Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[PaintMyHouse]

Keys, adorably, believes he is an authority. Next. No church in its private capacity will be forced to marry folks. The cult of hetero-fascism fails yet again.

But a church is nothing more than the sum of its parts: individual Christians. And they have ALREADY BEEN forced to accomodate "gay weddings".

What you're trying to sell is similar to saying this: "The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion for America, but just not individual Americans.."

And ONLY when hey keep it to themselves!

Sadly, for the would-be opposition... The Right to exercise one's religion does not rest upon the right to privacy. As was the case for the irrational decision to lift the Sodomy Laws.

ISIS has your back there Keys...

 

[Silhouette]

You only are saying that, and you are wrong as usual, Sil. No, no church has been forced to hold a wedding.

I'm sorry, does the Constitution discuss freedom of religion or freedom of "church"?

One implies the other, since lots of religion happens,.....................................................wait for it,.................................................in churches.

No........................wait for it....religion happens in churches to remind people in daily life how to conduct themselves...

THAT is what happens in churches. And since individual Christians who go to church have been forced in daily life to abdicate their faith, then freedom of religion/church (take your pick) has been violated.

Refusing to enable so-called "gay weddings" is not an act of violence, like some Sharia laws are. And this refusing is mandatory under promise of etnernal damnation for failing to do so (Jude 1 of the New Testament). So this isn't some "don't eat pork on Fridays" Old Testament historical bylaw with a few Hail Marys to remedy it. It is a violation of the core of the construct of God in human societies. Ergo, forcing an individual Christian to enable a "gay wedding" is a violation of that person's civil rights. And if I was a Christian so violated, I would sue whoever violated me for violating my civil rights.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, your opinion "a violation of the core of the construct of God in human societies" is simply false. I would like to see your evidence for it. Or your facts. You are not an authority on this. If you are, show me your credentials..

Keys, adorably, above, claims I am claim myself as an authority when I wrote "Keys, adorably, believes he is an authority. Next. No church in its private capacity will be forced to marry folks. The cult of hetero-fascism fails yet again."

One, no church has been forced to do so.

Two, marriage equality probably will be the law of the land in three weeks.

Where are the errors, Keys?

 

[Silhouette]

Sil, your opinion "a violation of the core of the construct of God in human societies" is simply false. I would like to see your evidence for it....

Jude 1 of the New Testament.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, your opinion "a violation of the core of the construct of God in human societies" is simply false. I would like to see your evidence for it....

Jude 1 of the New Testament.

Thank you. Jude 1 is not the law of the land. Human societies are not built on Jude.

 

[Silhouette]

Sil, your opinion "a violation of the core of the construct of God in human societies" is simply false. I would like to see your evidence for it....

Jude 1 of the New Testament.

Thank you. Jude 1 is not the law of the land. Human societies are not built on Jude.

But America was built on the Constitution and the Constitution guarantees individuals the right to daily practice of their faith, so long as it doesn't cause violence to another (Sharia law). Jude 1 mandates that Christians (each and every one, not just a gathering of them in a building) not enable the spread of homosexuality through a society; under promise of eternal damnation for failing to do so, which is what's called a "mortal sin". And since marriage is the ultimate stamp of legitimacy, requiring Christians to enable "gay weddings" is one and the same with requiring them to abdicate the daily practice of their religion. It is requiring them to subject their immortal soul to eternal damnation in the name of a neo-political trend they were told to anticipate and to not allow (Jude 1, New Testament)

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, you have told us on more than one occasion you are not much of a Christian, so you using the Bible as some sort of "evidence" is hypocritical.

No, our Constitution and our society is not decided by the Bible.

No, no one in private religious practice is going to be forced to marry someone of the same same sex or be married to such a person.

To suggest otherwise is to lie.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Sil, your opinion "a violation of the core of the construct of God in human societies" is simply false. I would like to see your evidence for it....

Jude 1 of the New Testament.

...is, entirely, irrelevant to the conversation.

 

[Silhouette]

Sil, your opinion "a violation of the core of the construct of God in human societies" is simply false. I would like to see your evidence for it....

Jude 1 of the New Testament.

Thank you. Jude 1 is not the law of the land. Human societies are not built on Jude.

But America was built on the Constitution and the Constitution guarantees individuals the right to daily practice of their faith, so long as it doesn't cause violence to another (Sharia law). Jude 1 mandates that Christians (each and every one, not just a gathering of them in a building) not enable the spread of homosexuality through a society; under promise of eternal damnation for failing to do so, which is what's called a "mortal sin". And since marriage is the ultimate stamp of legitimacy, requiring Christians to enable "gay weddings" is one and the same with requiring them to abdicate the daily practice of their religion. It is requiring them to subject their immortal soul to eternal damnation in the name of a neo-political trend they were told to anticipate and to not allow (Jude 1, New Testament).

