Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There is no point, a pastor cannot be compelled to perform a service, whether it be a wedding or a funeral, that they have religious objections to and no law to the contrary would be upheld even in the most liberal court.

Why not? If a law exists compelling service providers to provide services to specific protected classes, why should churches excluded?

Because public accommodations laws requiring service providers to provide services to protected classes of persons are Constitutional (Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US, Employment Division v. Smith, City of Boerne v. Flores); seeking to compel churches to afford same-sex couples religious marriage rituals through force of law is not.

The Commerce Clause authorizes government to regulate markets, both the local market and all other interrelated markets (Wickard v. Filburn), where to allow business owners to refuse to accommodate patrons based on religion, race, or sexual orientation is disruptive to the local market government is charged to safeguard.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Next?

First, you have to answer the question asked. I specifically said I'm not interested in the current legal status quo - which is all you recited. Do you think churches SHOULD be required to follow the same laws as the rest of us? If not, why do they get a pass?

Because they are a private organization based upon membership and protected under the first amendment.

I don't see anything in the first amendment constraining it to private organizations or 'membership'.

That's because you're making the mistake of perceiving the issue of public accommodations laws as a First Amendment issue, it's not.

Public accommodations laws are predicated on Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

DBLACK SAID:

“The First Amendment means people can disobey the law if it conflicts with their religion.”

It does not.

One may not use 'religious liberty' as 'justification' to disobey a just, proper, and Constitutional law, such as public accommodations laws, as the sole intent of these laws is regulatory, not to disadvantage religious practice.

DBLACK SAID:

“Churches should be required to follow the same laws as the rest of us.”

False comparison fallacy.

Churches and businesses open to the general public – where such businesses are subject to the provisions of state and local public accommodations laws – are not the same thing, where the former does not meet the criteria of a private, for-profit business.

DBLACK SAID:

“No one should be compelled to serve anyone else against their will.”

Business owners are subject to all manner of necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policies – from paying employees a minimum wage, to ensuring safe conditions for workers, to environmental regulations – where public accommodations laws are also regulatory policy and part of what it means to do business in jurisdictions with such laws.

 

[Bleipriester]

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.

Perhaps, they can establish their own religion. Christianity and homosexuality are incompatible.

This is unsurprisingly ignorant.

The vast majority of gay Americans are Christian, and you're in no position to determine if gay Christians are in compliance with their faith.

You cannot pound a butt and be a Christian. You cannot have sex without marriage in Christianity. Homosexuals cannot marry in Christianity. If you are tolerant, you tolerate Christianity as it is.

Bullshit there have been gay Christians since the religion was invented. Christianity is not tolerant or accepting.
I should say faux Christianity isn't.

"Christianity is not tolerant"
You cannot change the terms of a religion. Once the gays have created their "Christian" gay sect, they can marry in the name of that sect.

 

[dblack]

Next?

First, you have to answer the question asked. I specifically said I'm not interested in the current legal status quo - which is all you recited. Do you think churches SHOULD be required to follow the same laws as the rest of us? If not, why do they get a pass?

Because they are a private organization based upon membership and protected under the first amendment.

I don't see anything in the first amendment constraining it to private organizations or 'membership'.

That's because you're making the mistake of perceiving the issue of public accommodations laws as a First Amendment issue, it's not.

Public accommodations laws are predicated on Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

No, I'm doing exactly the opposite. I'm rejecting the argument that churches should be exempted on First Amendment grounds. The issue should be resolved based soley on whether we consider churches to be businesses or public accommodations.

 

[PratchettFan]

Are you a member of the Catholic church?

Can you read?
I was a Mormon
I gave up religion for reality.

Can I read? Yes. But I can't read minds. If you took communion in a Catholic church then you misrepresented yourself to the priest. They took you at your word. It's not their fault you lied. Of course, if the communion was in a Mormon church then the problem was just that you took part in a ritual you didn't believe in. But the reason you could take part was not that you believed, it was that you were a member of the club.

False it was offered and I took it.

Not false at all. It was offered to Catholics. You have to be a Catholic to receive communion in a Catholic church. If you just get in line, they will assume you are a Catholic. If you inform the priest you aren't a Catholic before he places the wafer on your tongue, he won't do it. Either you were misrepresenting yourself or you just didn't have a clue what you were doing. And I do have to wonder why an Atheist would get in line at all. Wanted a snack and a quick drink?

