Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[WorldWatcher]

The PA Laws were not written to protect poor behavior and the 'interpretation' of such for the purposes of protecting sexual deviancy is simply evidence of a growing mass-delusion by a group pf people who clearly have nefarious intent.

What?

So when Public Accommodation laws specifically say businesses can discriminate based on sexual orientation, they don't really mean businesses can't discriminate based on sexual orientation and it's just a judge "interpreting" the law to include sexual orientation?


>>>>

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Getting back to the topic of the thread - if other "public accommodations" are going to be forced to service gay weddings, churches should follow the same laws as the rest of us.

Churches do follow the same laws as the lowest common denominators.

What evidence do you have that such is not the case?

If bakers, and other service providers are to be legally required to serve gays, there's no reason churches should be excluded.

Churches are exempt, dumbass.

He's asking WHY.

And he's doing so to point out the illegitimate nature of the PA laws.

Churches can't refuse to do a black wedding... and if the SCOTUS were to decide to normalize sexual deviancy, Churches would not be exempt.

So stop playing coy and man up with your desire to see churches forced into that which the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is designed to do.

Churches can turn down any wedding they disapprove of, for any damn reason under God. They are exempt.

Fuck, you people are just goddamned stupid...

 

[WorldWatcher]

Churches can't refuse to do a black wedding... and if the SCOTUS were to decide to normalize sexual deviancy, Churches would not be exempt.

Churches can refuse to form a religious ceremony for a black wedding.

Hell just this year a Church refused to perform a wedding for a black couple -->> Church refuses to marry black couple


>>>>

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The PA Laws were not written to protect poor behavior and the 'interpretation' of such for the purposes of protecting sexual deviancy is simply evidence of a growing mass-delusion by a group pf people who clearly have nefarious intent.

What?

So when Public Accommodation laws specifically say businesses can discriminate based on sexual orientation, they don't really mean businesses can't discriminate based on sexual orientation and it's just a judge "interpreting" the law to include sexual orientation?


>>>>

How about businesses that discriminate against those who choose not to bathe? Or those who choose only to speak through unhinged profane demands? Or just who choose to only use money they get through physical domination of their clients and staff?

If The Law protects sexual deviancy, which is purely a behavior... given that sexual orientation has been established to have absolutely NO genetic component, thus such is by a complete lack of options A CHOICE... then on what basis would the law not provide equal protection to the other deviants?

Take all the time ya need...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Getting back to the topic of the thread - if other "public accommodations" are going to be forced to service gay weddings, churches should follow the same laws as the rest of us.

Churches do follow the same laws as the lowest common denominators.

What evidence do you have that such is not the case?

If bakers, and other service providers are to be legally required to serve gays, there's no reason churches should be excluded.

Bakers are not required to serve anyone whose behavior infringes upon their means to operate their business.

We're not talking about individuals who are of a genetic minority who are therefore subjected to irrational prejudices common to those who appear different, or who are struggling with severe physical limitations; issues which are inarguably beyond their control.

We are talking about people whose BEHAVIOR runs geometrically counter to the human physiological standard. Behavior which subjects them disproportionately to disease, which demonstrates a profound tendency toward poor choices in every aspect of their lives, stemming from severe mental disorder.

For Pete's sake... we're talking about people who SUE PEOPLE INTO BANKRUPTCY BECAUSE THEY REFUSED TO CATER THEIR PRETEND WEDDING.

Don't embarrass yourself by equating BEHAVIOR with genetic and traumatic physical deformity.

Churches are places of Religion. They do not offer a service, beyond providing a place where people of a common set of beliefs can come to worship and fellowship with one another.

To the best of my knowledge, Churches encourage all people to come and fellowship with the Father, particularly deviants.

All they ask is that people come with a civil demeanor and an open heart... .

Are you suggesting that Churches are turning away homosexuals?

I'd love to get the address of such a Church. I've got a few thoughts I'd like to share with the Pastor.

Simple Google search.

Isn't it adorable how the best it can do is ride a feckless implication?

LOL! It's as classic as it is pitiful.

Here, dumbass: Pennsylvania Church Kicks Out Gay Kid Queerty

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The PA Laws were not written to protect poor behavior and the 'interpretation' of such for the purposes of protecting sexual deviancy is simply evidence of a growing mass-delusion by a group pf people who clearly have nefarious intent.

What?

So when Public Accommodation laws specifically say businesses can discriminate based on sexual orientation, they don't really mean businesses can't discriminate based on sexual orientation and it's just a judge "interpreting" the law to include sexual orientation?


