Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[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?​

>>>>

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.

I doubt blacks respect Churches that deny them equal treatment also.

Interracial Couple Spurned - ABC News
Church bans interracial marriages; ?I am not racist? *said former pastor* - NY Daily News


>>>>

 

[koshergrl]

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.

Yes, on the queer bloc part.

Whether or not churches have historically been forced to accommodate queers in the past has nothing to do with whether or not they will be forced to accommodate queers in the future.

We have queers on this board advocating for the imprisonment of Christians. I have discussed many times on this board, whether or not the government should "allow" Christians to preach the bible in their churches. We've had posters here who maintain that Christians should not be allowed to take their own children to church, who say that Christians should have their children taken from them if they send them to Sunday school, and who claim that Christians should be barred from politics and teaching.

Routinely people say that the bible must be declared "hate speech"..the most recently was when Phil Robertson was accused of employing "hate speech" when he quoted the bible with regard to homosexuality.

Whether or not homosexuals IN THE PAST have forced the church is irrelevant. We are interested in what is happening now.

And what is happening now is a push to criminalize Christianity, and exert state control over the churches. If you want to talk about how totalitarian regimes become established, then go ahead and start a thread about that. We can compare the murderous tyrannies that exerted control over religion and the churches, and compare their histories with the history of the US. Whether or not churches have been controlled by the state in the past is not a blanket promise that the state will not exert control over them in the future. Particularly when you have an active and well funded movement to do exactly that.

 

[Ibentoken]

Here's a good church.
One Church’s Way To Get More People To Show Up Has People Up In Arms – Literally

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Cult of Heterofascism is in full bay the last couple of days.

Fun to watch.

Fact: no one is going to make a church perform same sex marriages as long as it is in accordance with public accommodation laws.

Fact: no one has demonstrated any personal liberty injury to them from marriage equality.

Fact: no one has demonstrated any civil liberty injury to them from marriage equality.

Fact: no one has been able to demonstrate that Windsor means something differently than as dictated by SCOTUS.

Fact: church opinion, Bible scripture, and so-called natural morality will be given no or little consideration by SCOTUS.

The conclusion is that our future of marriage equality is in good hands and headed in the right direction.

No need for me to post further.

 

[koshergrl]

Yes, we know.

We won't allow statist drones like yourself to exert control over the churches, fakey. So it's all good.

 

[koshergrl]

And you and all your fag friends can get married as often as you like. Nobody cares.

But we won't be performing the marriages.

 

[emilynghiem]

The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.

Except for the Democratic Party which isn't counted as a "religious institution" yet
until its platform is publicly established to be a political religion, which it is.

So is Constitutionalism, but the Democrats don't recognize that either as protected.
They only recognize those beliefs as "not what they believe in," so they defend their own.
Pushing these BELIEFS into laws and govt is unconstitutional, but nobody is challenging it on those grounds
because they are too busy pushing their OWN "political religion/beliefs" and would be hypocrites.
Thus the problem is not getting addressed or solved.
Just whole parties slamming each other's beliefs while pushing their own through govt.

 

[bendog]

I read that three times.

 

[koshergrl]

It won't work unless you click your heels at the same time.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

What is a penis gake? No, actually "queers" don't. And neither do gays and lesbians. What we expect is that if you live in a locality where gays and lesbians are protected by public accommodation laws, is that you will abide by those laws or you won't sell products that might require you to violate your principals. If you don't sell penis cakes in the first place, you don't have to make one. If you don't want to make wedding cakes that might potentially be eaten at a same sex wedding, don't bake wedding cakes.

 

[Seawytch]

And you and all your fag friends can get married as often as you like. Nobody cares.

But we won't be performing the marriages.

Who is "we"? Are you a member of the clergy? A civil servant?

 

[koshergrl]

"We" are those of "us" who choose not to marry homos in our churches, cupcake.

 

[Seawytch]

"We" are those of "us" who choose not to marry homos in our churches, cupcake.

Oh...those churches will be a minority soon enough.

 

[koshergrl]

No, they won't.

And they aren't now.

But feel free to dream big, punkin.

 

[koshergrl]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5KeGccP9Jk]JIM NABORS ( GOMER PYLE )-THE IMPOSSIBLE DREAM - YouTube[/ame]

 

[WorldWatcher]

JIM NABORS ( GOMER PYLE )-THE IMPOSSIBLE DREAM - YouTube

Interesting that you post Jim Nabors singing "To Dream the Impossible Dream", a man that after a 38 year relationship with his long term partner was finally able to marry that partner a month after Same-sex Civil Marriage became legal in Washington State.

I guess he and his husbands dreams really did come true.


>>>>

 

[Howey]

JIM NABORS ( GOMER PYLE )-THE IMPOSSIBLE DREAM - YouTube

lol...he's gay

 

[1776]

You can't force people to think a certain way.

You have no right to make me attend your gay wedding or host your gay wedding.

If the liberals believe they can start making churches violate the Bible to accommodate them, then all hell will break loose.

 

[koshergrl]

JIM NABORS ( GOMER PYLE )-THE IMPOSSIBLE DREAM - YouTube

lol...he's gay

How asstute of you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, they won't.

And they aren't now.

But feel free to dream big, punkin.

Your defiance is so cute. Well, maybe not. But it is ineffective.

Yup, you far right social cons are the diminishing minority in the country, and, yes, you have lost your religious entitlement to legislate morality in the country.

LDS Social Services can see the future and will not be doing adoption services in the future.

Anything that a church does as a business in the public sector is fair game. So perform weddings as a private association and you are fine.

Do business in the public sector, you will be regulated just like everyone else.