Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Skylar]

Sorry about the loss nutters!

And shocker......they cited Loving as relevant precedent on why same sex marriage was legal.

Good ruling. And predictable.

 

[Silhouette]

Sorry about the loss nutters!

And shocker......they cited Loving as relevant precedent on why same sex marriage was legal.

Good ruling. And predictable.

So I guess the question of this thread has been answered. Their decision was like pouring gasoline on a fire.

 

[Skylar]

Sorry about the loss nutters!

And shocker......they cited Loving as relevant precedent on why same sex marriage was legal.

Good ruling. And predictable.

So I guess the question of this thread has been answered. Their decision was like pouring gasoline on a fire.

Nope. The question of this thread was never even addressed by the court. Nor likely ever will be. As the lower courts would shut down attempts to make churches perform weddings they don't want to. At most, the court will deny cert.

 

[dblack]

Sorry about the loss nutters!

And shocker......they cited Loving as relevant precedent on why same sex marriage was legal.

Good ruling. And predictable.

So I guess the question of this thread has been answered. Their decision was like pouring gasoline on a fire.

The decision of the thread has nothing to do with the legality of gay marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

Sorry about the loss nutters!

And shocker......they cited Loving as relevant precedent on why same sex marriage was legal.

Good ruling. And predictable.

So I guess the question of this thread has been answered. Their decision was like pouring gasoline on a fire.

The question of the thread was answered from the very beginning- no churches in the United States will ever be forced to marry any couple the church does not want to marry.

This decision changes nothing in that regard.

 

[dblack]

Sorry about the loss nutters!

And shocker......they cited Loving as relevant precedent on why same sex marriage was legal.

Good ruling. And predictable.

So I guess the question of this thread has been answered. Their decision was like pouring gasoline on a fire.

The question of the thread was answered from the very beginning- no churches in the United States will ever be forced to marry any couple the church does not want to marry.

This decision changes nothing in that regard.

The question was, and still is, should they be? i.e. Why should baker's be force to accommodate gay weddings? Is it a correct application of the first amendment to simply grant exemptions to laws that are inconvenient to some religions? Is equal protection served by granting such exemptions?

The question isn't "Will they be?" or "Is it part of the gay rights agenda?" - both of which I'd answer in the negative.

 

[Skylar]

Sorry about the loss nutters!

And shocker......they cited Loving as relevant precedent on why same sex marriage was legal.

Good ruling. And predictable.

So I guess the question of this thread has been answered. Their decision was like pouring gasoline on a fire.

The question of the thread was answered from the very beginning- no churches in the United States will ever be forced to marry any couple the church does not want to marry.

This decision changes nothing in that regard.

The question was, and still is, should they be? i.e. Why should baker's be force to accommodate gay weddings? Is it a correct application of the first amendment to simply grant exemptions to laws that are inconvenient to some religions? Is equal protection served by granting such exemptions?

The question isn't "Will they be?" or "Is it part of the gay rights agenda?" - both of which I'd answer in the negative.

And we've already discussed that extensively. For literally hundreds of pages. There's no argument to be made that hasn't been made.

 

[Syriusly]

Sorry about the loss nutters!

And shocker......they cited Loving as relevant precedent on why same sex marriage was legal.

Good ruling. And predictable.

So I guess the question of this thread has been answered. Their decision was like pouring gasoline on a fire.

The question of the thread was answered from the very beginning- no churches in the United States will ever be forced to marry any couple the church does not want to marry.

This decision changes nothing in that regard.

The question was, and still is, should they be? i.e. Why should baker's be force to accommodate gay weddings? Is it a correct application of the first amendment to simply grant exemptions to laws that are inconvenient to some religions? Is equal protection served by granting such exemptions?

The question isn't "Will they be?" or "Is it part of the gay rights agenda?" - both of which I'd answer in the negative.

No- churches should not be- any more than churches should be forced to have women priests, or forced allow Africans full membership in the church.

Churches are not business's- and are by intent allowed to discriminate as they want.

 

[dblack]

Sorry about the loss nutters!

And shocker......they cited Loving as relevant precedent on why same sex marriage was legal.

Good ruling. And predictable.

So I guess the question of this thread has been answered. Their decision was like pouring gasoline on a fire.

The question of the thread was answered from the very beginning- no churches in the United States will ever be forced to marry any couple the church does not want to marry.

This decision changes nothing in that regard.

The question was, and still is, should they be? i.e. Why should baker's be force to accommodate gay weddings? Is it a correct application of the first amendment to simply grant exemptions to laws that are inconvenient to some religions? Is equal protection served by granting such exemptions?

