Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[TemplarKormac]

Never say never, it's a long time.

I'm a Protestant (Southern Baptist). So, like I said. Never.

Good day, sir.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Never say never, it's a long time.

I'm a Protestant (Southern Baptist). So, like I said. Never.

Good day, sir.

I didn't mention a specific religous organization.

Just pressure will come from internally for reform. You said never. It may be 50, 75, 100 years but down the road it will be fine. You many not have to worry about it, but your opinion and "never" are two different things.


>>>>

 

[mdk]

Thank goodness their hasn't been a single church forced to marry a gay couple against their wishes. Not one. Individual members are still not churches. Save your imagination, there isn't a single law that recognizes individual people as churches.

That is the essence of the legal question that will, very soon, becoming before the US Supreme Court. "Do individual Christians enjoy the rights of the 1st Amendment or do they not". I'll probably be expecting a lot of Hobby Lobby citations in that one.

Where has a church been forced to marry a gay couple against their wishes in the nation? There isn't one.

Very soon you say? What's the case name?

 

[TemplarKormac]

It may be 50, 75, 100 years but down the road it will be fine.

Well, we'll both be dead in 50 or 100 years, so we will never know, will we?

 

[WorldWatcher]

It may be 50, 75, 100 years but down the road it will be fine.

Well, we'll both be dead in 50 or 100 years, so we will never know, will we?

Religious organizations are already changing under internal pressure, I already posted links to two mainstream denominations showing that.

You used "never" not I, I already know I'm correct and provided examples. Kind of hard for you to provide and example of "never". All you can express is an opinion and one not based on fact at that.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Thank goodness their hasn't been a single church forced to marry a gay couple against their wishes. Not one. Individual members are still not churches. Save your imagination, there isn't a single law that recognizes individual people as churches.

That is the essence of the legal question that will, very soon, becoming before the US Supreme Court. "Do individual Christians enjoy the rights of the 1st Amendment or do they not". I'll probably be expecting a lot of Hobby Lobby citations in that one.

Where has a church been forced to marry a gay couple against their wishes in the nation? There isn't one.

Very soon you say? What's the case name?

How can you or I either one cite a case name that will be brought in the future? Christian buildings haven't been sued. But Christians have, succesfully...so far..

 

[mdk]

Thank goodness their hasn't been a single church forced to marry a gay couple against their wishes. Not one. Individual members are still not churches. Save your imagination, there isn't a single law that recognizes individual people as churches.

That is the essence of the legal question that will, very soon, becoming before the US Supreme Court. "Do individual Christians enjoy the rights of the 1st Amendment or do they not". I'll probably be expecting a lot of Hobby Lobby citations in that one.

Where has a church been forced to marry a gay couple against their wishes in the nation? There isn't one.

Very soon you say? What's the case name?

How can you or I either one cite a case name that will be brought in the future? Christian buildings haven't been sued. But Christians have, succesfully...so far..

Pardon me if I take your predictions with a very small grain of salt. Almost everything you have predicted concerning the courts has been laughably wrong.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Pardon me if I take your predictions with a very small grain of salt. Almost everything you have predicted concerning the courts has been laughably wrong.

Actually there has been a pretty high correlation to the idea that whatever Sil predicts a court will do, they do the opposite.


>>>>

 

[Skylar]

Thank goodness their hasn't been a single church forced to marry a gay couple against their wishes. Not one. Individual members are still not churches. Save your imagination, there isn't a single law that recognizes individual people as churches.

That is the essence of the legal question that will, very soon, becoming before the US Supreme Court. "Do individual Christians enjoy the rights of the 1st Amendment or do they not". I'll probably be expecting a lot of Hobby Lobby citations in that one.

Where has a church been forced to marry a gay couple against their wishes in the nation? There isn't one.

Very soon you say? What's the case name?

How can you or I either one cite a case name that will be brought in the future? Christian buildings haven't been sued. But Christians have, succesfully...so far..

An individual christian isn't a church. You can tell by the lack of tax exempt status. I know you don't recognize a distinction. But the law does. And any rational person could.

You insist they are the same thing. The law doesn't.

 

[Silhouette]

An individual christian isn't a church. You can tell by the lack of tax exempt status. I know you don't recognize a distinction. But the law does. And any rational person could.

You insist they are the same thing. The law doesn't.

I'm thumbing through the Constitution just now and I can't find the part in the 1st Amendment that says "only groups naming a religion with tax exempt status have the right to freedom of religion; individuals practing their faith don't count". Can you point me to the text you're citing to exempt individuals from the protection of the 1st Amendment?

 

[Skylar]

An individual christian isn't a church. You can tell by the lack of tax exempt status. I know you don't recognize a distinction. But the law does. And any rational person could.

You insist they are the same thing. The law doesn't.

