Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

SILHOUETTE SAID:

'There is no such "right" in the Constitution'

Incorrect.

The right to marry can be found here in the Constitution:

Zablocki v. Redhail, Turner v. Safley

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law. “But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

 

[Syriusly]

Denying someone else their right to marry the person they love is the farthest thing from "wanting to be left alone."

There is no such "right" in the Constitution. .

Yet every American has that right- I have shown you the quotes before- so I will just point out that once again- you are lying.

 

[Syriusly]

Churches, which are merely congregations of individual Christians, have already been sued to accomodate for gay marriage..

Not a single church has been sued.

While any idiot- even you- can file a lawsuit for any reason- so it is possible that some idiot some day will file a lawsuit, it will be tossed immediately- because churches are exempt from public accomodation laws.

 

[Syriusly]

but you can legally prevent them from acting on such bigotry.

In 1967, the people knew and believed that mixed race marriage was wrong.
No one is forcing any church to hold any ceremonies.

No one.

By forcing a member of a church to participate, are you not forcing the church to participate ?

No.

If a baker sells cakes for children's parties- can a Christian then refuse to bake a cake for a Bar Mitzvah party- because Bar Mitzah's are a Jewish ritual that he doesnt' believe in?

Can a Muslim baker refuse to sell cakes to a Christian- just because he believes that doing business with a Christian forces him to participate in Christianity?

These things don't happen because there is respect among the differences in religions and such, but the other see's no respect in anything, therefore it wants forced participation or else.

They don't?

LOL.......

Public Accomodation laws protect Christians from discrimination.

If you want to eliminate PA laws- go for it.

When have you heard of any Christians in this nation needing protection with PA laws ?.

So do you think that Christians do not deserve to be protected under Public Accomodation laws?

If you look at the history of PA laws, they are clearly intended to protect a historically discriminated minority from the majority- in religion that would in our history include among others Jews and Mormons.

But those same laws protect Christians equally.

Do you think we:
a) should eliminate all PA laws?
b) eliminate the religion as a category in PA laws or
c) just say there is no need to protect Christians in PA laws?

 

[Silhouette]

Churches, which are merely congregations of individual Christians, have already been sued to accomodate for gay marriage..

Not a single church has been sued.

While any idiot- even you- can file a lawsuit for any reason- so it is possible that some idiot some day will file a lawsuit, it will be tossed immediately- because churches are exempt from public accomodation laws.

Why do you keep purposefully missing the premise of my argument? If you accept, as most people do, that churches are no more than mere congregations of individual Christians, then when a group of Christians such as bakers, photographers, caterers and florists have been ALREADY SUCCESSFULLY SUED by the carefully coordinated LGBT litigious army, precisely how long do you think the buildings where they congregate (churches) will be forced to also accomodate "gay marriage" in violation to the core of their faith and their First Amendment rights to exercise their religious values?

Every single Christian church I know of is open to public attendance. In fact it is their hallmark that they encourage all of the public to attend. You're trying to convince us that even when groups of Christians have already been forced to legally-abdicate their faith to promote homosexuality taking over our culture (via that most potent vehicle to do so: marriage), that you won't be applying public accomodation laws to the places where these litigant-losers congregate?

Bullshit!

 

[Skylar]

Churches, which are merely congregations of individual Christians, have already been sued to accomodate for gay marriage..

Not a single church has been sued.

While any idiot- even you- can file a lawsuit for any reason- so it is possible that some idiot some day will file a lawsuit, it will be tossed immediately- because churches are exempt from public accomodation laws.

Why do you keep purposefully missing the premise of my argument? If you accept, as most people do, that churches are no more than mere congregations of individual Christians, then when a group of Christians such as bakers, photographers, caterers and florists have been ALREADY SUCCESSFULLY SUED by the carefully coordinated LGBT litigious army, precisely how long do you think the buildings where they congregate (churches) will be forced to also accomodate "gay marriage" in violation to the core of their faith and their First Amendment rights to exercise their religious values?

A person isn't a church. Your argument assumes a person is a church. You're obviously wrong.

 

[beagle9]

Churches, which are merely congregations of individual Christians, have already been sued to accomodate for gay marriage. Bakers, photographers, florists. The building itself? That's just a mere formality that the very careful litigious LGBT army is waiting for a federal-mandate on marriage to slam dunk in the next lawsuit.

Drive a nail in the wall and hang your hat on that one..

