Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Nature s Homosexuality - Softpedia

Homosexuality, as natural as heterosexual sex

HEY! Syphilis and the HIV... as natural as homosexuals who are Sexual MAGNETS FOR BOTH!

 

[mdk]

Sil, your question was already answered. You didn't like the answer so your ignored it entirely. Your idea of what constitutes a church isn't supported by a law in this country. Individual members of a church are not churches themselves. Not by any legal definition or standard. You only what that to be the standard so you can lie about how churches are being forced to marry gay couples. They are not.

What is a church then mdk? Define it for me.

The law already defines what is a church ...

OH! That's great. Please cite the legal definition of the Church.

Did your Google break? Go look it up yourself. I am not going to play fetch for a deluded clown like you. People are not churches in this country. Get over it. Or don't.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Sil, your question was already answered. You didn't like the answer so your ignored it entirely. Your idea of what constitutes a church isn't supported by a law in this country. Individual members of a church are not churches themselves. Not by any legal definition or standard. You only what that to be the standard so you can lie about how churches are being forced to marry gay couples. They are not.

What is a church then mdk? Define it for me.

The law already defines what is a church ...

OH! That's great. Please cite the legal definition of the Church.

Did your Google break?

Meaning... that despite declaring that "The Church" was designed by Law... that when you said that, you did not actually have anything in mind, which could at this point be used to demonstrate that you were not LYING OUT YOUR ASS... in an attempt to DECEIVE THE READERS OF THIS BOARD... .

I understand and I feel for ya.

Because it looks like that really SUCKS for ya.

 

[Silhouette]

Sil, your question was already answered. You didn't like the answer so your ignored it entirely. Your idea of what constitutes a church isn't supported by a law in this country. Individual members of a church are not churches themselves. Not by any legal definition or standard. You only what that to be the standard so you can lie about how churches are being forced to marry gay couples. They are not.

What is a church then mdk? Define it for me.

The law already defines what is a church ...

Please cite the legal definition of the Church.

Yes, I for one am done with you making a claim and not supporting it with evidence. Define the word "church" legally. Now.

Or shall I do it for you? Church: A congregation of individual worshippers.

 

[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.

Marriage, as defined and used by religion, is the giving to a man a woman from another family to cement a relationship bond. Had nothing to do with love, and even in the Bible with Adam and Eve was not about mutual desire or love but the woman being given to the man as a kind of servant or gift.

Marriage as an expression of love did not come from religion.

Yet, nature designed human physiology providing two distinct but complementing genders, each respectively designed to join with the other... wherein two bodies form one sustainable entity.

And this without regard to who did what and when... or what culture embraced what deviancy in its decay into its final days.

Now, you'll notice that there is not one note of religiosity in those medical facts.

That is science... wherein innees are scientifically established to be conducive to joining with outees... which encourages conception, which leaves the female with the burden of gestation, her physical circumstances severely compromised, except where she is sustained by another... which nature's design calls to be the one who's seed is reproducing inside her, forming a new human being, who will be nurtured and trained through their union of complementing traits... .

These are the self-evident truths of humanity.

Now, let's revisit your own interpretation that such reflects religious principle.

You see these scientific facts as religious principle, because they are truth. And from your perspective truth, is the enemy.

Which means that you're animated by deceit. Which is a function of decadence.

And toward the demonstration of the nature of deceit and the inevitable decay that comes from it, you who otherwise raise SCIENCE! up to something akin to sanctity... now find yourselves DENYING otherwise undeniable scientific fact and the rich history of humanity that was provided by and through the reality which establishes those facts.

Thus Truth is your enemy, Reality is your enemy... Religion, is your enemy.

.

.

.

You are, therefore: E V I L . . .

 

[mdk]

Sil, your question was already answered. You didn't like the answer so your ignored it entirely. Your idea of what constitutes a church isn't supported by a law in this country. Individual members of a church are not churches themselves. Not by any legal definition or standard. You only what that to be the standard so you can lie about how churches are being forced to marry gay couples. They are not.

What is a church then mdk? Define it for me.

The law already defines what is a church ...

Please cite the legal definition of the Church.

Yes, I for one am done with you making a claim and not supporting it with evidence. Define the word "church" legally. Now.