The question isn't "Will they be?" or "Is it part of the gay rights agenda?" - both of which I'd answer in the negative.

And we've already discussed that extensively. For literally hundreds of pages. There's no argument to be made that hasn't been made.

Disappointingly, especially in light of the number of posts in the thread, that's not true. The vast bulk of the argument on this thread has been over the strawman arguments I reference above.

 

[dblack]

Sorry about the loss nutters!

And shocker......they cited Loving as relevant precedent on why same sex marriage was legal.

Good ruling. And predictable.

So I guess the question of this thread has been answered. Their decision was like pouring gasoline on a fire.

The question of the thread was answered from the very beginning- no churches in the United States will ever be forced to marry any couple the church does not want to marry.

This decision changes nothing in that regard.

The question was, and still is, should they be? i.e. Why should baker's be force to accommodate gay weddings? Is it a correct application of the first amendment to simply grant exemptions to laws that are inconvenient to some religions? Is equal protection served by granting such exemptions?

The question isn't "Will they be?" or "Is it part of the gay rights agenda?" - both of which I'd answer in the negative.

No- churches should not be- any more than churches should be forced to have women priests, or forced allow Africans full membership in the church.

Churches are not business's- and are by intent allowed to discriminate as they want.

What is your opinion no the Hobby Lobby decision, and how do you think it relates to the question of the thread?

 

[Syriusly]

And shocker......they cited Loving as relevant precedent on why same sex marriage was legal.

Good ruling. And predictable.

So I guess the question of this thread has been answered. Their decision was like pouring gasoline on a fire.

The question of the thread was answered from the very beginning- no churches in the United States will ever be forced to marry any couple the church does not want to marry.

This decision changes nothing in that regard.

The question was, and still is, should they be? i.e. Why should baker's be force to accommodate gay weddings? Is it a correct application of the first amendment to simply grant exemptions to laws that are inconvenient to some religions? Is equal protection served by granting such exemptions?

The question isn't "Will they be?" or "Is it part of the gay rights agenda?" - both of which I'd answer in the negative.

No- churches should not be- any more than churches should be forced to have women priests, or forced allow Africans full membership in the church.

Churches are not business's- and are by intent allowed to discriminate as they want.

What is your opinion no the Hobby Lobby decision, and how do you think it relates to the question of the thread?

I think the Hobby Lobby has absolutely no relationship to forcing churches to marry anyone.

No one is going to force any church to marry anyone the church does not want to marry.

 

[dblack]

So I guess the question of this thread has been answered. Their decision was like pouring gasoline on a fire.

The question of the thread was answered from the very beginning- no churches in the United States will ever be forced to marry any couple the church does not want to marry.

This decision changes nothing in that regard.

The question was, and still is, should they be? i.e. Why should baker's be force to accommodate gay weddings? Is it a correct application of the first amendment to simply grant exemptions to laws that are inconvenient to some religions? Is equal protection served by granting such exemptions?

The question isn't "Will they be?" or "Is it part of the gay rights agenda?" - both of which I'd answer in the negative.

No- churches should not be- any more than churches should be forced to have women priests, or forced allow Africans full membership in the church.

Churches are not business's- and are by intent allowed to discriminate as they want.

What is your opinion no the Hobby Lobby decision, and how do you think it relates to the question of the thread?

I think the Hobby Lobby has absolutely no relationship to forcing churches to marry anyone.

No one is going to force any church to marry anyone the church does not want to marry.

Probably not. But why not? Why should churches be exempted from following the law? I know the case law on the subject, more or less, but I question it. It seems to pervert freedom of religion and, perhaps counter-intuitively, tear down Jefferson's "wall of separation".

 

[Skylar]

And shocker......they cited Loving as relevant precedent on why same sex marriage was legal.

Good ruling. And predictable.

So I guess the question of this thread has been answered. Their decision was like pouring gasoline on a fire.

The question of the thread was answered from the very beginning- no churches in the United States will ever be forced to marry any couple the church does not want to marry.

This decision changes nothing in that regard.

The question was, and still is, should they be? i.e. Why should baker's be force to accommodate gay weddings? Is it a correct application of the first amendment to simply grant exemptions to laws that are inconvenient to some religions? Is equal protection served by granting such exemptions?

The question isn't "Will they be?" or "Is it part of the gay rights agenda?" - both of which I'd answer in the negative.

No- churches should not be- any more than churches should be forced to have women priests, or forced allow Africans full membership in the church.

Churches are not business's- and are by intent allowed to discriminate as they want.