I'm thumbing through the Constitution just now and I can't find the part in the 1st Amendment that says "only groups naming a religion with tax exempt status have the right to freedom of religion; individuals practing their faith don't count". Can you point me to the text you're citing to exempt individuals from the protection of the 1st Amendment?

Can you quote me claiming that individuals are exempt from protection from the 1st amendment?

Because I'm pretty sure you hallucinated that like you did your batshit conspiracy theory about Gallup polling being 'infiltrated by homosexuals' as part of vast international conspiracy dating back to the 60s.

 

[Silhouette]

Pardon me if I take your predictions with a very small grain of salt. Almost everything you have predicted concerning the courts has been laughably wrong.

Actually there has been a pretty high correlation to the idea that whatever Sil predicts a court will do, they do the opposite.


>>>>

Maybe then we should say that it's what I predict a court SHOULD do. I realize pockets get padded and blackmail gets done behind the scenes and overt bias clouds judgment in a way that thwarts the logical process and weight of wisdom in binding and important legal decisions.

In this case I do have Hobby Lobby to point to. What have you got to point to that outranks Hobby Lobby in the federal appeals system?

 

[Skylar]

Pardon me if I take your predictions with a very small grain of salt. Almost everything you have predicted concerning the courts has been laughably wrong.

Actually there has been a pretty high correlation to the idea that whatever Sil predicts a court will do, they do the opposite.


>>>>

Maybe then we should say that it's what I predict a court SHOULD do. I realize pockets get padded and blackmail gets done behind the scenes and overt bias clouds judgment in a way that thwarts the logical process and weight of wisdom in binding and important legal decisions.

Can you realize that you've just made up another batshit conspiracy theory that you can't possibly back up?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

An individual christian isn't a church. You can tell by the lack of tax exempt status. I know you don't recognize a distinction. But the law does. And any rational person could.

You insist they are the same thing. The law doesn't.

I'm thumbing through the Constitution just now and I can't find the part in the 1st Amendment that says "only groups naming a religion with tax exempt status have the right to freedom of religion; individuals practing their faith don't count". Can you point me to the text you're citing to exempt individuals from the protection of the 1st Amendment?

At least you're consistent in your ignorance of the law.

The First Amendment concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between and among private persons and organizations.

Nowhere in the United States is there any jurisdiction seeking to compel churches to perform marriages for same-sex couples.

Absent such legislation, there is no First Amendment 'issue,' there is no controversy for a court to consider, no potential 'violation' of the Free Exercise Clause.

Indeed, this goes directly to the comprehensive idiocy of the thread premise – where it is legally and Constitutionally impossible for government to compel churches through force of law to afford same-sex couples religious marriage rituals, save that of amending the Constitution to repeal the First Amendment; no lawmaker would propose such a ridiculous measure, and no such measure could pass Constitutional muster.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Poor Sil, using images that have no mean in the marriage discussion.

He is ignoring all of the genitalia flashing during carnival season.

Note: Silly is a woman.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

An individual christian isn't a church. You can tell by the lack of tax exempt status. I know you don't recognize a distinction. But the law does. And any rational person could.

You insist they are the same thing. The law doesn't.

I'm thumbing through the Constitution just now and I can't find the part in the 1st Amendment that says "only groups naming a religion with tax exempt status have the right to freedom of religion; individuals practing their faith don't count". Can you point me to the text you're citing to exempt individuals from the protection of the 1st Amendment?

At least you're consistent in your ignorance of the law.

The First Amendment concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between and among private persons and organizations.

Nowhere in the United States is there any jurisdiction seeking to compel churches to perform marriages for same-sex couples.

No where in the United States was there a jurisdiction seeking to compel Christian bakers to bake cakes; the purpose of which is to celebrate sin... until the Federal Judiciary overturned duly passed legislation signed into law by duly elected chief executives, which forced states into recognizing contracts which the people of those states had vehemently rejected through sound legislative means.

Absent such legislation, ...

There is NO LEGISLATION in:

Alabama* (Feb. 9, 2015)
Alaska (Oct. 17, 2014)
Arizona (Oct. 17, 2014)
California (June 28, 2013)
Colorado (Oct. 7, 2014)
Connecticut (Nov. 12, 2008)
Florida (Jan. 6, 2015)
Idaho (Oct. 13, 2014)
Indiana (Oct. 6, 2014)
Iowa (Apr. 24, 2009)
Kansas (Nov. 12, 2014)
Massachusetts (May 17, 2004)
Montana (Nov. 19, 2014)
Nevada (Oct. 9, 2014)
New Jersey (Oct. 21, 2013)
New Mexico (Dec. 19, 2013)
North Carolina (Oct. 10, 2014)
Oklahoma (Oct. 6, 2014)
Oregon (May 19, 2014)
Pennsylvania (May 20, 2014)
South Carolina (Nov. 20, 2014)
Utah (Oct. 6, 2014)
Virginia (Oct. 6, 2014)
West Virginia (Oct. 9, 2014)
Wisconsin (Oct. 6, 2014)
Wyoming (Oct. 21, 2014)

that allows for anyone to apply to marry a person of their same gender... So, your argument is a profound deceit.

