Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Syriusly]

Next will be Christian pastors who refuse to perform a gay wedding will be sued for discrimination and more. Then welcome to Nazi Germany everybody


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As evidenced by all the churches that have been sued to perform interracial or interfaith marriages, right?

COEUR D’ALENE, Idaho – Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed a federal lawsuit and a motion for a temporary restraining order Friday to stop officials in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, from forcing two ordained Christian ministers to perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples.
City officials told Donald Knapp that he and his wife Evelyn, both ordained ministers who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, are required to perform such ceremonies or face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines. The city claims its “non-discrimination” ordinance requires the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies now that the courts have overridden Idaho’s voter-approved constitutional amendment that affirmed marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
Coeur d’Alene officials told the Knapps privately and also publicly stated that the couple would violate the city’s public accommodations statute once same-sex marriage became legal in Idaho if they declined to perform a same-sex ceremony at their chapel. On Friday, the Knapps respectfully declined such a ceremony and now face up to 180 days in jail and up to $1,000 in fines for each day they decline to perform that ceremony.
The lawsuit came the same week that the city of Houston issued subpoenas demanding that five Christian pastors turn over sermons dealing with homosexuality and gender identity.
That's just one example recently. So yeah. And to equate homosexual behavior with having black skin is an affront to the civil rights movement. Were gay people barred from restaurants? Did people force gays to the back of the bus? Did they have to go to desperate schools? Did they have to drink out of the gay water fountain? Did they endure hundreds of years in slavery? I must have slept through that part if history class. I always miss something.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

'just one example'- except its totally bogus- and old news. Reality is that the officials in Coeur d'Alene never threatened these two and specifically told them that they believed that they were exempt from the law.

And yes apparently you did sleep through history class- different groups in the United States have been discriminated in different ways- not much argument that African Americans were the most openly and heavily discirminated against- but that doesn't mean that other groups- from American Indians to Jews to women to homosexuals were also discriminated against.

How were homosexuals discriminated against?

• Until the Supreme Court ruled them unconstitutional, there were specific laws which forbade homosexual sodomy- exclusive from heterosexuals sodomy.
• The State Department for years had an official policy to refuse to hire homosexuals, and fire them when they were discovered.
• Many states passed laws (remember Anita Bryant) forbidding homosexuals to teach in public schools.
• Police in NY, San Francisco and other cities routinely harassed homosexuals- as in arresting everyone in a gay bar, parading them through reporters, not filing charges- but calling their employers to let them know that they had homosexuals working for them.
• For me, one of the most egregious examples was shown in the recent movie- Alan Turing in WW2 saved thousands of Allied lives by his code breaking work- yet a few years later he was arrested for consensual homosexual sex, and forced to undergo chemical castration.

We have come a long way baby- it is no longer acceptable to beat up and murder homosexuals, it is no longer legal to pass laws specifically to discriminate against homosexuals, and in some places homosexuals have the same legal protections as other groups that have faced historical discrimination.

We are really doing pretty well- Americans- homosexuals and Christians- all protected by the law from discrimination by business's.

 

[dblack]

To target unpopular biases for suppression.

Not quite- to target historic discrimination of unpopular minority groups for suppression.

Do you know why women are included in the classes referred to in the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

The cruel irony of PA laws, and protected classes logic, is that it actually contributes to the persecution of minorities.

All evidence to the contrary.

Unpopular minorities are the only groups who will ever be targeted by such laws.

The claim was that PA contribute to the persecution of minorities- yet the actual evidence is that 50 years after the granddaddy of PA laws we see less persecution of minorities not more.

Only the "minorities" who have won approval from the majority. That's what you're not getting. Real unpopular minorities will never get "protected class" status.

There's still plenty of discrimination against minorities. You probably don't even think of it as "discrimination" because you think it's "for a good reason". And it's that's last bit that bothers me about these laws. They're not telling businesses they can't discriminate. They're telling them what reasons they can and can't use for discriminating. They're setting up special classes for special protection which is an affront to equal protection.

