Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[dblack]

Would the mod who merged my thread with this one please unmerge it. I'd like to discuss the original topic, and this thread has developed into something else. I started the new thread to avoid interfering with the discussion here.

 

[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.

Your claim was that "non-genetic minorities" (LGBT..etc. behaviors) are deserving to be protected by PA laws. My response was that the only way a behavior can be a protected class is if it's a recognized religion. It was spot on point.

No, its not. As there's no such requirement. Like most of your pseudo-legal gibberish, you've made up the requirement. None actually exists.

Next fallacy, please.

So the next question that begged was "when will the cult of LGBT be applying for tax-exempt status; given that they have a dogma, they evangelize to the young, and they swiftly punish heretics"?

First, there is no 'church of LGBT'. You've hallucinated it.

Second....your comments have nothing to do with what is being discussed. As one need not be a 'genetic minority' or in possession of an 'innate trait' in order to be protected. Disproving your entire thesis.

 

[Skylar]

I submit this thread is a duplicate of the other one exactly like it, only with a poll worded so it makes it look like one is assenting to "Christians are breaking the law if they refuse to accomodate gay weddings". That law has not been decided yet and in 35 some states, a Christian refusing to accomodate a gay wedding IS legal...since gay marriage is not. Check back with me on that one in a couple weeks here..

I submit that in 37 of 50 States, the gay marriage is legal. And the legality of gay marriage is irrelevant to a church being forced to perform one, as no church is nor has ever been forced to perform a marriage ceremony against their will.

 

[Skylar]

SILHOUETTE SAID:

"I submit this thread is a duplicate of the other one exactly like it, only with a poll worded so it makes it look like one is assenting to "Christians are breaking the law if they refuse to accomodate gay weddings". That law has not been decided yet and in 35 some states, a Christian refusing to accomodate a gay wedding IS legal...since gay marriage is not. Check back with me on that one in a couple weeks here.".

Wrong.

If a business owner in a state or jurisdiction subject to a public accommodations law that has a provision prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation indeed discriminates against a gay patron, that business owner can be subject to a civil suit to enjoin him from engaging in such discrimination, whether or not the business owner's state is in compliance with the 14th Amendment allowing same-sex couples to marry.

1. Race: a static state of being. 2. Gender: a static state of being. 3. Country/ethnicity of origin: a static state of being 4. Religion: a post-natal belief system: not a static state of being.

LGBT: not a static state of being. So, either you are saying LGBT is religion-like (a cult) and I would agree.

The premise of your argument is that LGBT must be 'race' or 'gender' or 'country of origin' or 'religion' in order to be protected. There is no such requirement. Your entire argument based on the fallacy that these 4 classes of people are listed in the 14th amendment. And you're quite simply wrong:

Or you are saying that a brand new category of "some minor deviant sex behaviors that change back and forth and are fluid with time" to the 14th Amendment.

The 14th amendment does not include the word 'race'. The 14th amendment does not include the word 'gender'. The 14th amendment does not include the words 'country of origin'. The 14th amendment does not include the word 'religion'.

You've quite literally hallucinated the entire thing, inventing your own 14th amendment. Not only disproving your entire argument that LGBT must be one of your 4 arbitrary 'categories'. But also disproving the idea that you have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

You're literally arguing your own hallucinations.

Back in reality, a trait need not be innate or genetic in order to be protected. Nor must a trait fall within the 4 arbitrary categories of your hallucinations about the 14th amendment. As Romer v. Evans and Lawerence v. Texas demonstrate elegantly.

 

[Silhouette]

The premise of your argument is that LGBT must be 'race' or 'gender' or 'country of origin' or 'religion' in order to be protected. There is no such requirement. Your entire argument based on the fallacy that these 4 classes of people are listed in the 14th amendment. And you're quite simply wrong.

Are you saying that a group can just make up a classification, like "bulimic-Americans for vomit urns at restaurants" and they can use the 14th any way they like to get themselves special legal protections and shoehorns?

Innateness, as dcraelin said, is a qualifier for the 14th. The only exception to that is freedom of religion. Got your tax exempt status yet? Youv'e nailed down your dogma, evangelizing to kids and swift punishment for heretics. Got those in the bag.

 

[Silhouette]

Would the mod who merged my thread with this one please unmerge it. I'd like to discuss the original topic, and this thread has developed into something else. I started the new thread to avoid interfering with the discussion here.

Or you started your exact same thread topic to pull readers away from the poll results in this thread.

Just start a new thread with your "brand new theme of discussion" title on it and don't make your poll look nearly identical to this one.

 

[mdk]

It looks like another week has passed and not a single church in this nation has been forced to marry any couple against their wishes. How many weeks in a row has it been now? lol.

Incoming legal gibberish on how individual members of a congregations are churches themselves in 3...2...1...

 

[Ernie S.]

Getting back to the topic of the thread - if other "public accommodations" are going to be forced to service gay weddings, churches should follow the same laws as the rest of us.

Churches do follow the same laws as the lowest common denominators.

What evidence do you have that such is not the case?

If bakers, and other service providers are to be legally required to serve gays, there's no reason churches should be excluded.

Bakers are not protected by a Constitutional amendment. We could argue whether or not individuals engaged in baking cakes should be allowed to opt out based on the first amendment, but churches are very clearly protected.