The suggestion that I'm "not much of a Christian" is irrelevant to guarantees for practicing Christians in the Constitution. Pretend if you must that I'm an agnostic or atheist lawyer representing a Christian in court, if this didactic device helps you understand the base logic of my argument here.

 

[JakeStarkey]

But . . . nothing, as you well know. Our Constitution and our culture is not based on Jude. And you seem t be of the opinion that cultures don't change.

Ours is changing,and it is not going backwards.

 

[Skylar]

W'

Forcing people to do things against their will and violating their religion is ALL freedom is about here in America.

If you don't want to sell to gays, don't engage in an job that requires it. I'd give the same advice to someone whose religion prevents them from killing any animal working at a slaughterhouse. Or someone who can't work on Sunday trying to get into the NFL.

When your religion and your job don't mesh, find a job that does.

And what will be the next attack to come, otherwise when the barn door is flung wide open in these new ways ?

Attacking? Isn't that a tad...hysterical? Nobody is attacking anyone here, last time I checked. I am an atheist. I just can't stand men butt screwing each other and whatnot pretending that somehow, magically, you get enough lawyers and bitch and whine loud long and hard, people are just going to accept THAT it's the same as man and woman making love and having children, and need marriage and respect. Nope. Dream on, dream on.

What Mary said ^^

You're reviving a thread from APRIL?

How many active gay marriage threads are you going to be juggling?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

W'

Forcing people to do things against their will and violating their religion is ALL freedom is about here in America.

If you don't want to sell to gays, don't engage in an job that requires it. I'd give the same advice to someone whose religion prevents them from killing any animal working at a slaughterhouse. Or someone who can't work on Sunday trying to get into the NFL.

When your religion and your job don't mesh, find a job that does.

And what will be the next attack to come, otherwise when the barn door is flung wide open in these new ways ?

Attacking? Isn't that a tad...hysterical? Nobody is attacking anyone here, last time I checked. I am an atheist. I just can't stand men butt screwing each other and whatnot pretending that somehow, magically, you get enough lawyers and bitch and whine loud long and hard, people are just going to accept THAT it's the same as man and woman making love and having children, and need marriage and respect. Nope. Dream on, dream on.

What Mary said ^^

You're reviving a thread from APRIL?

How many active gay marriage threads are you going to be juggling?

In three weeks poor Sil is fucked. She's getting her digs in while she still can I guess.

 

[Skylar]

Sil, your opinion "a violation of the core of the construct of God in human societies" is simply false. I would like to see your evidence for it....

Jude 1 of the New Testament.

Thank you. Jude 1 is not the law of the land. Human societies are not built on Jude.

But America was built on the Constitution and the Constitution guarantees individuals the right to daily practice of their faith, so long as it doesn't cause violence to another (Sharia law).

Then per that logic, wouldn't any non-violent aspect of Sharia trump US law? Like say....polygamy? If civil law is subordinate to religious belief.....why would it be limited only to Christian beliefs?

Jude 1 mandates that Christians (each and every one, not just a gathering of them in a building) not enable the spread of homosexuality through a society; under promise of eternal damnation for failing to do so, which is what's called a "mortal sin".

Jude 1 never mentions gay marriage. Or cake. You've hallucinated all of it.

Even your logic s blithering nonsense. As selling cake doesn't promote homosexuality. It promotes cake.

And since marriage is the ultimate stamp of legitimacy, requiring Christians to enable "gay weddings" is one and the same with requiring them to abdicate the daily practice of their religion. It is requiring them to subject their immortal soul to eternal damnation in the name of a neo-political trend they were told to anticipate and to not allow (Jude 1, New Testament).

There are already Christians insisting they shouldn't have to serve gays in any capacity, regardless of connection to weddings. Would their personal religious conviction trump PA laws as well? So that a gay person couldn't at a Christian owned resteraunt, or couldn't get their car serviced at a Christian mechanics shop?

If no, why not?

 

[Silhouette]

Sil, your opinion "a violation of the core of the construct of God in human societies" is simply false. I would like to see your evidence for it....

Jude 1 of the New Testament.

Thank you. Jude 1 is not the law of the land. Human societies are not built on Jude.

But America was built on the Constitution and the Constitution guarantees individuals the right to daily practice of their faith, so long as it doesn't cause violence to another (Sharia law). Jude 1 mandates that Christians (each and every one, not just a gathering of them in a building) not enable the spread of homosexuality through a society; under promise of eternal damnation for failing to do so, which is what's called a "mortal sin". And since marriage is the ultimate stamp of legitimacy, requiring Christians to enable "gay weddings" is one and the same with requiring them to abdicate the daily practice of their religion. It is requiring them to subject their immortal soul to eternal damnation in the name of a neo-political trend they were told to anticipate and to not allow (Jude 1, New Testament).