It may not come in the form of just walking up to the door and saying marry us, but it will come in the form of infiltration, because as the outside falls or crumbles, then soon the inside shall follow suit.

 

[beagle9]

By forcing a member of a church to participate, are you not forcing the church to participate ?

No.

If a baker sells cakes for children's parties- can a Christian then refuse to bake a cake for a Bar Mitzvah party- because Bar Mitzah's are a Jewish ritual that he doesnt' believe in?

Can a Muslim baker refuse to sell cakes to a Christian- just because he believes that doing business with a Christian forces him to participate in Christianity?

These things don't happen because there is respect among the differences in religions and such, but the other see's no respect in anything, therefore it wants forced participation or else.

They don't?

LOL.......

Public Accomodation laws protect Christians from discrimination.

If you want to eliminate PA laws- go for it.

When have you heard of any Christians in this nation needing protection with PA laws ? You keep saying that as if there have been cases where Christians have been discriminated against at a business because of being Christian, but I can't think of any myself can you ? As far as I know Christians aren't doing anything that would rise to a level of someone wanting to discriminate against them. Lately it seems that gay's have been demanding that Christians promote or agree to their lifestyle in certain kinds of ways, but Christians aren't wanting to participate in the promotion of their life stye choices in which they make, and the gay's see that as discrimination against them when asked, but the Christians just want to be left alone in order to live in peace is all.

Denying someone else their right to marry the person they love is the farthest thing from "wanting to be left alone."

Oh so your basically saying that Christians are the main ones holding the gay's back ? What about all others who are also real concerned about the changing of the traditions and ways of this nation now, and in this thought I ask why do you leave them out ? Not only Christians are concerned about all the things that are going on these days, but there are many more who are in the mix as just as well.

 

[beagle9]

Churches, which are merely congregations of individual Christians, have already been sued to accomodate for gay marriage..

Not a single church has been sued.

While any idiot- even you- can file a lawsuit for any reason- so it is possible that some idiot some day will file a lawsuit, it will be tossed immediately- because churches are exempt from public accomodation laws.

Why do you keep purposefully missing the premise of my argument? If you accept, as most people do, that churches are no more than mere congregations of individual Christians, then when a group of Christians such as bakers, photographers, caterers and florists have been ALREADY SUCCESSFULLY SUED by the carefully coordinated LGBT litigious army, precisely how long do you think the buildings where they congregate (churches) will be forced to also accomodate "gay marriage" in violation to the core of their faith and their First Amendment rights to exercise their religious values?

A person isn't a church. Your argument assumes a person is a church. You're obviously wrong.

They are an extension of the church, and the two are inseparable.

 

[beagle9]

By forcing a member of a church to participate, are you not forcing the church to participate ?

No.

If a baker sells cakes for children's parties- can a Christian then refuse to bake a cake for a Bar Mitzvah party- because Bar Mitzah's are a Jewish ritual that he doesnt' believe in?

Can a Muslim baker refuse to sell cakes to a Christian- just because he believes that doing business with a Christian forces him to participate in Christianity?

These things don't happen because there is respect among the differences in religions and such, but the other see's no respect in anything, therefore it wants forced participation or else.

They don't?

LOL.......

Public Accomodation laws protect Christians from discrimination.

If you want to eliminate PA laws- go for it.

When have you heard of any Christians in this nation needing protection with PA laws ? You keep saying that as if there have been cases where Christians have been discriminated against at a business because of being Christian, but I can't think of any myself can you ? As far as I know Christians aren't doing anything that would rise to a level of someone wanting to discriminate against them. Lately it seems that gay's have been demanding that Christians promote or agree to their lifestyle in certain kinds of ways, but Christians aren't wanting to participate in the promotion of their life stye choices in which they make, and the gay's see that as discrimination against them when asked, but the Christians just want to be left alone in order to live in peace is all.

Then your perception is wrong.

Gay Americans seek only the Constitutional protections the 14th Amendment affords them.

Gay Americans are not 'promoting' their 'lifestyle,' they make no 'demands' on Christians to 'promote' or 'agree with anything, the notion is ridiculous and unfounded.

Then why is the question asked if the answer is not desired when it is asked ? Unfounded you say ? Did you just wake up in 2015 or did I miss something ?

 

[mdk]

Churches, which are merely congregations of individual Christians, have already been sued to accomodate for gay marriage..