What is your opinion no the Hobby Lobby decision, and how do you think it relates to the question of the thread?

It doesn't. Churches are already exempt from PA laws. There's no legal question regarding the issue that hasn't already been answered. Making the Hobby Lobby decision irrelevant.

 

[Syriusly]

The question of the thread was answered from the very beginning- no churches in the United States will ever be forced to marry any couple the church does not want to marry.

This decision changes nothing in that regard.

The question was, and still is, should they be? i.e. Why should baker's be force to accommodate gay weddings? Is it a correct application of the first amendment to simply grant exemptions to laws that are inconvenient to some religions? Is equal protection served by granting such exemptions?

The question isn't "Will they be?" or "Is it part of the gay rights agenda?" - both of which I'd answer in the negative.

No- churches should not be- any more than churches should be forced to have women priests, or forced allow Africans full membership in the church.

Churches are not business's- and are by intent allowed to discriminate as they want.

What is your opinion no the Hobby Lobby decision, and how do you think it relates to the question of the thread?

I think the Hobby Lobby has absolutely no relationship to forcing churches to marry anyone.

No one is going to force any church to marry anyone the church does not want to marry.

Probably not. But why not? Why should churches be exempted from following the law? I know the case law on the subject, more or less, but I question it. It seems to pervert freedom of religion and, perhaps counter-intuitively, tear down Jefferson's "wall of separation".

The law does not apply to churches.

Personally, as a liberal, that makes sense to me.

Churches are by design for their members, and whatever rules they want- whether I agree with the rules or not.

 

[dblack]

So I guess the question of this thread has been answered. Their decision was like pouring gasoline on a fire.

The question of the thread was answered from the very beginning- no churches in the United States will ever be forced to marry any couple the church does not want to marry.

This decision changes nothing in that regard.

The question was, and still is, should they be? i.e. Why should baker's be force to accommodate gay weddings? Is it a correct application of the first amendment to simply grant exemptions to laws that are inconvenient to some religions? Is equal protection served by granting such exemptions?

The question isn't "Will they be?" or "Is it part of the gay rights agenda?" - both of which I'd answer in the negative.

No- churches should not be- any more than churches should be forced to have women priests, or forced allow Africans full membership in the church.

Churches are not business's- and are by intent allowed to discriminate as they want.

What is your opinion no the Hobby Lobby decision, and how do you think it relates to the question of the thread?

It doesn't. Churches are already exempt from PA laws. There's no legal question regarding the issue that hasn't already been answered. Making the Hobby Lobby decision irrelevant.

While I agree the legal status quo is pretty cut and dried, we're talking about what should be, not what is. And in that, I think the issues raised by the Hobby Lobby decision are quite relevant. I fail to see why large companies, or churches, should be exempted from laws the rest of us have to follow.

 

[Skylar]

The question of the thread was answered from the very beginning- no churches in the United States will ever be forced to marry any couple the church does not want to marry.

This decision changes nothing in that regard.

The question was, and still is, should they be? i.e. Why should baker's be force to accommodate gay weddings? Is it a correct application of the first amendment to simply grant exemptions to laws that are inconvenient to some religions? Is equal protection served by granting such exemptions?

The question isn't "Will they be?" or "Is it part of the gay rights agenda?" - both of which I'd answer in the negative.

No- churches should not be- any more than churches should be forced to have women priests, or forced allow Africans full membership in the church.

Churches are not business's- and are by intent allowed to discriminate as they want.

What is your opinion no the Hobby Lobby decision, and how do you think it relates to the question of the thread?

It doesn't. Churches are already exempt from PA laws. There's no legal question regarding the issue that hasn't already been answered. Making the Hobby Lobby decision irrelevant.

While I agree the legal status quo is pretty cut and dried, we're talking about what should be, not what is. And in that, I think the issues raised by the Hobby Lobby decision are quite relevant. I fail to see why large companies, or churches, should be exempted from laws the rest of us have to follow.

We've been through this a dozen times. Churches aren't businesses. PA laws apply only to businesses. You think Churches should be considered commerce and businesses. They never have been in the history of our nation.

Which essentially exhausts the possibilities of 'is' and 'should be'.

 

[dblack]

The question was, and still is, should they be? i.e. Why should baker's be force to accommodate gay weddings? Is it a correct application of the first amendment to simply grant exemptions to laws that are inconvenient to some religions? Is equal protection served by granting such exemptions?

The question isn't "Will they be?" or "Is it part of the gay rights agenda?" - both of which I'd answer in the negative.