 

[Seawytch]

Not quite- to target historic discrimination of unpopular minority groups for suppression.

Do you know why women are included in the classes referred to in the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

The cruel irony of PA laws, and protected classes logic, is that it actually contributes to the persecution of minorities.

All evidence to the contrary.

Unpopular minorities are the only groups who will ever be targeted by such laws.

The claim was that PA contribute to the persecution of minorities- yet the actual evidence is that 50 years after the granddaddy of PA laws we see less persecution of minorities not more.

Only the "minorities" who have won approval from the majority. That's what you're not getting. Real unpopular minorities will never get "protected class" status.

Yeah, who? Who are these "unpopular minorities" that will never get protected status and provide instances of when they needed it.

 

[dblack]

The cruel irony of PA laws, and protected classes logic, is that it actually contributes to the persecution of minorities.

All evidence to the contrary.

Unpopular minorities are the only groups who will ever be targeted by such laws.

The claim was that PA contribute to the persecution of minorities- yet the actual evidence is that 50 years after the granddaddy of PA laws we see less persecution of minorities not more.

Only the "minorities" who have won approval from the majority. That's what you're not getting. Real unpopular minorities will never get "protected class" status.

Yeah, who? Who are these "unpopular minorities" that will never get protected status and provide instances of when they needed it.

Ugly people. Poor people. Fat people. Dumb people. etc, etc...

But what you're not hearing me on here is that the really dangerous kind of discrimination is when society vilifies certain populations - like people with unpopular religions convictions, for example - and targets them with the law. It's really re-introducing the concept of Jim Crowe, albeit turned on its head. Instead of making sure government treats everyone equally, we now have government providing special protections in a vain attempt to get businesses to treat everyone equally.

 

[Seawytch]

All evidence to the contrary.

Unpopular minorities are the only groups who will ever be targeted by such laws.

The claim was that PA contribute to the persecution of minorities- yet the actual evidence is that 50 years after the granddaddy of PA laws we see less persecution of minorities not more.

Only the "minorities" who have won approval from the majority. That's what you're not getting. Real unpopular minorities will never get "protected class" status.

Yeah, who? Who are these "unpopular minorities" that will never get protected status and provide instances of when they needed it.

Ugly people. Poor people. Fat people. Dumb people. etc, etc...

But what you're not hearing me on here is that the really dangerous kind of discrimination is when society vilifies certain populations - like people with unpopular religions convictions, for example - and targets them with the law. It's really re-introducing the concept of Jim Crowe, albeit turned on its head. Instead of making sure government treats everyone equally, we now have government providing special protections in a vain attempt to get businesses to treat everyone equally.

No examples of them being discriminated against in Public Accommodation I noticed. A lot of ugly fat people being denied service? Not in any establishment I've been in recently.

Oh, and some state laws DO protect all the things you mentioned...

 

[dblack]

Unpopular minorities are the only groups who will ever be targeted by such laws.

The claim was that PA contribute to the persecution of minorities- yet the actual evidence is that 50 years after the granddaddy of PA laws we see less persecution of minorities not more.

Only the "minorities" who have won approval from the majority. That's what you're not getting. Real unpopular minorities will never get "protected class" status.

Yeah, who? Who are these "unpopular minorities" that will never get protected status and provide instances of when they needed it.

Ugly people. Poor people. Fat people. Dumb people. etc, etc...

But what you're not hearing me on here is that the really dangerous kind of discrimination is when society vilifies certain populations - like people with unpopular religions convictions, for example - and targets them with the law. It's really re-introducing the concept of Jim Crowe, albeit turned on its head. Instead of making sure government treats everyone equally, we now have government providing special protections in a vain attempt to get businesses to treat everyone equally.

No examples of them being discriminated against in Public Accommodation I noticed. A lot of ugly fat people being denied service? Not in any establishment I've been in recently.

Oh, and some state laws DO protect all the things you mentioned...

Did you see the point of my post as you steered around it?

 

[Syriusly]

Not quite- to target historic discrimination of unpopular minority groups for suppression.