Not a single church has been sued.

While any idiot- even you- can file a lawsuit for any reason- so it is possible that some idiot some day will file a lawsuit, it will be tossed immediately- because churches are exempt from public accomodation laws.

Why do you keep purposefully missing the premise of my argument? If you accept, as most people do, that churches are no more than mere congregations of individual Christians, then when a group of Christians such as bakers, photographers, caterers and florists have been ALREADY SUCCESSFULLY SUED by the carefully coordinated LGBT litigious army, precisely how long do you think the buildings where they congregate (churches) will be forced to also accomodate "gay marriage" in violation to the core of their faith and their First Amendment rights to exercise their religious values?

A person isn't a church. Your argument assumes a person is a church. You're obviously wrong.

They are an extension of the church, and the two are inseparable.

No, they are very separable. If they were not separable, individual members of the church would be exempt from paying taxes. Try it this tax season and see what happens.

 

[Skylar]

Churches, which are merely congregations of individual Christians, have already been sued to accomodate for gay marriage..

Not a single church has been sued.

While any idiot- even you- can file a lawsuit for any reason- so it is possible that some idiot some day will file a lawsuit, it will be tossed immediately- because churches are exempt from public accomodation laws.

Why do you keep purposefully missing the premise of my argument? If you accept, as most people do, that churches are no more than mere congregations of individual Christians, then when a group of Christians such as bakers, photographers, caterers and florists have been ALREADY SUCCESSFULLY SUED by the carefully coordinated LGBT litigious army, precisely how long do you think the buildings where they congregate (churches) will be forced to also accomodate "gay marriage" in violation to the core of their faith and their First Amendment rights to exercise their religious values?

A person isn't a church. Your argument assumes a person is a church. You're obviously wrong.

They are an extension of the church, and the two are inseparable.

Per you, perhaps. Per the law they are separate entities. As this is a discussion of the law, your personal opinion is meaningless. The law's definitions are not.

 

[beagle9]

Churches, which are merely congregations of individual Christians, have already been sued to accomodate for gay marriage..

Not a single church has been sued.

While any idiot- even you- can file a lawsuit for any reason- so it is possible that some idiot some day will file a lawsuit, it will be tossed immediately- because churches are exempt from public accomodation laws.

Why do you keep purposefully missing the premise of my argument? If you accept, as most people do, that churches are no more than mere congregations of individual Christians, then when a group of Christians such as bakers, photographers, caterers and florists have been ALREADY SUCCESSFULLY SUED by the carefully coordinated LGBT litigious army, precisely how long do you think the buildings where they congregate (churches) will be forced to also accomodate "gay marriage" in violation to the core of their faith and their First Amendment rights to exercise their religious values?

A person isn't a church. Your argument assumes a person is a church. You're obviously wrong.

They are an extension of the church, and the two are inseparable.

No, they are very separable. If they were not separable, individual members of the church would be exempt from paying taxes. Try it this tax season and see what happens.

Churches, which are merely congregations of individual Christians, have already been sued to accomodate for gay marriage..

Not a single church has been sued.

While any idiot- even you- can file a lawsuit for any reason- so it is possible that some idiot some day will file a lawsuit, it will be tossed immediately- because churches are exempt from public accomodation laws.

Why do you keep purposefully missing the premise of my argument? If you accept, as most people do, that churches are no more than mere congregations of individual Christians, then when a group of Christians such as bakers, photographers, caterers and florists have been ALREADY SUCCESSFULLY SUED by the carefully coordinated LGBT litigious army, precisely how long do you think the buildings where they congregate (churches) will be forced to also accomodate "gay marriage" in violation to the core of their faith and their First Amendment rights to exercise their religious values?

A person isn't a church. Your argument assumes a person is a church. You're obviously wrong.

They are an extension of the church, and the two are inseparable.

Per you, perhaps. Per the law they are separate entities. As this is a discussion of the law, your personal opinion is meaningless. The law's definitions are not.

Who made the laws ? Men right ? Now why can't any ones opinion matter concerning unjust and/or ridiculous laws (or) is it just you trying to make it appears as if no one can change or challenge a law whether it be in opinion of or in the actual changing of said laws that may have been contrived by men for whom may have been corrupted at the time ? I like the way you try and word yourself as if no one but no one can ever challenge a law or change a law in this nation.. It's laughable really.

