Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[JakeStarkey]

Only in your mind, Sil.

 

[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.

Only in your mind, Sil.

No, that's how the US federal circuit of appeals actually works Jakey. SCOTUS is the King Kahuna. All the other lower courts bow to their precedent. They all must err on the side of SCOTUS's last spoken word on any specific question of law. As recent as mere months before the SCOTUS passed its Word on who decides "yes" or "no" on gay marriage. They said it was the states. They even used that conclusion to award someone money. And they reaffirmed at the end of that Saying that "only 11 states" had legal "gay marriage". That's it. That's the law.

That may change in a week or two. But for right now and since the dawn of our country, states have had the say on the actual definition of marriage (man/woman...& more importantly..father/mother).

 

[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?

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.

Save of course that that applying to marry someone of the same gender wasn't the legislation that he was referring to. This was:

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

Which you knew when intentionally misrepresented his argument. As it was the sentence that immediately preceded the one you you cited, so there's no chance of you misunderstanding. And of course when fled from his actual argument which you could neither refute nor even address.

His point that nowhere in the United States is there any jurisdiction seeking to compel churches to perform marriages for same-sex couples remains uncontested. ANd you won't touch it as we both know he's right.

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

No, its not. To quote the argument that you ran screaming from and even now refuse to address:

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

Keep running.

 

[Skylar]

There are but some 12-15 states (lost track awhile ago) that have legal gay marriage. All the rest do not.

Says you, citing yourself. The Federal Judiciary says otherwise, having overturned state same sex marraige bans in 44 of 46 rulings. Gay marriages were performed in 37 of 50 States, an explicit contradiction of your pseudo-legal gibberish.

Remember, you have no idea what you're talking about.

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.

Windsor won her money when the court's found that that state law's affirmation of same sex marriage trumped the federal law's prohibition of same sex marriage. The Windsor court never once found that same sex marriage bans were constitutional. Nor even mentioned them. Which you know. But hope we don't.

The Windsor court found that state marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees.

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393.

This is a finding from the Windsor ruling that you ignore every time and pretend doesn't exist as it places constitutional guarantees above state marriage laws. Your willful ignorance doesn't change the Windsor ruling nor the hierarchy of authority established within it:

1) Constitutional Guarantees
2) State Marriage Laws
3) Federal Marriage Laws.

And every single lower court ruling that overturned state same sex marriage bans did so on the basis of the violation of constitutional guarantees. Making every such ruling perfectly aligned with the Windsor ruling. As no where in the Windsor ruling did it place state marriage laws above judicial review. Or exempt them from constitutional guarantees.

All of which you already know. But again, hope we don't.

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!".

Obvious nonsense. Again, you simply ignored the passage in the Windsor ruling that placed constitutional guarantees above state marriage laws. And then assume that because ignored that finding of the Windsor court, all lower federal courts are similarly obligated to pretend it doesn't exist.

The Federal courts have no such obligation. The Windsor ruling places constitutional guarantees above state marriage laws. And they have since at least 1967. And every lower court ruling overturning state same sex marriage bans was on the basis of the violation of constitutional guarantees.

Obliterating your argument. You simply don't know what you're talking about. While you can choose to ignore any portion of Windsor that you don't like, your willful ignorance has no relevance to the lower courts or the validity of any ruling.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, and Keys, have lost on "Nowhere in the United States is there any jurisdiction seeking to compel churches to perform marriages for same-sex couples". The judges are the authority to say what states have marriage equality, not the keys or the sils or anybody else.

 

[Skylar]

Sil, and Keys, have lost on "Nowhere in the United States is there any jurisdiction seeking to compel churches to perform marriages for same-sex couples". The judges are the authority to say what states have marriage equality, not the keys or the sils or anybody else.

Of course they have. Sil refuses to address it. And Keyes intentionally misrepresented Clayton's argument in an attempt to flee from it.

Its an argument that's really difficult to debate....as Clayton is obviously right.

So what else could they do but ignore, lie or flee? Or in Keys case, all three.

 

[dblack]

I'm not interested in the current legal status quo. The operative word here is "should". How do you YOU think the Court should interpret the Constitution. If we're going to have laws forcing merchants or services providers to serve protected classes, why should Churches get a pass? Is the purpose of the First Amendment to give religions special exemptions from laws the rest of us must follow?

 

[hjmick]

No.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Places of worship get a pass. Businesses are not places of worship. Next.

 

[Bleipriester]

This would violate the freedom of religion.

 

[dblack]

No.

a or c?

 

[dblack]

Places of worship get a pass. Businesses are not places of worship. Next.

Wow, really? Does that go for all laws? Or are we just picking and choosing for convenience sake?

 

[ABikerSailor]

No, churches should not be forced to perform gay marriages if they are against them.

Why?

There are plenty of other churches who will be more than happy to marry them (and get the fee for the wedding).

 

[dblack]

This would violate the freedom of religion.

I agree. If government approved churches were exempted from the law, it would be a blatant violation of the First Amendment.

 

[hjmick]

Keeping in mind that I do not consider establishments such as Wedding Chapel Las Vegas Wee Kirk o the Heather to be churches...

These are businesses whose only purpose is to generate revenue and in no way should they fall under the category of churches, mosques or temples...

 

[hjmick]

No.

a or c?

I'll go with "A."

 

[TheOldSchool]

Places of worship get a pass. Businesses are not places of worship. Next.

Wow, really? Does that go for all laws? Or are we just picking and choosing for convenience sake?

Are you suggesting we should remove the protected and tax-exempt status of churches and force them to perform gay weddings?

 

[dblack]

No, churches should not be forced to perform gay marriages if they are against them.

Why?

There are plenty of other churches who will be more than happy to marry them (and get the fee for the wedding).

Should bakers be forced to bake cakes for gay weddings if they are against them? Why should churches get a pass? If you think that's how the First Amendment should be applied, do you see the problems that introduces? Should churches that believe in human sacrifice get to skip the laws against murder?

 

[dblack]

Places of worship get a pass. Businesses are not places of worship. Next.

Wow, really? Does that go for all laws? Or are we just picking and choosing for convenience sake?

Are you suggesting we should remove the protected and tax-exempt status of churches and force them to perform gay weddings?

Yep. Anything less amounts to offering special privileges to government-approved religions, which is a direct violation of the First Amendment.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Places of worship get a pass. Businesses are not places of worship. Next.

Wow, really? Does that go for all laws? Or are we just picking and choosing for convenience sake?

Are you suggesting we should remove the protected and tax-exempt status of churches and force them to perform gay weddings?

Yep. Anything less amounts to offering special privileges to government-approved religions, which is a direct violation of the First Amendment.

Okay crazy person. Good luck with that.