Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Syriusly]

Laws granting special exemptions to religious institutions, including tax exemptions, are in direct violation of the First Amendment - they are clearly laws "respecting an establishment of religion".

Did you read the next phrase?

I did. You're proving my point. Do you realize that?

No, perhaps because following the second phrase does nothing to establish a state religion. I have no problem with Muslims and Jews who refuse to cook me a BLT, a Jehovah's Witness refusing a blood transfusion, an atheist omitting the words "under God" when pledging allegiance to the Flag or a Buddhist refusing to serve in the military.
That in no way sanctions one religion; what the First Amendment prohibits.

You're not reading the "second phrase". The First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. It doesn't say that laws can be selectively ignored for religious reasons. If a law is found to unjustly prohibit religious freedom it should be declared unconstitutional and invalidated - for everyone.

"Legislative accommodation", the idea that such laws can be maintained by offering carveouts or exemptions, turns the purpose of the First Amendment inside out. It creates direct and meddlesome state authority over religious belief by putting the state in the position of deciding which beliefs are genuinely religious and which aren't.

It doesn't say that laws can be selectively ignored for religious reasons.

Absolutely! It says laws can't be passed that passed that interfere with religious freedoms.

And I would ask you, whodafuck is the state to decide what personally held beliefs are? The free exercise clause expressly forbids that.

The free exercise of religion is not absolute- and has never been absolute. No matter if your religion calls for the ritual sacrifice of goats in your backyard or not, if local zoning laws forbid the killing and butchering of goats in backyards, you don't get a pass because you are doing it for religious purposes.

The First Amendment says that Congress shall not make any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion.

Public Accommodation laws are not laws to impede the free exercise of religion- no more than zoning laws are. That some people may believe that following the law is a violation of their religion doesn't mean that the law violates the First Amendment.

 

[Syriusly]

A person with no religious values can't possibly understand the 1st Amendment. Y'all think it's about freedom FROM religion.

A person who believes in religion can't possibly understand the 1st Amendment. Y'all think it means that you get to ignore any law you don't like.

 

[Ernie S.]

I didn't expect any more....

 

[Syriusly]

Christian bakeries that refuse to make pro-homosexual marriage cakes are persecuted throughout America. They get sued, they get fined, they get death threats, and they lose their businesses

What Christian bakeries?

I know of exactly one which has been told to follow the law.

Compare that now to the decades of Christians specifically targeting homosexuals to prosecution, passing laws specifically to persecute homosexuals, pushing to pass laws to forbid employment to homosexuals.

That Christians are crying about persecution by being asked to follow the same law that actually protects them for being discriminated against because of their relgion- after decades of calling for homosexuals to be imprisoned- is laughably ironic.

 

[Syriusly]

Real minorities, people the majority really has a bias against, aren't going to ride the "protected classes" gravy train. .

Real minorities have never ridden any gravy train- they just want to be served like anyone.

And they never will be. At least not by "protected classes" nonsense. You don't really get the point I'm making, do you?.

I have yet to see you make a rational point.

 

[Statistikhengst]

OK, I guess gays ARE discriminating against those holding strong religious values....

Yes- gays surely are discriminating by asking a business to sell them a cake......like they sell cakes to everyone else.

If it is against their beliefs to participate in something their religion condemns, yes. It sure as hell is.

Discriminating me for my beliefs is no more just than me discriminating against you for your lack of a belief.

You fucking socialists are going after these people because of their convictions. You could care less about the cake.

LOL.

For the record:
a) I am not 'socialist'- you just display your ignorance by calling me one.
b) I am not going after anyone. I am pointing out that the law applies to everyone- there is no special exemption for Christians because they really don't want to serve someone.
c) If a homosexual refused to sell a cake to a Christian- because the homosexual believed based upon his own values that Christians offended him, the homosexual would be violating the law in exactly the same way.

Spot-on.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

Shut up and make me a ham sandwich!

Well, ok, shabbos bitch.

But if you were smart you would know that kashrut only forbids me from eating the flesh of a swine. Preparing or selling pig is not forbidden.

And now that you just shot yourself in the ass, as usual, go see your proctologist.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Syriusly]

OK, I guess gays ARE discriminating against those holding strong religious values....

Yes- gays surely are discriminating by asking a business to sell them a cake......like they sell cakes to everyone else.

If it is against their beliefs to participate in something their religion condemns, yes. It sure as hell is.

Discriminating me for my beliefs is no more just than me discriminating against you for your lack of a belief.

You fucking socialists are going after these people because of their convictions. You could care less about the cake.

LOL.

For the record:
a) I am not 'socialist'- you just display your ignorance by calling me one.
b) I am not going after anyone. I am pointing out that the law applies to everyone- there is no special exemption for Christians because they really don't want to serve someone.
c) If a homosexual refused to sell a cake to a Christian- because the homosexual believed based upon his own values that Christians offended him, the homosexual would be violating the law in exactly the same way.