Go look it up yourself. Now.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Go look it up yourself. Now.

But wait... you said that 'the Church' was defined by law. And when you're asked to show what that definition is, ya can't inform the Readers of what it was YOU HAD IN MIND WHEN YOU ADVISED THEM THAT THE LAW DEFINES THE CHURCH.

But hey... all that means is that you WERE SURE YOU KNEW SOMETHING, which in TRUTH: YOU DID NOT KNOW.

Which is to say that despite, having NOTHING IN MIND WHICH COULD HAVE INFORMED YOU THAT WHAT YOU WERE SAYING WAS TRUE... YOU ADVISED THE READER THAT SUCH WAS TRUE.

Thus... you LIED.

You knowingly advanced DECEIT AS TRUTH and despite having demonstrated that you have no knowledge that would sustain such, you maintain that such is true.

Now... Reader, what does that mean?

It means that MDK, is mired in an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder... OKA: D E L U S I O N . . .

 

[Seawytch]

Sil, your question was already answered. You didn't like the answer so your ignored it entirely. Your idea of what constitutes a church isn't supported by a law in this country. Individual members of a church are not churches themselves. Not by any legal definition or standard. You only what that to be the standard so you can lie about how churches are being forced to marry gay couples. They are not.

What is a church then mdk? Define it for me.

The law already defines what is a church ...

Please cite the legal definition of the Church.

Yes, I for one am done with you making a claim and not supporting it with evidence. Define the word "church" legally. Now.

Go look it up yourself. Now.

It's already been posted here.

What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Sil, your question was already answered. You didn't like the answer so your ignored it entirely. Your idea of what constitutes a church isn't supported by a law in this country. Individual members of a church are not churches themselves. Not by any legal definition or standard. You only what that to be the standard so you can lie about how churches are being forced to marry gay couples. They are not.

What is a church then mdk? Define it for me.

The law already defines what is a church ...

Please cite the legal definition of the Church.

Yes, I for one am done with you making a claim and not supporting it with evidence. Define the word "church" legally. Now.

Go look it up yourself. Now.

It's already been posted here.

What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com

Not the point Gladys...

To help ya through this, THE POINT is that IT DID NOT KNOW... and it DEMONSTRATED THAT IT DID NOT KNOW.

And what's more, THERE IS NOTHING IN THAT DEFINITION WHICH DEFINES THE CHURCH AS "A BUILDING!".

Because, "The Church" is the body of individuals who CONGREGATE in fellowship with one another, in devotion and worship of: The Father; which is to say: GOD.

By forcing A CONGREGANT one forces THE CONGREGATION, OKA: THE CHURCH.

Now let's run down the information from your reference:

"Common definitions of the word "church" refer to the religious entity or organization, not just the building itself.

To define churches and other religious entities, some of the IRS guidelines consider whether or not an institution has:

• a distinct legal existence and religious history,
• a recognized creed and form of worship,
• established places of worship
• a regular congregation and regular religious services, and
• an organization of ordained ministers"

No where does the Federal Law define 'The Church' as "A building".

Anyone else want to argue that?

 

[mdk]

Sil, your question was already answered. You didn't like the answer so your ignored it entirely. Your idea of what constitutes a church isn't supported by a law in this country. Individual members of a church are not churches themselves. Not by any legal definition or standard. You only what that to be the standard so you can lie about how churches are being forced to marry gay couples. They are not.

What is a church then mdk? Define it for me.

The law already defines what is a church ...

Please cite the legal definition of the Church.

Yes, I for one am done with you making a claim and not supporting it with evidence. Define the word "church" legally. Now.

Go look it up yourself. Now.

It's already been posted here.

What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com

I know it has and they know it has but since it doesn't fit thier narrative they ignore it and insist it doesn't exist. They are trying terribly hard to convince others that churches are being forced to marry gays. The only people they're fooling is themselves.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I know it had and they know it has but since it doesn't fit your narrative they ignore it and insists it doesn't exist.

ROFLMNAO!

No one was contesting that The Law defined what a church was...

Not a single individual ...

