what?

Sorry. Churches shouldn't be forced to accommodate homosexual weddings. Its a point no one really disagrees with.

Where there is disagreement is the PA laws.

 

[Syriusly]

If a religious institution receives government funds, it should comply with government regulations/law. Otherwise, it can marry or not whomever they want or else forfeit those funds.

This isn't about churches. Pretty much everyone agrees that churches shouldn't be forced to perform gay weddings they don't want to. This is about private businesses. Like say....cake sellers. Who refuse to sell cake to gay couples because they are gay.

Really? Then why the title (Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?)? It goes without saying that private business should not be allowed to discriminate. But that isn't what the OP was addressing?

Let me rephrase that. This discussion isn't about churches. Pretty much everyone agreed from the outset that churches shouldn't be forced to accomidate churches. I think there was a grand total of one guy who thought they should.

So you really can't debate a point everyone agrees on.

What we're discussing now is private businesses being held to State Public Accommodation laws. With many Christians insisting that they should be exempted from such laws on the grounds that they conflict with their religious values.

"Pretty much everyone agreed from the outset that churches shouldn't be forced to accomidate churches". Erm, what?

Sorry. Churches shouldn't be forced to accommodate homosexual weddings. Its a point no one really disagrees with.

Where there is disagreement is the PA laws.

And oddly enough- no one seems to be complaining about the PA laws themselves- the complaints break down to either:

a) Christians shouldn't have to comply with PA laws when they don't want to or
b) Homosexuals are wrong if they ask that PA laws be enforced.

 

[Silhouette]

Sorry. Churches shouldn't be forced to accommodate homosexual weddings. Its a point no one really disagrees with.
Where there is disagreement is the PA laws.

And oddly enough- no one seems to be complaining about the PA laws themselves- the complaints break down to either:

a) Christians shouldn't have to comply with PA laws when they don't want to or
b) Homosexuals are wrong if they ask that PA laws be enforced.

When you say "churches", we the readers know that you mean "congregations of individual christians", making Skylar's conclusion a moot point since churches are already being legally-forced by the LGBT litigant-army to accomodate gay weddings.

 

[Syriusly]

Sorry. Churches shouldn't be forced to accommodate homosexual weddings. Its a point no one really disagrees with.
Where there is disagreement is the PA laws.

And oddly enough- no one seems to be complaining about the PA laws themselves- the complaints break down to either:

a) Christians shouldn't have to comply with PA laws when they don't want to or
b) Homosexuals are wrong if they ask that PA laws be enforced.

When you say "churches", .

I mean churches.

You know- the facilities and organizations that are legally exempt from PA laws and don't have to pay taxes?

 

[Skylar]

Sorry. Churches shouldn't be forced to accommodate homosexual weddings. Its a point no one really disagrees with.
Where there is disagreement is the PA laws.

And oddly enough- no one seems to be complaining about the PA laws themselves- the complaints break down to either:

a) Christians shouldn't have to comply with PA laws when they don't want to or
b) Homosexuals are wrong if they ask that PA laws be enforced.

When you say "churches", we the readers know that you mean "congregations of individual christians", making Skylar's conclusion a moot point since churches are already being legally-forced by the LGBT litigant-army to accomodate gay weddings.

More accurately, what I mean is churches. You keep trying to bizarrely insist that an individual is a church. Which is clearly blithering idiocy.

PA laws explicitly exempt churches. They apply only to businesses that serve the public.

 

[beagle9]

Sorry. Churches shouldn't be forced to accommodate homosexual weddings. Its a point no one really disagrees with.
Where there is disagreement is the PA laws.

And oddly enough- no one seems to be complaining about the PA laws themselves- the complaints break down to either:

a) Christians shouldn't have to comply with PA laws when they don't want to or
b) Homosexuals are wrong if they ask that PA laws be enforced.

When you say "churches", .

I mean churches.

You know- the facilities and organizations that are legally exempt from PA laws and don't have to pay taxes?

The organization as it congregates to collect monies to keep the doors open, lights on, grass cut, repairs made, and it's activities funded for it's members isn't being taxed of course, and why is this ? It's because it is all non-profit for non-profit activities in which benefits the members in that way. Separate from that is the freedom of religion in which the individual Christian is supposed to have protected by the constitution, and yet is not being preserved or afforded the Christians under the current rules that violate the constitutional guarantee's in which had been laid out in the documents concerning the freedom as it reads, and in which the President took an oath to uphold and to protect.

Now how does one practice that which is legal in this nation, if there are those that claim now that it is illegal to practice such a thing in this nation ?

How is it that exemptions were made concerning religious institutions over the issue of contraception, and about who should be required to endorse it, issue it and/or cover it ? It's all because the feds knew they were in anti-constitutional territory when they tried to force that on the religious institutions in this nation, so they had to back off and re-think their anti-constitutional ideology when attempting to woo once again a voter block in the nation.

 

[Syriusly]

Sorry. Churches shouldn't be forced to accommodate homosexual weddings. Its a point no one really disagrees with.
Where there is disagreement is the PA laws.

And oddly enough- no one seems to be complaining about the PA laws themselves- the complaints break down to either:

a) Christians shouldn't have to comply with PA laws when they don't want to or
b) Homosexuals are wrong if they ask that PA laws be enforced.

When you say "churches", .

I mean churches.

You know- the facilities and organizations that are legally exempt from PA laws and don't have to pay taxes?