Spot-on.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

Shut up and make me a ham sandwich!

If a business sells ham sandwiches- it would be violating the law if it refused to make you a ham sandwich because you are a Christian.

 

[WorldWatcher]

A person with no religious values can't possibly understand the 1st Amendment. Y'all think it's about freedom FROM religion.

Interesting, I don't seem to remember a great call based on "religous values" for religious same-sex marriages (which have been performed for a long time going back to the MC Church in the 1960's) to be equally recognized by the government.

When a different sex couple is married in a Church their marriage is recognized, yet when a same-sex couple was married in a Church their marriage was not recognized.


>>>>

 

[Syriusly]

A person with no religious values can't possibly understand the 1st Amendment. Y'all think it's about freedom FROM religion.

Interesting, I don't seem to remember a great call based on "religous values" for religious same-sex marriages (which have been performed for a long time going back to the MC Church in the 1960's) to be equally recognized by the government.

When a different sex couple is married in a Church their marriage is recognized, yet when a same-sex couple was married in a Church their marriage was not recognized.


>>>>

LOL....I look forward to the response on that.

 

[Seawytch]

Did you read the next phrase?

I did. You're proving my point. Do you realize that?

No, perhaps because following the second phrase does nothing to establish a state religion. I have no problem with Muslims and Jews who refuse to cook me a BLT, a Jehovah's Witness refusing a blood transfusion, an atheist omitting the words "under God" when pledging allegiance to the Flag or a Buddhist refusing to serve in the military.
That in no way sanctions one religion; what the First Amendment prohibits.

You're not reading the "second phrase". The First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. It doesn't say that laws can be selectively ignored for religious reasons. If a law is found to unjustly prohibit religious freedom it should be declared unconstitutional and invalidated - for everyone.

"Legislative accommodation", the idea that such laws can be maintained by offering carveouts or exemptions, turns the purpose of the First Amendment inside out. It creates direct and meddlesome state authority over religious belief by putting the state in the position of deciding which beliefs are genuinely religious and which aren't.

It doesn't say that laws can be selectively ignored for religious reasons.

Absolutely! It says laws can't be passed that passed that interfere with religious freedoms.

And I would ask you, whodafuck is the state to decide what personally held beliefs are? The free exercise clause expressly forbids that.

The free exercise of religion is not absolute- and has never been absolute. No matter if your religion calls for the ritual sacrifice of goats in your backyard or not, if local zoning laws forbid the killing and butchering of goats in backyards, you don't get a pass because you are doing it for religious purposes.

The First Amendment says that Congress shall not make any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion.

Public Accommodation laws are not laws to impede the free exercise of religion- no more than zoning laws are. That some people may believe that following the law is a violation of their religion doesn't mean that the law violates the First Amendment.

And I guarantee you that Ernie will ignore your point.

Apparently only some Christians get to ignore some laws.

 

[Silhouette]

And I guarantee you that Ernie will ignore your point.

Apparently only some Christians get to ignore some laws.

Just not the Christian bakers, photographers, caterers and florists your group has successfully beaten up in court though..

 

[Syriusly]

And I guarantee you that Ernie will ignore your point.

Apparently only some Christians get to ignore some laws.

Just not the Christian bakers, photographers, caterers and florists your group has successfully beaten up in court though..

Again- according to homophobes like you- only 'special' Christians get to ignore the law claiming they get to do so because they are Christians.

But when a gay couple gets married in a church- suddenly their religious beliefs aren't protected by the First Amendment.

 

[Silhouette]

Again- according to homophobes like you- only 'special' Christians get to ignore the law claiming they get to do so because they are Christians.

But when a gay couple gets married in a church- suddenly their religious beliefs aren't protected by the First Amendment.

We differ in that I am of the opinion that minority behaviors do not get to tell the majority that the majority doesn't have a right to regulate behaviors.

Otherwise, you know, in the name of equal application of the law: goodbye to all local penal and civil codes..and, thereby, self-governance.

So, that's how we differ on this, ultimately.

 

[Skylar]

Again- according to homophobes like you- only 'special' Christians get to ignore the law claiming they get to do so because they are Christians.

But when a gay couple gets married in a church- suddenly their religious beliefs aren't protected by the First Amendment.

We differ in that I am of the opinion that minority behaviors do not get to tell the majority that the majority doesn't have a right to regulate behaviors.

The obvious problem with that reasoning being the rights of the individual. Which you predictably ignore....but only if the individual is gay.

 

[dblack]

Again- according to homophobes like you- only 'special' Christians get to ignore the law claiming they get to do so because they are Christians.