What we DID contest is that YOU HAD SOME KNOWLEDGE OF THAT DEFINITION... and that the definition in ANY WAY served to sustain your position... which you've clearly demonstrated ya did NOT have any knowledge of the legal definition and that legal definition in NO WAY favored your now thoroughly discredited argument.

See how that works?

 

[mdk]

I know it had and they know it has but since it doesn't fit your narrative they ignore it and insists it doesn't exist.

ROFLMNAO!

No one was contesting that The Law defined what a church was...

Not a single individual ...

What we DID contest is that YOU HAD SOME KNOWLEDGE OF THAT DEFINITION... and that the definition in ANY WAY served to sustain your position... which you've clearly demonstrated ya did NOT have any knowledge of the legal definition and that legal definition in NO WAY favored your now thoroughly discredited argument.

See how that works?

What a crock of shit! My argument still stands and the legal definition doesn't support your poppycock of individual members of church are in fact churches. Something we already knew but were hoping no one else did. Poor delusional Keys.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I know it had and they know it has but since it doesn't fit your narrative they ignore it and insists it doesn't exist.

ROFLMNAO!

No one was contesting that The Law defined what a church was...

Not a single individual ...

What we DID contest is that YOU HAD SOME KNOWLEDGE OF THAT DEFINITION... and that the definition in ANY WAY served to sustain your position... which you've clearly demonstrated ya did NOT have any knowledge of the legal definition and that legal definition in NO WAY favored your now thoroughly discredited argument.

See how that works?

What a crock of shit! My argument still stands and the legal definition doesn't support your poppycock of individual members of church are in fact churches. Something we already knew but were no one else did. Poor delusional Keys.

Your argument is delusional.

You can't force something upon a congregant and claim that you're not forcing it upon the congregation.

 

[mdk]

I know it had and they know it has but since it doesn't fit your narrative they ignore it and insists it doesn't exist.

ROFLMNAO!

No one was contesting that The Law defined what a church was...

Not a single individual ...

What we DID contest is that YOU HAD SOME KNOWLEDGE OF THAT DEFINITION... and that the definition in ANY WAY served to sustain your position... which you've clearly demonstrated ya did NOT have any knowledge of the legal definition and that legal definition in NO WAY favored your now thoroughly discredited argument.

See how that works?

What a crock of shit! My argument still stands and the legal definition doesn't support your poppycock of individual members of church are in fact churches. Something we already knew but were no one else did. Poor delusional Keys.

Your argument is delusional.

You can't force something upon a congregant and claim that you're not forcing it upon the congregation.

What am I forcing on a congregant again?

 

[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.

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.

But I'm actually interested in the nominal topic of this thread, and most of you all have moved on to something else. When I brought up the original question I was told, in so many words, that it was a dead horse in this thread. So I thought it might be more considerate to reboot the discussion in another. I don't quite get why that was wrong or a problem.

 

[dblack]

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.

How so? Are public accommodations laws "regarding the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"? Because that's all the First Amendment has to say about religious protection. Ironically, public accommodations laws to violate the First Amendment, but not in the way that you seem to think. They violate it by offering special protections for religions - which is pretty clearly "law regarding the establishment of religion".

The intent of the religious rights guaranteed by the Constitution is to keep government out of telling people which religions they can and can't practice, not to give members of officially recognized religions special privileges.

 

[Skylar]

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?

I'm saying exactly what I've said. That the 14th amendment doens't contain the words 'gender', 'race', 'country of origin', or 'religion'. That you hallucinated it all, making up your own 14th amendment. And that your hallucinations don't mandate that gays be a 'gender', 'race', 'country of origin', or 'religion' in order to be protected.

Your entire argument is pseudo-legal gibberish backed by delusion. Both of which are irrelevant to the outcome of any court case.

 

[Skylar]

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?

An individual Christian isn't a church.

You can tell by the lack of tax exempt status.

 

[dblack]

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?

An individual Christian isn't a church.

You can tell by the lack of tax exempt status.

Is that how government declares which religions are 'real'?

 

[Skylar]

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?

An individual Christian isn't a church.

You can tell by the lack of tax exempt status.

Is that how government declares which religions are 'real'?

I'm not having this debate with you. As its all merely a long, tedious round about way back to your libertarian argument. Which we've already had.

You've got your own thread for this. Don't shit on this one.