Do you know why women are included in the classes referred to in the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

The cruel irony of PA laws, and protected classes logic, is that it actually contributes to the persecution of minorities.

All evidence to the contrary.

Unpopular minorities are the only groups who will ever be targeted by such laws.

The claim was that PA contribute to the persecution of minorities- yet the actual evidence is that 50 years after the granddaddy of PA laws we see less persecution of minorities not more.

Only the "minorities" who have won approval from the majority. That's what you're not getting. Real unpopular minorities will never get "protected class" status.

There's still plenty of discrimination against minorities. You probably don't even think of it as "discrimination" because you think it's "for a good reason". And it's that's last bit that bothers me about these laws. They're not telling businesses they can't discriminate. They're telling them what reasons they can and can't use for discriminating. They're setting up special classes for special protection which is an affront to equal protection.

Whatever- I think you are just arguing to argue.

PA laws were established to address historic instances of blatant discrimination against people because of how they were identified by some people.

The laws have worked well- the discrimination in business that existed previously towards those groups has been largely curtailed.

Are the laws now outdated? Perhaps- perhaps we don't need them anymore- and if you want to work to repeal them- go for it.

 

[Silhouette]

PA laws were established by some, but not all states, AFTER the 1st Amendment was established in the Constitution. Long, loooonnnng after...

I think we all know how this is going to play out. You cannot force someone to abandon key edicts of their faith. Mortal sin isn't something you can bargain around with at Saturday confessional with your local priest. Enabling the spread of a homosexual cultural takeover is a mortal sin. You cannot let this cult make inroads into God's sacred covenant between a man and a woman. Or you go to hell forever. Not 20 Hail Marys. Not a 50 lashings. Hell, forever. That is non-negotiable.

1st Amendment trumps. Jude 1. Read it.

 

[Skylar]

PA laws were established by some, but not all states, AFTER the 1st Amendment was established in the Constitution. Long, loooonnnng after...

I think we all know how this is going to play out.

PA laws have already been ruled by the courts to be legit.

You cannot force someone to abandon key edicts of their faith.

Employment Division v. Smith seems to take a very different view on the matter than you do.

The government's ability to enforce generally applicable prohibitions of socially harmful conduct, like its ability to carry out other aspects of public policy, "cannot depend on measuring the effects of a governmental action on a religious objector's spiritual development." Lyng, supra, 485 U.S. at 451. To make an individual's obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law's coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State's interest is "compelling" -- permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, "to become a law unto himself," Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. at 167 -- contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense.

Now what religion hating, lily livered liberal wrote this piece of binding precedent?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The cruel irony of PA laws, and protected classes logic, is that it actually contributes to the persecution of minorities.

All evidence to the contrary.

Unpopular minorities are the only groups who will ever be targeted by such laws.

The claim was that PA contribute to the persecution of minorities- yet the actual evidence is that 50 years after the granddaddy of PA laws we see less persecution of minorities not more.

Only the "minorities" who have won approval from the majority. That's what you're not getting. Real unpopular minorities will never get "protected class" status.

Yeah, who? Who are these "unpopular minorities" that will never get protected status and provide instances of when they needed it.

They're people who are physically different, due to genetic distinctions, which preclude them from being anything else.

Compare that to say... the mentally disordered who demand to be 'protected' because they can't control their behavior.

See the difference?

 

[dblack]

The cruel irony of PA laws, and protected classes logic, is that it actually contributes to the persecution of minorities.

All evidence to the contrary.

Unpopular minorities are the only groups who will ever be targeted by such laws.

The claim was that PA contribute to the persecution of minorities- yet the actual evidence is that 50 years after the granddaddy of PA laws we see less persecution of minorities not more.

Only the "minorities" who have won approval from the majority. That's what you're not getting. Real unpopular minorities will never get "protected class" status.

There's still plenty of discrimination against minorities. You probably don't even think of it as "discrimination" because you think it's "for a good reason". And it's that's last bit that bothers me about these laws. They're not telling businesses they can't discriminate. They're telling them what reasons they can and can't use for discriminating. They're setting up special classes for special protection which is an affront to equal protection.

