Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[bendog]

There are gay churches all over the place. That's not good enough. It's way more fun to force someone.

It's a fcking outrage this is happeneing everyday all over this nation. It's time to take back or jesusland.

 

[koshergrl]

Crap the Episcopalians are straight up Rainbow.

 

[koshergrl]

Catholics won't marry you, but you and your lover can join a convent or the priesthood, and join in the bonds of matrimony with each other and the church.

Mormons..I think it's a requirement that you be gay and get married to someone of the opposite sex. But if you take care of your straight family, the church will take care of your gay lovers.

 

[WorldWatcher]

There are gay churches all over the place. That's not good enough. It's way more fun to force someone.

Can you provide a concrete example of any time the United Sates (since we have a Constitution) government has forces a Church to perform a religious wedding ceremony...

1. ...in the case of interracial marriage when such marriage are claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?

2. ...in the case of interfaith marriage when such marriage are claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?

3. ...in the case of a marriage when one or more of the participants are divorced for reasons claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?

4. ...And since Same-sex Civil Marriage has been legal for a decade, the case of a same-sex marriage when such marriages are claimed to be against the religious beliefs of a Church?​

>>>>

 

[koshergrl]

Sorry that was offensive but every now and then I can't help myself.

For the record, I love Catholics, Mormons and Episcopalians. I think they will have some splaining to do but that's not my problem.

 

[koshergrl]

There are gay churches all over the place. That's not good enough. It's way more fun to force someone.

Can you provide a concrete example of any time the United Sates (since we have a Constitution) government has forces a Church to perform a religious wedding ceremony...

1. ...in the case of interracial marriage when such marriage are claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?

2. ...in the case of interfaith marriage when such marriage are claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?

3. ...in the case of a marriage when one or more of the participants are divorced for reasons claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?

4. ...And since Same-sex Civil Marriage has been legal for a decade, the case of a same-sex marriage when such marriages are claimed to be against the religious beliefs of a Church?
​

>>>>

NOBODY SAID THE GOVERNMENT HAD FORCED THE CHURCH TO DO ANYTHING.

The RHETORICAL question was...SHOULD the government force the churches to marry queers.

There's something wrong with you progressive nutbags that you don't understand plain English...and yet insist on starting a completely separate dialogue as if it's somehow pertinent to the discussion at hand.

 

[bendog]

There are gay churches all over the place. That's not good enough. It's way more fun to force someone.

Can you provide a concrete example of any time the United Sates (since we have a Constitution) government has forces a Church to perform a religious wedding ceremony...

1. ...in the case of interracial marriage when such marriage are claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?

2. ...in the case of interfaith marriage when such marriage are claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?

3. ...in the case of a marriage when one or more of the participants are divorced for reasons claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?

4. ...And since Same-sex Civil Marriage has been legal for a decade, the case of a same-sex marriage when such marriages are claimed to be against the religious beliefs of a Church?​

>>>>

Gay marriage incompatible with religious freedom | Fox News

I looked at this yesterday. I don't see much of anything to this issue. However, if a church's dogma of bylaws don't specify it refuses to recongnize non hetero marriage, and a member of the church requests a gay/lesbian marriage, I guess there could be an issue. Similarly, if a church rents out to the general public, it could run afoul of a state public accomodations law.

But now, Anton Scalia, John Roberts and Alito are not going to be excommunicated for telling Pope Francis to get busy marrying all these gays.

 

[WorldWatcher]

There are gay churches all over the place. That's not good enough. It's way more fun to force someone.

Can you provide a concrete example of any time the United Sates (since we have a Constitution) government has forces a Church to perform a religious wedding ceremony...

1. ...in the case of interracial marriage when such marriage are claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?

2. ...in the case of interfaith marriage when such marriage are claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?

3. ...in the case of a marriage when one or more of the participants are divorced for reasons claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?