 

[Skylar]

Churches, which are merely congregations of individual Christians, have already been sued to accomodate for gay marriage..

Not a single church has been sued.

While any idiot- even you- can file a lawsuit for any reason- so it is possible that some idiot some day will file a lawsuit, it will be tossed immediately- because churches are exempt from public accomodation laws.

Why do you keep purposefully missing the premise of my argument? If you accept, as most people do, that churches are no more than mere congregations of individual Christians, then when a group of Christians such as bakers, photographers, caterers and florists have been ALREADY SUCCESSFULLY SUED by the carefully coordinated LGBT litigious army, precisely how long do you think the buildings where they congregate (churches) will be forced to also accomodate "gay marriage" in violation to the core of their faith and their First Amendment rights to exercise their religious values?

A person isn't a church. Your argument assumes a person is a church. You're obviously wrong.

They are an extension of the church, and the two are inseparable.

No, they are very separable. If they were not separable, individual members of the church would be exempt from paying taxes. Try it this tax season and see what happens.

The tax thing is pertaining keeping the church open in a mon-profit

Churches, which are merely congregations of individual Christians, have already been sued to accomodate for gay marriage..

Not a single church has been sued.

While any idiot- even you- can file a lawsuit for any reason- so it is possible that some idiot some day will file a lawsuit, it will be tossed immediately- because churches are exempt from public accomodation laws.

Why do you keep purposefully missing the premise of my argument? If you accept, as most people do, that churches are no more than mere congregations of individual Christians, then when a group of Christians such as bakers, photographers, caterers and florists have been ALREADY SUCCESSFULLY SUED by the carefully coordinated LGBT litigious army, precisely how long do you think the buildings where they congregate (churches) will be forced to also accomodate "gay marriage" in violation to the core of their faith and their First Amendment rights to exercise their religious values?

A person isn't a church. Your argument assumes a person is a church. You're obviously wrong.

They are an extension of the church, and the two are inseparable.

Per you, perhaps. Per the law they are separate entities. As this is a discussion of the law, your personal opinion is meaningless. The law's definitions are not.

Who made the laws ? Men right ? Now why can't any ones opinion matter concerning unjust and/or ridiculous laws (or) is it just you trying to make it appears as if no one can change or challenge a law whether it be in opinion of or in the actual changing of said laws that may have been contrived by men for whom may have been corrupted at the time ? I like the way you try and word yourself as if no one but no one can ever challenge a law or change a law in this nation.. It's laughable really.

Because the legal definitions carry with it the power of the people. And you, Beagle aren't 'the people'. You're a person. And your personal opinion doesn't trump legal definitions.

If you want to change the legal definition, convince your state legislature to do so. But you just 'imagining' that the definition is different is legally meaningless.

Laughable, really.

 

[Syriusly]

Churches, which are merely congregations of individual Christians, have already been sued to accomodate for gay marriage..

Not a single church has been sued.

While any idiot- even you- can file a lawsuit for any reason- so it is possible that some idiot some day will file a lawsuit, it will be tossed immediately- because churches are exempt from public accomodation laws.

Why do you keep purposefully missing the premise of my argument? If you accept, as most people do, that churches are no more than mere congregations of individual Christians, then when a group of Christians such as bakers, photographers, caterers and florists have been ALREADY SUCCESSFULLY SUED by the carefully coordinated LGBT litigious army, precisely how long do you think the buildings where they congregate (churches) will be forced to also accomodate "gay marriage" in violation to the core of their faith and their First Amendment rights to exercise their religious values?

A person isn't a church. Your argument assumes a person is a church. You're obviously wrong.

They are an extension of the church, and the two are inseparable.

No, they are very separable. If they were not separable, individual members of the church would be exempt from paying taxes. Try it this tax season and see what happens.

Churches, which are merely congregations of individual Christians, have already been sued to accomodate for gay marriage..

Not a single church has been sued.

While any idiot- even you- can file a lawsuit for any reason- so it is possible that some idiot some day will file a lawsuit, it will be tossed immediately- because churches are exempt from public accomodation laws.

Why do you keep purposefully missing the premise of my argument? If you accept, as most people do, that churches are no more than mere congregations of individual Christians, then when a group of Christians such as bakers, photographers, caterers and florists have been ALREADY SUCCESSFULLY SUED by the carefully coordinated LGBT litigious army, precisely how long do you think the buildings where they congregate (churches) will be forced to also accomodate "gay marriage" in violation to the core of their faith and their First Amendment rights to exercise their religious values?

