Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The Sound Of Silence: Fundamentalist DJ Company In Md. Refuses To Work Gay Man’s Birthday Party

Yes... Imagine if EVERY DJ were to deny homosexuals the RIGHT TO BUGGER DOWN!... The next thing you'd know, there'd be no homosexuals throwing birthday parties and what a sad little world that would be.

 

[Skylar]

There's no 'well establish religious principle' to deny cake to gays. That's quite new.

There's no one denying cakes to sexual deviants.

There is only people refusing to provide cakes which are to be used in celebrations codifying perversion.

There's nothing perverse about marriage. And denying cakes to gays is quite new. Nixing your entire 'well established religious principle' gibberish.

And that's a long established scriptural no, no. But for obvious reasons.

Where on participates in the celebration of evil, one joins with evil and that's death... .

FYI: "DEATH" is BAD! Therefore... 'evil' is BAD!

Now, to help you through this, I want you to recall your lessons with regard to Fire... remember that FIRE is "HOT!" and that because fire is HOT, you were taught that you needed to be VERY CAREFUL with FIRE!

"Death", "Evil" and "BAD!" is very similar, only "HOTTER!"

Do you understand?

I understand that you're using your subjective interpretation of god as the basis of your claims. And that your subjective interpretation is based on subjective religious faith. But void of logic, reason, or objective evidence.

Making your claims more subjective opinion, my little relativist.

And we're not denying anyone the right to marry based on your personal opinion.

 

[LOki]

This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.

Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?

No.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

There's no 'well establish religious principle' to deny cake to gays. That's quite new.

There's no one denying cakes to sexual deviants.

There is only people refusing to provide cakes which are to be used in celebrations codifying perversion.

And that's a long established scriptural no, no. But for obvious reasons.

Where on participates in the celebration of evil, one joins with evil and that's death... .

FYI: "DEATH" is BAD! Therefore... 'evil' is BAD!

Now, to help you through this, I want you to recall your lessons with regard to Fire... remember that FIRE is "HOT!" and that because fire is HOT, you were taught that you needed to be VERY CAREFUL with FIRE!

"Death", "Evil" and "BAD!" is very similar, only "HOTTER!"

Do you understand?

 

[Skylar]

This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.

Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?

No.

Which is the general consensus, even among supporters of gay marriage. And no church is required to.

There is some debate about non-denominational for profit 'chapels' that are just regular corporations. Where you are being married by a guy who is dressed as Elvis for example. But not actual churches.

 

[LOki]

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.

So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?

Yes.

How about against racial minorities as well?

Yes.

 

[LOki]

This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.

Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?

No.

Which is the general consensus, even among supporters of gay marriage. And no church is required to.

There is some debate about non-denominational for profit 'chapels' that are just regular corporations. Where you are being married by a guy who is dressed as Elvis for example. But not actual churches.

Freedom of association.

 

[Skylar]

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.

So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?

Yes.

How about against racial minorities as well?

Yes.

Yup. Pretty much anyone. Religion is inherently discriminatory. Its the nature of the beast.

 

[Skylar]

This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.

Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?

No.

Which is the general consensus, even among supporters of gay marriage. And no church is required to.

There is some debate about non-denominational for profit 'chapels' that are just regular corporations. Where you are being married by a guy who is dressed as Elvis for example. But not actual churches.

Freedom of association.

The 'freedom of association' argument was already tried with racial segregation. It didn't hold up in regards to business. As regulating intrastate commerce is most definitely within the authority of the state.

Churches aren't businesses. Nixing any PA laws.

For profit 'chapels' maybe. But I'd give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Skylar]

Where you are being married by a guy who is dressed as Elvis for example. But not actual churches.

Why should ANYONE who does not accept sexual deviancy, be forced to accommodate sexual deviancy?

Some have argued that for profit chapels which are not religious corporations.....but regular ones....would be subject to PA laws. I wouldn't be one of those arguing this.

I don't think any church or chapel should be forced to perform any wedding they don't want to. And our law agrees.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The 'freedom of association' argument was already tried with racial segregation.

Yet... Race is a function of genetics, while sexuality is a function of BEHAVIOR!

Thus the two issues are not even comparable, let alone equitable, as your argument requires must be the case.

 

[Skylar]

The 'freedom of association' argument was already tried with racial segregation.

Yet... Race is a function of genetics, while sexuality is a function of BEHAVIOR!

Irrelevant. Religion is a behavior too. And denying service because of religion is also forbidden by most PA laws. Including every state where discrimination against gays is prohibited.

The distinction you're drawing is irrelevant to the discussion.

Thus the two issues are not even comparable, let alone equitable, as your argument requires must be the case.

And yet between Romer v. Evans and Windsor v. US, the court cited 4 different cases involving racial discrimination when describing why discrimination against gays was constitutionally invalid.

I'm gonna go with the USSC on this one. As does legal precedent.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Where you are being married by a guy who is dressed as Elvis for example. But not actual churches.