No- churches should not be- any more than churches should be forced to have women priests, or forced allow Africans full membership in the church.

Churches are not business's- and are by intent allowed to discriminate as they want.

What is your opinion no the Hobby Lobby decision, and how do you think it relates to the question of the thread?

It doesn't. Churches are already exempt from PA laws. There's no legal question regarding the issue that hasn't already been answered. Making the Hobby Lobby decision irrelevant.

While I agree the legal status quo is pretty cut and dried, we're talking about what should be, not what is. And in that, I think the issues raised by the Hobby Lobby decision are quite relevant. I fail to see why large companies, or churches, should be exempted from laws the rest of us have to follow.

We've been through this a dozen times. Churches aren't businesses. PA laws apply only to businesses. You think Churches should be considered commerce and businesses. They never have been in the history of our nation.

Which essentially exhausts the possibilities of 'is' and 'should be'.

'Should be' is still wide open. I think legislative accommodation is a mistake regarding first amendment jurisprudence. At the very least, I there's a good argument to be had there. You don't want to have it, yet you can't seem to help yourself chiming in. I don't disrespect someone for having a different opinion from mine, but please don't try to silence debate just because you don't want to hear about it.

 

[dblack]

The question was, and still is, should they be? i.e. Why should baker's be force to accommodate gay weddings? Is it a correct application of the first amendment to simply grant exemptions to laws that are inconvenient to some religions? Is equal protection served by granting such exemptions?

The question isn't "Will they be?" or "Is it part of the gay rights agenda?" - both of which I'd answer in the negative.

No- churches should not be- any more than churches should be forced to have women priests, or forced allow Africans full membership in the church.

Churches are not business's- and are by intent allowed to discriminate as they want.

What is your opinion no the Hobby Lobby decision, and how do you think it relates to the question of the thread?

I think the Hobby Lobby has absolutely no relationship to forcing churches to marry anyone.

No one is going to force any church to marry anyone the church does not want to marry.

Probably not. But why not? Why should churches be exempted from following the law? I know the case law on the subject, more or less, but I question it. It seems to pervert freedom of religion and, perhaps counter-intuitively, tear down Jefferson's "wall of separation".

The law does not apply to churches.

Personally, as a liberal, that makes sense to me.

Churches are by design for their members, and whatever rules they want- whether I agree with the rules or not.

Couldn't it also be said the businesses are designed for their customers?

 

[Syriusly]

No- churches should not be- any more than churches should be forced to have women priests, or forced allow Africans full membership in the church.

Churches are not business's- and are by intent allowed to discriminate as they want.

What is your opinion no the Hobby Lobby decision, and how do you think it relates to the question of the thread?

It doesn't. Churches are already exempt from PA laws. There's no legal question regarding the issue that hasn't already been answered. Making the Hobby Lobby decision irrelevant.

While I agree the legal status quo is pretty cut and dried, we're talking about what should be, not what is. And in that, I think the issues raised by the Hobby Lobby decision are quite relevant. I fail to see why large companies, or churches, should be exempted from laws the rest of us have to follow.

We've been through this a dozen times. Churches aren't businesses. PA laws apply only to businesses. You think Churches should be considered commerce and businesses. They never have been in the history of our nation.

Which essentially exhausts the possibilities of 'is' and 'should be'.

'Should be' is still wide open. I think legislative accommodation is a mistake regarding first amendment jurisprudence. At the very least, I there's a good argument to be had there. You don't want to have it, yet you can't seem to help yourself chiming in. I don't disrespect someone for having a different opinion from mine, but please don't try to silence debate just because you don't want to hear about it.

You are free to express your opinion.

Not free from criticism of your opinion.

 

[Syriusly]

No- churches should not be- any more than churches should be forced to have women priests, or forced allow Africans full membership in the church.

Churches are not business's- and are by intent allowed to discriminate as they want.

What is your opinion no the Hobby Lobby decision, and how do you think it relates to the question of the thread?

I think the Hobby Lobby has absolutely no relationship to forcing churches to marry anyone.

No one is going to force any church to marry anyone the church does not want to marry.

Probably not. But why not? Why should churches be exempted from following the law? I know the case law on the subject, more or less, but I question it. It seems to pervert freedom of religion and, perhaps counter-intuitively, tear down Jefferson's "wall of separation".

The law does not apply to churches.

Personally, as a liberal, that makes sense to me.

Churches are by design for their members, and whatever rules they want- whether I agree with the rules or not.

Couldn't it also be said the businesses are designed for their customers?

Many things could be said- but since the topic is 'churches' that is what I am addressing.