>>>>

How about businesses that discriminate against those who choose not to bathe? Or those who choose only to speak through unhinged profane demands? Or just who choose to only use money they get through physical domination of their clients and staff?

If The Law protects sexual deviancy, which is purely a behavior... given that sexual orientation has been established to have absolutely NO genetic component, thus such is by a complete lack of options A CHOICE... then on what basis would the law not provide equal protection to the other deviants?

Take all the time ya need...

Learn how PA laws actually work, which you have no clue about.
Public accommodations - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Churches can't refuse to do a black wedding... and if the SCOTUS were to decide to normalize sexual deviancy, Churches would not be exempt.

Churches can refuse to form a religious ceremony for a black wedding.

Hell just this year a Church refused to perform a wedding for a black couple -->> Church refuses to marry black couple


>>>>

LOL! So they did.

I gotta say that I'm truly shocked. I don't think that the Church would stand much of a chance of defending that, but I can't find anything that shows that their decision was even challenged. And I expect that such is because those folks likely decided that they didn't want to be married in a church loaded with racists and who can blame 'em.

Shame on 'em.

There's no scriptural basis for not marrying black folks or any other folks who come within the scope of scripture and the specific tenets of that church. And there's no end to the Scripture noting the untenable nature of sexual deviancy.

So ... bad example perhaps, but the point stands; their decision was irrational.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The PA Laws were not written to protect poor behavior and the 'interpretation' of such for the purposes of protecting sexual deviancy is simply evidence of a growing mass-delusion by a group pf people who clearly have nefarious intent.

What?

So when Public Accommodation laws specifically say businesses can discriminate based on sexual orientation, they don't really mean businesses can't discriminate based on sexual orientation and it's just a judge "interpreting" the law to include sexual orientation?


>>>>

How about businesses that discriminate against those who choose not to bathe? Or those who choose only to speak through unhinged profane demands? Or just who choose to only use money they get through physical domination of their clients and staff?

If The Law protects sexual deviancy, which is purely a behavior... given that sexual orientation has been established to have absolutely NO genetic component, thus such is by a complete lack of options A CHOICE... then on what basis would the law not provide equal protection to the other deviants?

Take all the time ya need...

Deflection and moving the goal posts. You said laws don't protect sexual orientation and that they were "interpreted" to include sexual orientation.

Flat out wrong.

There are, IIRC, 21 states that specifically include sexual orientation.

Here are a few examples:

Colorado Revised Statutes
24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation - definition.
(2) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, al status, national origin, or ancestry.
COCODE

Oregon Revised Statutes
§ 659A.403¹
Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older.
ORS 659A.403 - Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes

New Mexico
28-1-7. Unlawful discriminatory practice.
It is an unlawful discriminatory practice for:
F. any person in any to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to any person because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap, provided that the physical or mental handicap is unrelated to a person's ability to acquire or rent and maintain particular real property or housing;
New Mexico One Source of Law ​

The PA Laws were not written to protect poor behavior and the 'interpretation' of such for the purposes of protecting sexual deviancy is simply evidence of a growing mass-delusion by a group pf people who clearly have nefarious intent.

Secondly, refusing service to an interracial couple is illegal.

Choosing to date or marry someone from a different race, under your "logic", wouldn't fall under Public Accommodation laws since choosing to date or marry someone of a different race is a behavior since there is no genetic component to being attracted to someone of a different race.


>>>>

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

9 topics on the first page about queers.

What does that tell you all?

 

[Skylar]

UPDATE! Keys got his head handed to him above, and his regurgitated relativistic responses are only reflective of his narrow world view. He is entitled to it, of course, but it has no meaning to anyone else. Marriage is what the various cultures throughout history of man say it is, not what says Keys.

Smiling.....yup. I broke him. And the shocking part is....how little effort it took.

Keys uses the same silly Appeal to Authority fallacy with every post. The only thing that changes is the Authority he claims to be appealing to. He claims to speak for nature, or God, or objectrive truth, or universal morality, or immutable law, or whatever.

And in every case...its just Keys citing his personal opinion. With his sources being himself. His audience (aka the mythic 'reader' he keeps talking to), himself. The 'concessions' he accepts from himself.

Its the most relativistic argument on this board. And that's what broke him.

 

[Skylar]

9 topics on the first page about queers.

What does that tell you all?

That your ilk keep reviving old dead threads. Sil revived this thread after 6 weeks of dormancy this morning.....to say 'ditto'.