A person isn't a church. Your argument assumes a person is a church. You're obviously wrong.

They are an extension of the church, and the two are inseparable.

Per you, perhaps. Per the law they are separate entities. As this is a discussion of the law, your personal opinion is meaningless. The law's definitions are not.

Who made the laws ? Men right ? Now why can't any ones opinion matter concerning unjust and/or ridiculous laws (or) is it just you trying to make it appears as if no one can change or challenge a law whether it be in opinion of or in the actual changing of said laws that may have been contrived by men for whom may have been corrupted at the time ? I like the way you try and word yourself as if no one but no one can ever challenge a law or change a law in this nation.. It's laughable really.

Men and women made the laws- and men and women interpret the laws.

If you want to change the law, just convince enough men and women to change the laws.

But changing it so it just doesn't apply when it offends Christians won't fly.

 

[Syriusly]

Churches, which are merely congregations of individual Christians, have already been sued to accomodate for gay marriage..

Not a single church has been sued.

While any idiot- even you- can file a lawsuit for any reason- so it is possible that some idiot some day will file a lawsuit, it will be tossed immediately- because churches are exempt from public accomodation laws.

Why do you keep purposefully missing the premise of my argument? If you accept, as most people do, that churches are no more than mere congregations of individual Christians, then when a group of Christians such as bakers, photographers, caterers and florists have been ALREADY SUCCESSFULLY SUED by the carefully coordinated LGBT litigious army, precisely how long do you think the buildings where they congregate (churches) will be forced to also accomodate "gay marriage" in violation to the core of their faith and their First Amendment rights to exercise their religious values?

A person isn't a church. Your argument assumes a person is a church. You're obviously wrong.

They are an extension of the church, and the two are inseparable.

Legally they are very distinct.

And that is what we are talking here- legally.

People pay taxes
Churches do not.

 

[Paperman299]

No.

If a baker sells cakes for children's parties- can a Christian then refuse to bake a cake for a Bar Mitzvah party- because Bar Mitzah's are a Jewish ritual that he doesnt' believe in?

Can a Muslim baker refuse to sell cakes to a Christian- just because he believes that doing business with a Christian forces him to participate in Christianity?

These things don't happen because there is respect among the differences in religions and such, but the other see's no respect in anything, therefore it wants forced participation or else.

They don't?

LOL.......

Public Accomodation laws protect Christians from discrimination.

If you want to eliminate PA laws- go for it.

When have you heard of any Christians in this nation needing protection with PA laws ? You keep saying that as if there have been cases where Christians have been discriminated against at a business because of being Christian, but I can't think of any myself can you ? As far as I know Christians aren't doing anything that would rise to a level of someone wanting to discriminate against them. Lately it seems that gay's have been demanding that Christians promote or agree to their lifestyle in certain kinds of ways, but Christians aren't wanting to participate in the promotion of their life stye choices in which they make, and the gay's see that as discrimination against them when asked, but the Christians just want to be left alone in order to live in peace is all.

Denying someone else their right to marry the person they love is the farthest thing from "wanting to be left alone."

Oh so your basically saying that Christians are the main ones holding the gay's back ? What about all others who are also real concerned about the changing of the traditions and ways of this nation now, and in this thought I ask why do you leave them out ? Not only Christians are concerned about all the things that are going on these days, but there are many more who are in the mix as just as well.

Actively pressing for others beside yourself to have less rights is not "just wanting to be left alone." That is the entirety of what I said

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Any Christian minister who marries a homosexual couple has committed a sin against God and is going to answer for it. He cannot do it and call himself a Christian minister. It is one or the other.

 

[Silhouette]

Any Christian minister who marries a homosexual couple has committed a sin against God and is going to answer for it. He cannot do it and call himself a Christian minister. It is one or the other.

Jeremiah, they have no choice legally.

Groups of christians are already being bifurcated from their faith. What makes a minister who holds his doors open to the public (public accomodation laws are how Christians are now being successfully sued) so special?

Nothing.

 

[Paperman299]

Any Christian minister who marries a homosexual couple has committed a sin against God and is going to answer for it. He cannot do it and call himself a Christian minister. It is one or the other.

And woe to that shepherd who allows his flock to wear mixed fabrics! For truly, they are all damned in the eyes of the Lord