Why should ANYONE who does not accept sexual deviancy, be forced to accommodate sexual deviancy?

Some have argued that for profit chapels which are not religious corporations.....but regular ones....would be subject to PA laws. I wouldn't be one of those arguing this.

I don't think any church or chapel should be forced to perform any wedding they don't want to. And our law agrees.

Well, that says more about the danger of allowing subjective cults get anywhere NEAR interpreting LAW.

Subjective Law, is invalid law.

PA Laws are not designed to protect deviant BEHAVIOR. Because deviant behavior is unacceptable, unsustainable, counter productive, irrational: BEHAVIOR, thus viable cultures discourage such, decidedly NOT encouraging such.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The 'freedom of association' argument was already tried with racial segregation.

Yet... Race is a function of genetics, while sexuality is a function of BEHAVIOR!

Irrelevant.

ROFLMNAO!

Ladies and Gentlemen of the USMB ... I present you:

D E L U S I O N: . . . P E R S O N I F I E D ! ! ! ​

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Where you are being married by a guy who is dressed as Elvis for example. But not actual churches.

Why should ANYONE who does not accept sexual deviancy, be forced to accommodate sexual deviancy?

If Preacher Elvis doesn't want to participate in your celebration of deviancy, who the fuck are you to demand that they must?

 

[Skylar]

Where you are being married by a guy who is dressed as Elvis for example. But not actual churches.

Why should ANYONE who does not accept sexual deviancy, be forced to accommodate sexual deviancy?

Some have argued that for profit chapels which are not religious corporations.....but regular ones....would be subject to PA laws. I wouldn't be one of those arguing this.

I don't think any church or chapel should be forced to perform any wedding they don't want to. And our law agrees.

Well, that says more about the danger of allowing subjective cults get anywhere NEAR interpreting LAW.

Given that all religion is spectacularly subjective and interpretative, its probably a good idea to keep it away from our law as well.

Subjective Law, is invalid law.

Given that your idea of god is subjective, backed by subjective belief and the basis of 'god's law' per you, wouldn't that mean that your version of 'god's law' was invalid?

Following your own logic, of course.

 

[dblack]

The Sound Of Silence: Fundamentalist DJ Company In Md. Refuses To Work Gay Man’s Birthday Party The Sound Of Silence Fundamentalist DJ Company In Md. Refuses To Work Gay Man s Birthday Party Americans United

Here is an excellent illustration of why we cannot allow individuals who are providing a service in a public accommodation to decide who they are going to provide that service to on the basis of their religion...

Why can't we? I didn't see the "whys" in your post.

 

[Skylar]

The 'freedom of association' argument was already tried with racial segregation.

Yet... Race is a function of genetics, while sexuality is a function of BEHAVIOR!

Irrelevant.

ROFLMNAO!

Ladies and Gentlemen of the USMB ... I present you:

D E L U S I O N: . . . P E R S O N I F I E D ! ! ! ​

Odd, you completely ignored all mention of religion as a behavior. And it being protected as well.

Irrelevant. Religion is a behavior too. And denying service because of religion is also forbidden by most PA laws. Including every state where discrimination against gays is prohibited.

The distinction you're drawing is irrelevant to the discussion.

You always show us where you know your argument is weakest by what you omit, ignore, and refuse to discuss. And you just put a big neon arrow on the bolded portions above by running from it.

If your argument had merit, you wouldn't have to run.

 

[Skylar]

Where you are being married by a guy who is dressed as Elvis for example. But not actual churches.

Why should ANYONE who does not accept sexual deviancy, be forced to accommodate sexual deviancy?

If Preacher Elvis doesn't want to participate in your celebration of deviancy, who the fuck are you to demand that they must?

Asked and answered:

Some have argued that for profit chapels which are not religious corporations.....but regular ones....would be subject to PA laws. I wouldn't be one of those arguing this.

I don't think any church or chapel should be forced to perform any wedding they don't want to. And our law agrees.

Just because you close your eyes and pretend the reply never happened doesn't mean that reality magically changes to match, my little relativist.

 

[LOki]

This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.

Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?

No.

Which is the general consensus, even among supporters of gay marriage. And no church is required to.

There is some debate about non-denominational for profit 'chapels' that are just regular corporations. Where you are being married by a guy who is dressed as Elvis for example. But not actual churches.

Freedom of association.

The 'freedom of association' argument was already tried with racial segregation. It didn't hold up in regards to business.

Changes nothing, as this is an "ought" question, not an "is" question.

As regulating intrastate commerce is most definitely within the authority of the state.

Authority constrained by rights.

Churches aren't businesses. Nixing any PA laws.

Churches are certainly businesses...they ought to be treated as such.

For profit 'chapels' maybe. But I'd give them the benefit of the doubt.

"I'd pay them more to walk on water, than to wear a crown of thorns."