4. ...And since Same-sex Civil Marriage has been legal for a decade, the case of a same-sex marriage when such marriages are claimed to be against the religious beliefs of a Church?
​

>>>>

NOBODY SAID THE GOVERNMENT HAD FORCED THE CHURCH TO DO ANYTHING.

The RHETORICAL question was...SHOULD the government force the churches to marry queers.

There's something wrong with you progressive nutbags that you don't understand plain English...and yet insist on starting a completely separate dialogue as if it's somehow pertinent to the discussion at hand.

Why just queers? To this day there are multiple demographics that indivdiual Churches can't be forced to perform religious cerememonies if the religious dogma of that Church is against it.

Oh and by the way the idea that the thread is not about the government using "force" is something addressed by the creator of the thread:

"Unless legal interpretations and rulings are revisited and recast to portray homosexuality as dangerous and detrimental, in which case such discrimination once again becomes legal, and pitched as for the good of the nation and its people.

That will be the challenge, as we transition from a Liberal to a Conservative government once again.

>>>>

 

[Ibentoken]

The leftist loves the big government hammer used on American citizens. Look how they cheered the Bundy incident. True Nazis.

 

[bendog]

Next the IRS will come after us cause we didn't pay taxes.

 

[koshergrl]

Oh one of them already posted their fantasy of that scenario, in this thread....moonglo? I don't remember.

 

[JakeStarkey]

There is only the cult of Sil's delusion elaborated in this thread.

No one, I would think, interfere with a church's private association.

If it holds itself out as a business, then the laws apply.

 

[WorldWatcher]

There are gay churches all over the place. That's not good enough. It's way more fun to force someone.

Can you provide a concrete example of any time the United Sates (since we have a Constitution) government has forces a Church to perform a religious wedding ceremony...

1. ...in the case of interracial marriage when such marriage are claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?

2. ...in the case of interfaith marriage when such marriage are claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?

3. ...in the case of a marriage when one or more of the participants are divorced for reasons claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?

4. ...And since Same-sex Civil Marriage has been legal for a decade, the case of a same-sex marriage when such marriages are claimed to be against the religious beliefs of a Church?​

>>>>

Gay marriage incompatible with religious freedom | Fox News

I looked at this yesterday. I don't see much of anything to this issue. However, if a church's dogma of bylaws don't specify it refuses to recongnize non hetero marriage, and a member of the church requests a gay/lesbian marriage, I guess there could be an issue. Similarly, if a church rents out to the general public, it could run afoul of a state public accomodations law.

But now, Anton Scalia, John Roberts and Alito are not going to be excommunicated for telling Pope Francis to get busy marrying all these gays.

Probably not an issue at all.

The SCOTUS, in addition to the 1st Amendment protections for Churches to perform (or not perform) religious ceremonies for members of their congregations, there is in addition the case of Boy Scouts of America v. Dale where the court clearly established that a true private club based organization is not subject to the normal rules under which Public Accommodation laws function. Because they limit membership and provides goods (and or services) to only their private members, they are not required to comply with anti-discrimination laws aim at businesses which service the general public.

Because the BSA was a membership based business, they can (and did) win the right to discriminate based on sexual orientation or religion.



A Church that provides goods and services to members of it's congregation only, would of course fall under the same protections.

Now, if the Church rents meeting halls to the general public - those specific activities wouldn't be protected, just as if a Church enters the public business marketplace by setting up a food booth (for profit sales) in a summer carnival at the park. Since goods and services are being offered to the public those activities may be regulated under Public Accommodation laws (specifics of which vary by State).


>>>>

 

[JakeStarkey]

Can you provide a concrete example of any time the United Sates (since we have a Constitution) government has forces a Church to perform a religious wedding ceremony...

1. ...in the case of interracial marriage when such marriage are claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?

2. ...in the case of interfaith marriage when such marriage are claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?

3. ...in the case of a marriage when one or more of the participants are divorced for reasons claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?