This entire 900 page thread is prefaced upon the attempt to force a Christian Chapel to marry people of the same gender.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Poor Sil, using images that have no mean in the marriage discussion.

He is ignoring all of the genitalia flashing during carnival season.

Note: Silly is a woman.

ROFLMNAO!

IRONY! ... you gotta love it.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Pardon me if I take your predictions with a very small grain of salt. Almost everything you have predicted concerning the courts has been laughably wrong.

Actually there has been a pretty high correlation to the idea that whatever Sil predicts a court will do, they do the opposite.


>>>>

Maybe then we should say that it's what I predict a court SHOULD do. I realize pockets get padded and blackmail gets done behind the scenes and overt bias clouds judgment in a way that thwarts the logical process and weight of wisdom in binding and important legal decisions.

In this case I do have Hobby Lobby to point to. What have you got to point to that outranks Hobby Lobby in the federal appeals system?

Fantastic point.

I can't help but to notice that no response has resulted from that point, beyond the usual obscurant deflection... by the usual suspects.

Hmm... I wonder what we should make of THAT?

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are whipping the dead horse of homo-fascism, guys.

Keys is ignoring both Abraham and Isaac giving their wives to other women in polyandrous situations so they don't get their asses capped.

Gotta love it.

 

[Silhouette]

There is NO LEGISLATION in:

Alabama* (Feb. 9, 2015)
Alaska (Oct. 17, 2014)
Arizona (Oct. 17, 2014)
California (June 28, 2013)
Colorado (Oct. 7, 2014)
Connecticut (Nov. 12, 2008)
Florida (Jan. 6, 2015)
Idaho (Oct. 13, 2014)
Indiana (Oct. 6, 2014)
Iowa (Apr. 24, 2009)
Kansas (Nov. 12, 2014)
Massachusetts (May 17, 2004)
Montana (Nov. 19, 2014)
Nevada (Oct. 9, 2014)
New Jersey (Oct. 21, 2013)
New Mexico (Dec. 19, 2013)
North Carolina (Oct. 10, 2014)
Oklahoma (Oct. 6, 2014)
Oregon (May 19, 2014)
Pennsylvania (May 20, 2014)
South Carolina (Nov. 20, 2014)
Utah (Oct. 6, 2014)
Virginia (Oct. 6, 2014)
West Virginia (Oct. 9, 2014)
Wisconsin (Oct. 6, 2014)
Wyoming (Oct. 21, 2014)

that allows for anyone to apply to marry a person of their same gender... So, your argument is a profound deceit.

This entire 900 page thread is prefaced upon the attempt to force a Christian Chapel to marry people of the same gender.

There are but some 12-15 states (lost track awhile ago) that have legal gay marriage. All the rest do not. Windsor 2013 awarded E. Windsor money on the premise that states are the only entity allowed to regulate on the specific question of gay marriage. That was avered 56 times in 26 pages in the Windsor Opinion. And Windsor said that responsibility and power has existed since the start of our country.

Subsequent lower federal circuit courts who changed that without SCOTUS' permission are in violation of due process of the federal appeals system. Lower courts are not permitted to overturn a specific finding of law by the SCOTUS...not even in hopeful anticipation that "soon surely SCOTUS will come to its senses!".

All other states have viable bans on any marriage not man/woman. And for good reasons. States want homes for kids with both (just) a mother and a father. So they entice this by tax breaks granted to those applicants who qualify. No "gay marriage" performed in those states in the interim is legal. Any gay person having wanted a legal marriage should have moved to a state where it was legal for them to marry. SCOTUS even named at the end of Windsor 2013's Opinion that gay marriage was/is "only legal in 11 states" as of that writing. That means, for those slow on the uptake, that by the end of Windsor 2013, the states still had the power. All of them, on the question of gay marriage or no gay marriage. And that condition persists until today.

A lower circuit court may not overturn from underneath, erring on the side of stripping states of their democratic rule. The burden was and is upon the applicants seeking to redact the fundamental meaning of the word "marriage" as it has existed for millenia to mean a bond between a man and woman with the expected result of children who will benefit from that bond. The burden is not upon society to prove that a word it has understood for thousands of years "has to be changed unless you can otherwise prove it shouldn't be". Fatherless or motherless children as a sanctioned-institution is all the proof you need to see that the word "marriage' cannot be redacted without harming a very important demographic: children.