Your ilk are obsessed. And a tad desperate. I think they can sense what is coming the same way the conservatives in Ireland could.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So ... bad example perhaps, but the point stands; their decision was irrational.

It doesn't fucking matter, it's legal, which makes you dead wrong.

 

[Skylar]

Churches can't refuse to do a black wedding... and if the SCOTUS were to decide to normalize sexual deviancy, Churches would not be exempt.

Churches can refuse to form a religious ceremony for a black wedding.

Hell just this year a Church refused to perform a wedding for a black couple -->> Church refuses to marry black couple


>>>>

LOL! So they did.

I gotta say that I'm truly shocked. I don't think that the Church would stand much of a chance of defending that, but I can't find anything that shows that their decision was even challenged. And I expect that such is because those folks likely decided that they didn't want to be married in a church loaded with racists and who can blame 'em.

Thats probably because you don't know what you're talking about, aren't clear on what PA laws are, and have no idea what they cover. PA laws explicitly and specifically exempt churches.

Which makes this thread an exercise in conservative preemtive panty shitting over an issue that isn't.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Churches do follow the same laws as the lowest common denominators.

What evidence do you have that such is not the case?

If bakers, and other service providers are to be legally required to serve gays, there's no reason churches should be excluded.

Bakers are not required to serve anyone whose behavior infringes upon their means to operate their business.

We're not talking about individuals who are of a genetic minority who are therefore subjected to irrational prejudices common to those who appear different, or who are struggling with severe physical limitations; issues which are inarguably beyond their control.

We are talking about people whose BEHAVIOR runs geometrically counter to the human physiological standard. Behavior which subjects them disproportionately to disease, which demonstrates a profound tendency toward poor choices in every aspect of their lives, stemming from severe mental disorder.

For Pete's sake... we're talking about people who SUE PEOPLE INTO BANKRUPTCY BECAUSE THEY REFUSED TO CATER THEIR PRETEND WEDDING.

Don't embarrass yourself by equating BEHAVIOR with genetic and traumatic physical deformity.

Churches are places of Religion. They do not offer a service, beyond providing a place where people of a common set of beliefs can come to worship and fellowship with one another.

To the best of my knowledge, Churches encourage all people to come and fellowship with the Father, particularly deviants.

All they ask is that people come with a civil demeanor and an open heart... .

Are you suggesting that Churches are turning away homosexuals?

I'd love to get the address of such a Church. I've got a few thoughts I'd like to share with the Pastor.

Simple Google search.

Isn't it adorable how the best it can do is ride a feckless implication?

LOL! It's as classic as it is pitiful.

Here, dumbass: Pennsylvania Church Kicks Out Gay Kid Queerty

Did the homosexual kid recognize that his sexual choices deviated from God's law? Did the Homosexual kid admit such and turn from his defiance of God's law?

I didn't read the article, but I'm going to guess that he missed on all three counts.

Thus, the Church is right in removing him from attendance.

Welcoming sinners is welcoming sinners... to hear the good news. There's no such welcome implied to allow the sinner to remain in sin and in so doing influence others... .

But I gotta say, if someone had claimed that Churches were obligated to tolerate deviancy... that would have been a marvelous point.

 

[Skylar]

If bakers, and other service providers are to be legally required to serve gays, there's no reason churches should be excluded.

Bakers are not required to serve anyone whose behavior infringes upon their means to operate their business.

We're not talking about individuals who are of a genetic minority who are therefore subjected to irrational prejudices common to those who appear different, or who are struggling with severe physical limitations; issues which are inarguably beyond their control.

We are talking about people whose BEHAVIOR runs geometrically counter to the human physiological standard. Behavior which subjects them disproportionately to disease, which demonstrates a profound tendency toward poor choices in every aspect of their lives, stemming from severe mental disorder.

For Pete's sake... we're talking about people who SUE PEOPLE INTO BANKRUPTCY BECAUSE THEY REFUSED TO CATER THEIR PRETEND WEDDING.

Don't embarrass yourself by equating BEHAVIOR with genetic and traumatic physical deformity.

Churches are places of Religion. They do not offer a service, beyond providing a place where people of a common set of beliefs can come to worship and fellowship with one another.

To the best of my knowledge, Churches encourage all people to come and fellowship with the Father, particularly deviants.

All they ask is that people come with a civil demeanor and an open heart... .

Are you suggesting that Churches are turning away homosexuals?

I'd love to get the address of such a Church. I've got a few thoughts I'd like to share with the Pastor.