 

[mdk]

Would the mod who merged my thread with this one please unmerge it. I'd like to discuss the original topic, and this thread has developed into something else. I started the new thread to avoid interfering with the discussion here.

Or you started your exact same thread topic to pull readers away from the poll results in this thread.

Just start a new thread with your "brand new theme of discussion" title on it and don't make your poll look nearly identical to this one.

And the results state that churches should not be forced to marry gay couples against their wishes. Many of the people that support gay marriage have also voted that they shouldn't be forced to marry gays. I was one of them. Of course, you take the results of this poll and lie about how those people actually don't support gays getting married at all. All you have Sil is misrepresentations, outright lies, and, your hysterical imagination. Is it any wonder you and you ilk have such a shitty track record in the courthouse?

 

[Silhouette]

It looks like another week has passed and not a single church in this nation has been forced to marry any couple against their wishes. How many weeks in a row has been now? lol.

Incoming legal gibberish on how individual members of a congregations are churches themselves in 3...2...1...

That depends on how you define the word "church". Individual Christians have been forced to participate in "gay weddings" under threat of litigation and fines. How is a church different from its individual members, specifically. And saying anything about "tax exempt" doesn't address the philosophical question I just asked. Defined EXACTLY how a "church" is protected but what makes up a church isn't?

 

[mdk]

It looks like another week has passed and not a single church in this nation has been forced to marry any couple against their wishes. How many weeks in a row has been now? lol.

Incoming legal gibberish on how individual members of a congregations are churches themselves in 3...2...1...

That depends on how you define the word "church". Individual Christians have been forced to participate in "gay weddings" under threat of litigation and fines. How is a church different from its individual members, specifically. And saying anything about "tax exempt" doesn't address the philosophical question I just asked. Defined EXACTLY how a "church" is protected but what makes up a church isn't?

As I predicted you show up with legal gibberish on how individual members of a congregations are churches themselves. They are not. I am going with how the law defines a church and not what your imagination believes is a church.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

As I predicted you show up with legal gibberish on how individual members of a congregations are churches themselves. They are not. I am going with how the law defines a church and not what your imagination believes is a church.

ROFLMNAO!

In 1995, not a single homosexual had demanded to be accepted for marriage, while applying for marriage with a person of their own gender.

So, using your reasoning, there's no reason for homosexuals to be demanding such. Despite their chronic demand for such... even as we speak.

What's more, using your reasoning, there was no reason for people in 1995, to see "Don't Ask Don't Tell" as a Slippery Slope, setting up the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality, tearing down essential cultural standards, which guard societal viability. Yet, Don't Ask, Don't Tell did in fact lead the culture down the slippery slope to the irrational precipice, where men claim 'the right' to interject themselves into an institution essential to civilization, despite their being wholly unsuited for such.

Again Reader, another member of the Homo-Cult to foment irrational notions, defying reality in their on-going battle with D E L U S I O N . . .

 

[mdk]

As I predicted you show up with legal gibberish on how individual members of a congregations are churches themselves. They are not. I am going with how the law defines a church and not what your imagination believes is a church.

ROFLMNAO!

In 1995, not a single homosexual had demanded to be accepted for marriage, while applying for marriage with a person of their own gender.

So, using your reasoning, there's no reason for homosexuals to be demanding such. Despite their chronic demand for such... even as we speak.

What's more, using your reasoning, there was no reason for people in 1995, seeing "Don't Ask Don't Tell" as a Slippery Slope, setting up the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality, tearing down essential cultural standards, which guard societal viability.

Again Reader, another member of the Homo-Cult to foment irrational notions, defying reality in their on-going battle with D E L U S I O N . . .

You calling anyone delusional is as rich as Croesus. You insist that your opinion on every matter is fact when in reality it is nothing more then your subjective opinion. You gas on endlessly about relativism while simultaneously being the biggest relativist on this site. Pretend all you wish but not a single church has been forced to marry any couple against their wishes. Not one! Stomping your feet harder isn't going to change the fact that gays are getting married and their isn't a single fucking thing you can do about it. Cue your tell in 3...2...1...

 

[Silhouette]

It is real that actual Christians have been "legally" forced to participate enabling "gay weddings". I'll ask again, specifically how are individual Christians different from a congregation of them?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

It is real that actual Christians have been "legally" forced to participate enabling "gay weddings". I'll ask again, specifically how are individual Christians different from a congregation of them?

You're asking those incapable of objective thought to find truth, which can only be accessed through objective reason.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

... the fact that gays are getting married and their isn't a single fucking thing you can do about it.

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

 

[mdk]

... the fact that gays are getting married and their isn't a single fucking thing you can do about it.

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Gays are presently getting married in 37 states despite all your hand wringing and crying. Likely all 50 by the month's end. You can pretend all you wish that they can't but nobody really gives a shit b/c your imagination has zero effect on reality or law.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Again Reader, the key to defeating Leftists in debate, rests upon two fundamentals:

1- Find a Leftist.

2- Get them to speak.

 

[WorldWatcher]

... the fact that gays are getting married and their isn't a single fucking thing you can do about it.

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Which is true in all 50 states. In addition it is the joining of one man/one man, and one woman/one woman in 37 of those 50.


>>>>

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

... the fact that gays are getting married and their isn't a single fucking thing you can do about it.

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Gays are presently getting married in 37 states ...

Marriage, is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.