Still false to be misrepresentation there must be a concious effort to do so .
there was none.
Besides nowhere in the bible does it say you must be a member.
That's just one of countless arbitrary rules of religion.

As I said, either you were misrepresenting yourself or you didn't know what you were doing. What was false was the implication just because you were able to do it meant that they allowed it. They don't. What is in the bible is irrelevant. To be married in a Catholic church, take communion, give confession, you have to be a Catholic. It's a membership organization. As a membership organization, they can set whatever arbitrary rules they like.

 

[PratchettFan]

Next?

First, you have to answer the question asked. I specifically said I'm not interested in the current legal status quo - which is all you recited. Do you think churches SHOULD be required to follow the same laws as the rest of us? If not, why do they get a pass?

Because they are a private organization based upon membership and protected under the first amendment.

I don't see anything in the first amendment constraining it to private organizations or 'membership'.

I said it was a private organization and protected by the first amendment, not that the two were connected. A private club can exclude anyone they like. It can be men only, women only, whites or blacks only. That is the nature of being private. You have to join. It is not just open to whoever walks in the door. In addition to that, church's are specifically protected under the first amendment. This is why a church is not the same thing as a gas station.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That's where you lose, dblack.

You simply reject the law's explanation. So we simply reject your unwillingness to be educated.

 

[PratchettFan]

It is only a matter of time before the extremist left starts screaming for the state to force churches to perform marriages for same-sex couples.
Hopefully, those moderates on the left will stand up and disagree.

No, it isn't. It's not going to happen.

Guaranteed, it will, if it hasn't already.

And even if some people were silly enough to scream for it, screaming is all that is going to happen.

Irrelevant to my point.

Your point is that some idiot with no authority at all might express an opinion no one will bother listening to? Am I supposed to be concerned about that?

My point is that when it does happen, I hope that the moderate liberals will oppose the idea.
I will not,. however, bet the farm on it.

If it happens, it will be opposed by just about everyone except the idiot who expressed the opinion. There are probably more people who want to hand over our government to the alien overlords they believe actually run everything.

 

[dblack]

Next?

First, you have to answer the question asked. I specifically said I'm not interested in the current legal status quo - which is all you recited. Do you think churches SHOULD be required to follow the same laws as the rest of us? If not, why do they get a pass?

Because they are a private organization based upon membership and protected under the first amendment.

I don't see anything in the first amendment constraining it to private organizations or 'membership'.

I said it was a private organization and protected by the first amendment, not that the two were connected.

Ok, I see what you're saying now. I misread it initially.

A private club can exclude anyone they like. It can be men only, women only, whites or blacks only. That is the nature of being private. You have to join. It is not just open to whoever walks in the door. In addition to that, church's are specifically protected under the first amendment. This is why a church is not the same thing as a gas station.

And that gets the heart of the matter. How should churches, and religious practice in general, be protected by the first amendment? I don't think it should be an excuse for them to ignore laws they don't like, or otherwise get a pass on following the same rules as everyone else. We can argue about whether churches are public or private, or whether they are businesses or not, but it's beside the point I'm trying to make.

I saw the Hobby Lobby decision as wrong on the same grounds. Or any of the other decisions by the Court where the First is used to offer special exemptions or privileges, including tax exemption. And the irony is that those kinds of decisions actually violate the intent of the first amendment by setting government up to decide which religions deserve these perks and which don't.

 

[Silhouette]

Then you acknowledge that your 'genetic minority' claim isn't accurate. As there are numerous non 'genetic minorities' that protected by PA laws. Including all heterosexuals, at least in those states that protect sexual orientation.

I've been wondering how long you were going to take to get the church of LGBT tax-exempt status. Can't claim nation of origin. The other two are gender (can't nail that down with you) and race (LGBT has no specific race either). All that's left is declaring what you factually are, a cult, and then seeing if Uncle Sam will recognize you as a religion....which is how you operate. Dogma, evangelism and very immediate punishment of heretics.

 

[JakeStarkey]

dblack, your libertarianism is a bankrupt system.