Simple Google search.

Isn't it adorable how the best it can do is ride a feckless implication?

LOL! It's as classic as it is pitiful.

Here, dumbass: Pennsylvania Church Kicks Out Gay Kid Queerty

Did the homosexual kid recognize that his sexual choices deviated from God's law? Did the Homosexual kid admit such and turn from his defiance of God's law?

I didn't read the article, but I'm going to guess that he missed on all three counts.

Thus, the Church is right in removing him from attendance.

That's an opinion. Many other Christians would disagree with you. That's the beauty of religion: its so subjective and interpretive

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If bakers, and other service providers are to be legally required to serve gays, there's no reason churches should be excluded.

Bakers are not required to serve anyone whose behavior infringes upon their means to operate their business.

We're not talking about individuals who are of a genetic minority who are therefore subjected to irrational prejudices common to those who appear different, or who are struggling with severe physical limitations; issues which are inarguably beyond their control.

We are talking about people whose BEHAVIOR runs geometrically counter to the human physiological standard. Behavior which subjects them disproportionately to disease, which demonstrates a profound tendency toward poor choices in every aspect of their lives, stemming from severe mental disorder.

For Pete's sake... we're talking about people who SUE PEOPLE INTO BANKRUPTCY BECAUSE THEY REFUSED TO CATER THEIR PRETEND WEDDING.

Don't embarrass yourself by equating BEHAVIOR with genetic and traumatic physical deformity.

Churches are places of Religion. They do not offer a service, beyond providing a place where people of a common set of beliefs can come to worship and fellowship with one another.

To the best of my knowledge, Churches encourage all people to come and fellowship with the Father, particularly deviants.

All they ask is that people come with a civil demeanor and an open heart... .

Are you suggesting that Churches are turning away homosexuals?

I'd love to get the address of such a Church. I've got a few thoughts I'd like to share with the Pastor.

Simple Google search.

Isn't it adorable how the best it can do is ride a feckless implication?

LOL! It's as classic as it is pitiful.

Here, dumbass: Pennsylvania Church Kicks Out Gay Kid Queerty

Did the homosexual kid recognize that his sexual choices deviated from God's law? Did the Homosexual kid admit such and turn from his defiance of God's law?

I didn't read the article, but I'm going to guess that he missed on all three counts.

Thus, the Church is right in removing him from attendance.

Welcoming sinners is welcoming sinners... to hear the good news. There's no such welcome implied to allow the sinner to remain in sin and in so doing influence others... .

But I gotta say, if someone had claimed that Churches were obligated to tolerate deviancy... that would have been a marvelous point.

Yeah, Jesus was big on kicking out the faithful. And we show you that they can kick them out but you still say they are forced to hold black weddings, which they aren't, so they will have to hold gay weddings even as they kick the faggots out for being fags. You are a fucking idiot loon, fit only for the loony bin...

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Thats probably because you don't know what you're talking about, aren't clear on what PA laws are, and have no idea what they cover. PA laws explicitly and specifically exempt churches.

Which makes this thread an exercise in conservative preemtive panty shitting over an issue that isn't.[sic]

No church or anyone else should be allowed to discriminate against anyone over the color of their skin.

That this church embarrassed itself is not evidence that churches are entitled to engage in bad behavior... nor does it mean that churches should be forced to participate in the normalization of deviant behavior.

But hey... in your defense, as a Relativist, there is NO WAY you could have known that.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Bakers are not required to serve anyone whose behavior infringes upon their means to operate their business.

We're not talking about individuals who are of a genetic minority who are therefore subjected to irrational prejudices common to those who appear different, or who are struggling with severe physical limitations; issues which are inarguably beyond their control.

We are talking about people whose BEHAVIOR runs geometrically counter to the human physiological standard. Behavior which subjects them disproportionately to disease, which demonstrates a profound tendency toward poor choices in every aspect of their lives, stemming from severe mental disorder.

For Pete's sake... we're talking about people who SUE PEOPLE INTO BANKRUPTCY BECAUSE THEY REFUSED TO CATER THEIR PRETEND WEDDING.

Don't embarrass yourself by equating BEHAVIOR with genetic and traumatic physical deformity.

Churches are places of Religion. They do not offer a service, beyond providing a place where people of a common set of beliefs can come to worship and fellowship with one another.

To the best of my knowledge, Churches encourage all people to come and fellowship with the Father, particularly deviants.

All they ask is that people come with a civil demeanor and an open heart... .