The suggestion that I'm "not much of a Christian" is irrelevant to guarantees for practicing Christians in the Constitution. Pretend if you must that I'm an agnostic or atheist lawyer representing a Christian in court, if this didactic device helps you understand the base logic of my argument here.

You're reviving a thread from APRIL?
How many active gay marriage threads are you going to be juggling?

The same number of gay agenda threads you and your payroll pals are juggling. Does that answer your question?

Thought you'd get to #10 and then quote an older conversation eh? I copied the one we were on before you buried the last page...

 

[mdk]

Update: Churches still have not been forced to marry anyone against their wishes.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thank you for acknowledging that you are not much of a Christian, which does undermine your citation of Jude.

Jude does not govern or bedrock the Constitution.

Any argument based on the Bible is simply irrelevant.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Update: Churches still have not been forced to marry anyone against their wishes.

And never will be here...

 

[Skylar]

So for there to be 'no natural laws governing marriage... that you can't get around.', all Relativism needs is for Humanity to NOT BE affiliated with NATURE... .

Marriage a social construct. We invented it to meet the needs of society. Some societies used romantic love as their basis of marriage. Others arranged marriages with the participants not even meeting until the wedding. Some had two participants. Others had polygamy. Some recognized marriage as a joining of equals. Some recognized marriage as an inherently dominant and subbordinate relationship.

And each of them was marriage. Marriage is our invention. And it is whatever we say it is. You've concluded that marriage is whatever YOU say it is, and that all law, culture, and civilization is bound to abide your assumptions.

Laughing......um, no. They're not. As all the same sex marriage in 37 of 50 states demonstrates. You are gloriously irrelevant to this process.

Given that Reality requires that Humanity does in fact exist in nature... this is incontestable, thus Skylar's only contest is refuted in undeniable terms.

Again, just because humanity exists in nature doesn't mean that any batshit you make up is 'natural law'. You're running into the same simple problem with your every argument:

Rejecting your subjective opinion isn't rejecting natural law. As your opinion isn't natural law. Its just your personal opinion. Which defines nothing objectively.

Back in reality, marriage is our invention. We made it up to serve our needs. And we define it. Not you.

Marriage IS, the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Or one man and one man. Or one woman and one woman. As same sex marriage in 37 of 50 States demonstrates. You insist none of it happening.

Shrugs...ignore as you will. It really doesn't matter.

 

[mdk]

Update: Churches still have not been forced to marry anyone against their wishes.

And never will be here...

That won't stop the drama queens from soiling their knickers though.

 

[Skylar]

Sil, your opinion "a violation of the core of the construct of God in human societies" is simply false. I would like to see your evidence for it....

Jude 1 of the New Testament.

Thank you. Jude 1 is not the law of the land. Human societies are not built on Jude.

But America was built on the Constitution and the Constitution guarantees individuals the right to daily practice of their faith, so long as it doesn't cause violence to another (Sharia law). Jude 1 mandates that Christians (each and every one, not just a gathering of them in a building) not enable the spread of homosexuality through a society; under promise of eternal damnation for failing to do so, which is what's called a "mortal sin". And since marriage is the ultimate stamp of legitimacy, requiring Christians to enable "gay weddings" is one and the same with requiring them to abdicate the daily practice of their religion. It is requiring them to subject their immortal soul to eternal damnation in the name of a neo-political trend they were told to anticipate and to not allow (Jude 1, New Testament).

The suggestion that I'm "not much of a Christian" is irrelevant to guarantees for practicing Christians in the Constitution. Pretend if you must that I'm an agnostic or atheist lawyer representing a Christian in court, if this didactic device helps you understand the base logic of my argument here.

You're reviving a thread from APRIL?
How many active gay marriage threads are you going to be juggling?

The same number of gay agenda threads you and your payroll pals are juggling. Does that answer your question?

Thought you'd get to #10 and then quote an older conversation eh? I copied the one we were on before you buried the last page...

We didn't revive this one, Sil. You did.

You've started at least 10 threads on same sex marriage. And you keep reviving them to feed your personal obsession. You've already told us how much damage and personal harm posting here does to you. How it harms your mental and physical health to such an extent that you're forced to give it up.

Yet you are, sacrificing your health to feed your obsession. Worse, you're escalating, reviving dormant threads from over a month ago, while adding nothing of substance. You literally revived this thread to say 'ditto'.

You're not well, Sil.