The organization as it congregates to collect monies to keep the doors open, lights on, grass cut, repairs made, and it's activities funded for it's members isn't being taxed of course, and why is this ? It's because it is all non-profit for non-profit activities in which benefits the members in that way. Separate from that is the freedom of religion in which the individual Christian is supposed to have protected by the constitution, and yet is not being preserved or afforded the Christians under the current rules that violate the constitutional guarantee's in which had been laid out in the documents concerning the freedom as it reads, and in which the President took an oath to uphold and to protect.

Now how does one practice that which is legal in this nation, if there are those that claim now that it is illegal to practice such a thing in this nation ?

How is it that exemptions were made concerning religious institutions over the issue of contraception, and about who should be required to endorse it, issue it and/or cover it ? It's all because the feds knew they were in anti-constitutional territory when they tried to force that on the religious institutions in this nation, so they had to back off and re-think their anti-constitutional ideology when attempting to woo once again a voter block in the nation.

Meanwhile- no special exemption for Christians just for being Christians.

Churches are exempt from PA laws.

That pretty much covers it.

 

[beagle9]

Sorry. Churches shouldn't be forced to accommodate homosexual weddings. Its a point no one really disagrees with.
Where there is disagreement is the PA laws.

And oddly enough- no one seems to be complaining about the PA laws themselves- the complaints break down to either:

a) Christians shouldn't have to comply with PA laws when they don't want to or
b) Homosexuals are wrong if they ask that PA laws be enforced.

When you say "churches", .

I mean churches.

You know- the facilities and organizations that are legally exempt from PA laws and don't have to pay taxes?

The organization as it congregates to collect monies to keep the doors open, lights on, grass cut, repairs made, and it's activities funded for it's members isn't being taxed of course, and why is this ? It's because it is all non-profit for non-profit activities in which benefits the members in that way. Separate from that is the freedom of religion in which the individual Christian is supposed to have protected by the constitution, and yet is not being preserved or afforded the Christians under the current rules that violate the constitutional guarantee's in which had been laid out in the documents concerning the freedom as it reads, and in which the President took an oath to uphold and to protect.

Now how does one practice that which is legal in this nation, if there are those that claim now that it is illegal to practice such a thing in this nation ?

How is it that exemptions were made concerning religious institutions over the issue of contraception, and about who should be required to endorse it, issue it and/or cover it ? It's all because the feds knew they were in anti-constitutional territory when they tried to force that on the religious institutions in this nation, so they had to back off and re-think their anti-constitutional ideology when attempting to woo once again a voter block in the nation.

Meanwhile- no special exemption for Christians just for being Christians.

Churches are exempt from PA laws.

That pretty much covers it.

Christians need no added special exemptions other than the original document to be upheld for them, and that is the freedom of religion as they do practice it in their daily lives in this nation legally. If their rights are taken from them, then who ever is taking those rights are in violation of the Constitution in which every President has sworn an oath to up hold in this nation.

Now when a Christian is challenged to abdicate their faith in order to accommodate another in an anti-Christian way, then shouldn't there be an option for that Christian to opt out of a situation that may challenge the Christians individual faith (or) wouldn't it make the person a hypocrite if they were to practice one thing, but then preach and/or try and live another ? It is a dilemma that should have never gotten to this point at all in this nation, but hope and change is fast becoming destroy and replace for many.

Now that we have people trying all sorts of things, then more than just Christians rights are going to be challenged in this nation, and we are seeing a preview of it all on display daily in these days and times now.

 

[Skylar]

And oddly enough- no one seems to be complaining about the PA laws themselves- the complaints break down to either:

a) Christians shouldn't have to comply with PA laws when they don't want to or
b) Homosexuals are wrong if they ask that PA laws be enforced.

When you say "churches", .

I mean churches.

You know- the facilities and organizations that are legally exempt from PA laws and don't have to pay taxes?

The organization as it congregates to collect monies to keep the doors open, lights on, grass cut, repairs made, and it's activities funded for it's members isn't being taxed of course, and why is this ? It's because it is all non-profit for non-profit activities in which benefits the members in that way. Separate from that is the freedom of religion in which the individual Christian is supposed to have protected by the constitution, and yet is not being preserved or afforded the Christians under the current rules that violate the constitutional guarantee's in which had been laid out in the documents concerning the freedom as it reads, and in which the President took an oath to uphold and to protect.

Now how does one practice that which is legal in this nation, if there are those that claim now that it is illegal to practice such a thing in this nation ?

How is it that exemptions were made concerning religious institutions over the issue of contraception, and about who should be required to endorse it, issue it and/or cover it ? It's all because the feds knew they were in anti-constitutional territory when they tried to force that on the religious institutions in this nation, so they had to back off and re-think their anti-constitutional ideology when attempting to woo once again a voter block in the nation.

Meanwhile- no special exemption for Christians just for being Christians.

Churches are exempt from PA laws.

That pretty much covers it.

Christians need no added special exemptions other than the original document to be upheld for them, and that is the freedom of religion as they do practice it in their daily lives in this nation legally.

The freedom of religion does not grant Christians the authority to ignore any law they don't believe in. It merely prevents any laws specifically targeting religion. PA laws don't. Its a generally applicable law that applies to everyone, regardless of their motivation.

You are asking for a special exemption, for Christians to have the right to 'opt out' of any law they don't believe they should follow, with Christians being held to a special, more lenient standard of the law. With a harsher standard for all the rest of us.

No. We're not doing that. Christians will be treated like everyone else.