4. ...And since Same-sex Civil Marriage has been legal for a decade, the case of a same-sex marriage when such marriages are claimed to be against the religious beliefs of a Church?​

>>>>

Gay marriage incompatible with religious freedom | Fox News

I looked at this yesterday. I don't see much of anything to this issue. However, if a church's dogma of bylaws don't specify it refuses to recongnize non hetero marriage, and a member of the church requests a gay/lesbian marriage, I guess there could be an issue. Similarly, if a church rents out to the general public, it could run afoul of a state public accomodations law.

But now, Anton Scalia, John Roberts and Alito are not going to be excommunicated for telling Pope Francis to get busy marrying all these gays.

Probably not an issue at all.

The SCOTUS, in addition to the 1st Amendment protections for Churches to perform (or not perform) religious ceremonies for members of their congregations, there is in addition the case of Boy Scouts of America v. Dale where the court clearly established that a true private club based organization is not subject to the normal rules under which Public Accommodation laws function. Because they limit membership and provides goods (and or services) to only their private members, they are not required to comply with anti-discrimination laws aim at businesses which service the general public.

Because the BSA was a membership based business, they can (and did) win the right to discriminate based on sexual orientation or religion.



A Church that provides goods and services to members of it's congregation only, would of course fall under the same protections.

Now, if the Church rents meeting halls to the general public - those specific activities wouldn't be protected, just as if a Church enters the public business marketplace by setting up a food booth (for profit sales) in a summer carnival at the park. Since goods and services are being offered to the public those activities may be regulated under Public Accommodation laws (specifics of which vary by State).
>>>>

^^^^ That

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There are gay churches all over the place. That's not good enough. It's way more fun to force someone.

Can you provide a concrete example of any time the United Sates (since we have a Constitution) government has forces a Church to perform a religious wedding ceremony...

1. ...in the case of interracial marriage when such marriage are claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?

2. ...in the case of interfaith marriage when such marriage are claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?

3. ...in the case of a marriage when one or more of the participants are divorced for reasons claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?

4. ...And since Same-sex Civil Marriage has been legal for a decade, the case of a same-sex marriage when such marriages are claimed to be against the religious beliefs of a Church?
​

>>>>

NOBODY SAID THE GOVERNMENT HAD FORCED THE CHURCH TO DO ANYTHING.

The RHETORICAL question was...SHOULD the government force the churches to marry queers.

There's something wrong with you progressive nutbags that you don't understand plain English...and yet insist on starting a completely separate dialogue as if it's somehow pertinent to the discussion at hand.

Nonsense.

WW's question is perfectly appropriate and warranted given the fact most on the social right hostile to gay Americans' civil liberties are attempting to propagate the lie that churches will somehow be "forced" to accommodate same-sex couples.

It's more of the same dishonesty and demagoguery.

 

[koshergrl]

I don't think public accommodation laws require people to marry homos on demand.

 

[koshergrl]

What it comes down to...queers think that if they walk up to you and say "Make me a penis gake for my wedding" you have to do it. And if they march up to you dressed in angel wings and a g-string and say "Marry us fucker" you have to do it.

 

[koshergrl]

I think queers are delusional.

 

[Bush92]

Nope.

 

[Katzndogz]

There are gay churches all over the place. That's not good enough. It's way more fun to force someone.

Can you provide a concrete example of any time the United Sates (since we have a Constitution) government has forces a Church to perform a religious wedding ceremony...

1. ...in the case of interracial marriage when such marriage are claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?

2. ...in the case of interfaith marriage when such marriage are claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?

3. ...in the case of a marriage when one or more of the participants are divorced for reasons claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?

4. ...And since Same-sex Civil Marriage has been legal for a decade, the case of a same-sex marriage when such marriages are claimed to be against the religious beliefs of a Church?​

>>>>

In all those instances, the beliefs of the Churches were respected. Gays do not respect the beliefs of others and demand that religious principles be violated.