But when a gay couple gets married in a church- suddenly their religious beliefs aren't protected by the First Amendment.

We differ in that I am of the opinion that minority behaviors do not get to tell the majority that the majority doesn't have a right to regulate behaviors.

Then you don't understand the role of constitutional limits on democratic power. The entire point of such limits is to protect individuals, and minorities, from majority "regulation".

 

[Silhouette]

Again- according to homophobes like you- only 'special' Christians get to ignore the law claiming they get to do so because they are Christians.

But when a gay couple gets married in a church- suddenly their religious beliefs aren't protected by the First Amendment.

We differ in that I am of the opinion that minority behaviors do not get to tell the majority that the majority doesn't have a right to regulate behaviors....Otherwise, you know, in the name of equal application of the law: goodbye to all local penal and civil codes..and, thereby, self-governance....So, that's how we differ on this, ultimately.

The obvious problem with that reasoning being the rights of the individual. Which you predictably ignore....but only if the individual is gay.

Not necessarily. We could be talking about Bulimic Americans wanting the right to all aspects of their eating-orientation at restaurant tables. We could be talking about Addicted Americans wanting the right to needle dispensers on every street corner. We could be talking about Pedophile Americans demanding that porn from countries that decriminalized child prostitution be readily accessible to them instead of them having to duck the law and hide in the closet with their orientation.

Europe seems to always be struggling with this incremental legal progression once they kick a barn door open without thinking about it.

And this is the problem with the equal-application of the spirit of law to other cases in the future.. Or, as was the case with the father adopting a son and then getting a divorce from that son so he could marry him, we would have him arguing his rights to "love" his son in marriage were being suppressed "by the tyranny of the majority". Where does it end when we're talking about minority objectionable behaviors?

Father To Marry Son In Bucks County PA -- With Court s Blessing US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Syriusly]

Again- according to homophobes like you- only 'special' Christians get to ignore the law claiming they get to do so because they are Christians.

But when a gay couple gets married in a church- suddenly their religious beliefs aren't protected by the First Amendment.

We differ in that I am of the opinion that minority behaviors do not get to tell the majority that the majority doesn't have a right to regulate behaviors....Otherwise, you know, in the name of equal application of the law: goodbye to all local penal and civil codes..and, thereby, self-governance....So, that's how we differ on this, ultimately.

The obvious problem with that reasoning being the rights of the individual. Which you predictably ignore....but only if the individual is gay.

Not necessarily. We could be talking about Bulimic Americans

But you only talk about gay Americans- and only attack Gay Americans.

For being Gay.

Because that is what you do.

 

[Skylar]

We differ in that I am of the opinion that minority behaviors do not get to tell the majority that the majority doesn't have a right to regulate behaviors....Otherwise, you know, in the name of equal application of the law: goodbye to all local penal and civil codes..and, thereby, self-governance....So, that's how we differ on this, ultimately.

The part of the equation that you keep missing is rights. You always, always omit individual rights from your conception of American law. The majority does get to regulate behavior......within the bounds of individual rights. And marriage is fundamental right.

You can't get around that. No matter how hard you pretend that individual rights don't exist.

Not necessarily. We could be talking about Bulimic Americans wanting the right to all aspects of their eating-orientation at restaurant tables. We could be talking about Addicted Americans wanting the right to needle dispensers on every street corner. We could be talking about Pedophile Americans demanding that porn from countries that decriminalized child prostitution be readily accessible to them instead of them having to duck the law and hide in the closet with their orientation.

Save of course that Homosexuality is neither bulimia nor pedophilia. Nor are gays and lesbians wolves. Nor have they infiltrated Gallup to compel the polling agency to lie. Nor is there the slightest evidence that the USSC is being 'blackmailed' by homosexuals.

Are there any other hair brained pieces of batshit you'd like to toss our way?

 

[Skylar]

Again- according to homophobes like you- only 'special' Christians get to ignore the law claiming they get to do so because they are Christians.

But when a gay couple gets married in a church- suddenly their religious beliefs aren't protected by the First Amendment.

We differ in that I am of the opinion that minority behaviors do not get to tell the majority that the majority doesn't have a right to regulate behaviors....Otherwise, you know, in the name of equal application of the law: goodbye to all local penal and civil codes..and, thereby, self-governance....So, that's how we differ on this, ultimately.

The obvious problem with that reasoning being the rights of the individual. Which you predictably ignore....but only if the individual is gay.

Not necessarily. We could be talking about Bulimic Americans

But you only talk about gay Americans- and only attack Gay Americans.

For being Gay.

Because that is what you do.

Sil also accuses the Supreme Court of treason and makes up insane conspiracy theories.

Give him his due. He's a multi-format purveyor of batshit.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Sorry about the loss nutters!