Whatever- I think you are just arguing to argue.

I'm sorry you see it that way. I assure you, it's more than that.

PA laws were established to address historic instances of blatant discrimination against people because of how they were identified by some people.

The laws have worked well- the discrimination in business that existed previously towards those groups has been largely curtailed.

How well they've worked is debatable, at best. History is full of solutions that "worked", even when they were later recognized as malignant.

Are the laws now outdated? Perhaps- perhaps we don't need them anymore- and if you want to work to repeal them- go for it.

That's the point in my posting here. We won't get any real momentum for repeal until people are alerted to the insidious nature of "thought crimes" legislation.

 

[Silhouette]

Are the laws now outdated? Perhaps- perhaps we don't need them anymore- and if you want to work to repeal them- go for it.

That's the point in my posting here. We won't get any real momentum for repeal until people are alerted to the insidious nature of "thought crimes" legislation.

With respect to this topic, the PA laws were outdated in 1776. 1st Amendment trumps.

 

[Skylar]

Are the laws now outdated? Perhaps- perhaps we don't need them anymore- and if you want to work to repeal them- go for it.

That's the point in my posting here. We won't get any real momentum for repeal until people are alerted to the insidious nature of "thought crimes" legislation.

With respect to this topic, the PA laws were outdated in 1776. 1st Amendment trumps.

If your religion precludes you from being able to do your job, get another job.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Are the laws now outdated? Perhaps- perhaps we don't need them anymore- and if you want to work to repeal them- go for it.

That's the point in my posting here. We won't get any real momentum for repeal until people are alerted to the insidious nature of "thought crimes" legislation.

With respect to this topic, the PA laws were outdated in 1776. 1st Amendment trumps.

Nonsense.

Public accommodations laws are perfectly Constitutional and in no way violate religious expression.

 

[dblack]

If your religion precludes you from being able to do your job, get another job.

And if your job duties are redefined by intrusive special interest legislation?

 

[Skylar]

If your religion precludes you from being able to do your job, get another job.

And if your job duties are redefined by intrusive special interest legislation?

PA laws aren't new. They've been around for quite a while.

 

[dblack]

If your religion precludes you from being able to do your job, get another job.

And if your job duties are redefined by intrusive special interest legislation?

PA laws aren't new. They've been around for quite a while.

Not sure how that answers the question.

 

[Skylar]

If your religion precludes you from being able to do your job, get another job.

And if your job duties are redefined by intrusive special interest legislation?

PA laws aren't new. They've been around for quite a while.

Not sure how that answers the question.

Most of the folks who are facing PA law violations aren't facing a change of PA laws that resulted in their behavior creating a violation.

But instead a change in their behavior that has created a violation.

 

[dblack]

If your religion precludes you from being able to do your job, get another job.

And if your job duties are redefined by intrusive special interest legislation?

PA laws aren't new. They've been around for quite a while.

Not sure how that answers the question.

Most of the folks who are facing PA law violations aren't facing a change of PA laws that resulted in their behavior creating a violation.

But instead a change in their behavior that has created a violation.

Well, no, they are. That's why they're being newly challenged. This will happened everytime they expand the scope by adding new protected classes.

 

[Syriusly]

All evidence to the contrary.

Unpopular minorities are the only groups who will ever be targeted by such laws.

The claim was that PA contribute to the persecution of minorities- yet the actual evidence is that 50 years after the granddaddy of PA laws we see less persecution of minorities not more.

Only the "minorities" who have won approval from the majority. That's what you're not getting. Real unpopular minorities will never get "protected class" status.

Yeah, who? Who are these "unpopular minorities" that will never get protected status and provide instances of when they needed it.

Compare that to say... the mentally disordered who demand to be 'protected' because they can't control their behavior.

Okay- so you have described Christians like yourself- but even you are protected by public accommodation laws- it is against the law for a shop to deny you service just because you are a Christian.

Not certain if denying service to you because you are batshit crazy is protected or not.