Are you suggesting that Churches are turning away homosexuals?

I'd love to get the address of such a Church. I've got a few thoughts I'd like to share with the Pastor.

Simple Google search.

Isn't it adorable how the best it can do is ride a feckless implication?

LOL! It's as classic as it is pitiful.

Here, dumbass: Pennsylvania Church Kicks Out Gay Kid Queerty

Did the homosexual kid recognize that his sexual choices deviated from God's law? Did the Homosexual kid admit such and turn from his defiance of God's law?

I didn't read the article, but I'm going to guess that he missed on all three counts.

Thus, the Church is right in removing him from attendance.

Welcoming sinners is welcoming sinners... to hear the good news. There's no such welcome implied to allow the sinner to remain in sin and in so doing influence others... .

But I gotta say, if someone had claimed that Churches were obligated to tolerate deviancy... that would have been a marvelous point.

Yeah, Jesus was big on kicking out the faithful. And we show you that they can kick them out but you still say they are forced to hold black weddings so they will have to hold gay weddings even as they kick the faggots out for being fags. You are a fucking idiot loon, fit only for the loony bin...

Can't be among the faithful and deny God's law. No sir... that can NOT be done.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Simple Google search.

Isn't it adorable how the best it can do is ride a feckless implication?

LOL! It's as classic as it is pitiful.

Here, dumbass: Pennsylvania Church Kicks Out Gay Kid Queerty

Did the homosexual kid recognize that his sexual choices deviated from God's law? Did the Homosexual kid admit such and turn from his defiance of God's law?

I didn't read the article, but I'm going to guess that he missed on all three counts.

Thus, the Church is right in removing him from attendance.

Welcoming sinners is welcoming sinners... to hear the good news. There's no such welcome implied to allow the sinner to remain in sin and in so doing influence others... .

But I gotta say, if someone had claimed that Churches were obligated to tolerate deviancy... that would have been a marvelous point.

Yeah, Jesus was big on kicking out the faithful. And we show you that they can kick them out but you still say they are forced to hold black weddings so they will have to hold gay weddings even as they kick the faggots out for being fags. You are a fucking idiot loon, fit only for the loony bin...

Can't be among the faithful and deny God's law. No sir... that can NOT be done.

Then the church doesn't welcome people since all people are sinners and will continue to sin until the day they die, dumbass, which makes you, yet again, dead wrong.

And, a church for the sinless always has plenty of seating, no one is ever there. Fuck you are an utter MORON!!! even about your own goddamned faith.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Bakers are not required to serve anyone whose behavior infringes upon their means to operate their business.

We're not talking about individuals who are of a genetic minority who are therefore subjected to irrational prejudices common to those who appear different, or who are struggling with severe physical limitations; issues which are inarguably beyond their control.

We are talking about people whose BEHAVIOR runs geometrically counter to the human physiological standard. Behavior which subjects them disproportionately to disease, which demonstrates a profound tendency toward poor choices in every aspect of their lives, stemming from severe mental disorder.

For Pete's sake... we're talking about people who SUE PEOPLE INTO BANKRUPTCY BECAUSE THEY REFUSED TO CATER THEIR PRETEND WEDDING.

Don't embarrass yourself by equating BEHAVIOR with genetic and traumatic physical deformity.

Churches are places of Religion. They do not offer a service, beyond providing a place where people of a common set of beliefs can come to worship and fellowship with one another.

To the best of my knowledge, Churches encourage all people to come and fellowship with the Father, particularly deviants.

All they ask is that people come with a civil demeanor and an open heart... .

Are you suggesting that Churches are turning away homosexuals?

I'd love to get the address of such a Church. I've got a few thoughts I'd like to share with the Pastor.

Simple Google search.

Isn't it adorable how the best it can do is ride a feckless implication?

LOL! It's as classic as it is pitiful.

Here, dumbass: Pennsylvania Church Kicks Out Gay Kid Queerty

Did the homosexual kid recognize that his sexual choices deviated from God's law? Did the Homosexual kid admit such and turn from his defiance of God's law?

I didn't read the article, but I'm going to guess that he missed on all three counts.

Thus, the Church is right in removing him from attendance.

That's an opinion. Many other Christians would disagree with you. That's the beauty of religion: its so subjective and interpretive

The Religion is objective, the religious are subjective.

Such is the purpose of Religion, to help people rise above the lower-nature of subjectivism.

But hey... again, in your defense, as a Relativist, there is NO WAY you could have known that.