The 1st Amendment was created to clearly provided for special treatment of religious believers. Start "The Church of Dblack Sectarianism and Oil Changes" and you, too, can participate.

 

[Skylar]

Then you acknowledge that your 'genetic minority' claim isn't accurate. As there are numerous non 'genetic minorities' that protected by PA laws. Including all heterosexuals, at least in those states that protect sexual orientation.

I've been wondering how long you were going to take to get the church of LGBT tax-exempt status.

Two problems.

One......there is no 'church of LGBT'. You're hallucinating again. Please take your medication.

Two......that's an absolute non-sequitur. Having nothing to do with what you're replying to.

 

[daws101]

It is only a matter of time before the extremist left starts screaming for the state to force churches to perform marriages for same-sex couples.
Hopefully, those moderates on the left will stand up and disagree.

This fails as a straw man fallacy.

Like many other things, you clearly do not understand what a straw man is.
Aside form that you clearly chose to not understand my point. Well done.

 

[daws101]

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?

Serve my cock.

even the tiniest deserve fairyness.

 

[daws101]

No matter what churches claim they are businesses and should be taxed.
Nowhere in the bible does god say thou shall not pay taxes.
It does say rendered unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's.

You cite the Bible when you should be reading the Constitution.

Done both frequently.

Apparently not at the appropriate time.

More subjective faux reasoning

You waste no time going to the white flag. Try thinking more carefully in the first place.

what imaginary white flag would that be?
what and when something is appropriate is completely subjective.
end of story.

 

[daws101]

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

Perhaps, they can establish their own religion. Christianity and homosexuality are incompatible.

This is unsurprisingly ignorant.

The vast majority of gay Americans are Christian, and you're in no position to determine if gay Christians are in compliance with their faith.

You cannot pound a butt and be a Christian. You cannot have sex without marriage in Christianity. Homosexuals cannot marry in Christianity. If you are tolerant, you tolerate Christianity as it is.

Bullshit there have been gay Christians since the religion was invented. Christianity is not tolerant or accepting.
I should say faux Christianity isn't.

"Christianity is not tolerant"
You cannot change the terms of a religion. Once the gays have created their "Christian" gay sect, they can marry in the name of that sect.

again why not you asshats do it constantly. argumentum ad populum does not fly.

 

[Unkotare]

You cite the Bible when you should be reading the Constitution.

Done both frequently.

Apparently not at the appropriate time.

More subjective faux reasoning

You waste no time going to the white flag. Try thinking more carefully in the first place.

what and when something is appropriate is completely subjective.
end of story.

Wrong.

 

[daws101]

Can you read?
I was a Mormon
I gave up religion for reality.

Can I read? Yes. But I can't read minds. If you took communion in a Catholic church then you misrepresented yourself to the priest. They took you at your word. It's not their fault you lied. Of course, if the communion was in a Mormon church then the problem was just that you took part in a ritual you didn't believe in. But the reason you could take part was not that you believed, it was that you were a member of the club.

False it was offered and I took it.

Not false at all. It was offered to Catholics. You have to be a Catholic to receive communion in a Catholic church. If you just get in line, they will assume you are a Catholic. If you inform the priest you aren't a Catholic before he places the wafer on your tongue, he won't do it. Either you were misrepresenting yourself or you just didn't have a clue what you were doing. And I do have to wonder why an Atheist would get in line at all. Wanted a snack and a quick drink?

Still false
Besides nowhere in the bible does it say you must be a member.
That's just one of countless arbitrary rules of religion.

As I said, either you were misrepresenting yourself or you didn't know what you were doing. What was false was the implication just because you were able to do it meant that they allowed it. They don't. What is in the bible is irrelevant. To be married in a Catholic church, take communion, give confession, you have to be a Catholic. It's a membership organization. As a membership organization, they can set whatever arbitrary rules they like.

still false
to be misrepresentation there must be a conscious effort to do so .
there was none.
I knew exactly what I was doing.
Secundum Quid

 

[daws101]

Done both frequently.

Apparently not at the appropriate time.

More subjective faux reasoning

You waste no time going to the white flag. Try thinking more carefully in the first place.

what and when something is appropriate is completely subjective.
end of story.

Wrong.

correct ..your opining is not fact.