Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[dblack]

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.

Right. And we're asking, why should the be exempted from laws that other public services are obliged to follow. Which raises the more general question of why they should be exempted from any laws. That's certainly not part of the First Amendment. It's something we made up after the fact.

 

[dblack]

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.

I welcome criticism of my opinion. That's what I'm here for, in fact.

 

[mdk]

Were any churches forced to marry gays yesterday? Yeah, I didnt think so.

 

[Michelle420]

No, churches that don't want to shouldn't have to. There are plenty of churches that don't mind at all.

 

[Silhouette]

No, churches that don't want to shouldn't have to. There are plenty of churches that don't mind at all.

The title of this thread must now be changed to
"How Long Until Churches Are Forced To Accomodate For Homosexual Weddings?"

I can hear the Rainbow-Reicht's lawyers sharpening their knives as we speak..

 

[Michelle420]

No, churches that don't want to shouldn't have to. There are plenty of churches that don't mind at all.

The title of this thread must now be changed to
"How Long Until Churches Are Forced To Accomodate For Homosexual Weddings?"

I can hear the Rainbow-Reicht's lawyers sharpening their knives as we speak..

Or A new title to talk about the churches and religions that are accepting of gay couples wanting to celebrate nuptials in front of God .

 

[Skylar]

No, churches that don't want to shouldn't have to. There are plenty of churches that don't mind at all.

The title of this thread must now be changed to
"How Long Until Churches Are Forced To Accomodate For Homosexual Weddings?"

I can hear the Rainbow-Reicht's lawyers sharpening their knives as we speak..

PA laws don't apply to churches. There's not a single example of a church being forced to perform a wedding it didn't want to.

You're literally arguing your imagination.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Right. And we're asking, why should the be exempted from laws that other public services are obliged to follow. Which raises the more general question of why they should be exempted from any laws. That's certainly not part of the First Amendment. It's something we made up after the fact.

And for at least the 10th time, churches aren't businesses nor is religion commerce. And PA laws apply to businesses and commerce. You feel that churches are businesses and commerce. Our law doesn't recognize them as such, nor ever has.

 

[mdk]

No, churches that don't want to shouldn't have to. There are plenty of churches that don't mind at all.

The title of this thread must now be changed to
"How Long Until Churches Are Forced To Accomodate For Homosexual Weddings?"

I can hear the Rainbow-Reicht's lawyers sharpening their knives as we speak..

How long until churches are forced to accommodate Jewish weddings? Or Hindu weddings? Or interracial marriages? My guess is never but whatever.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No, churches that don't want to shouldn't have to. There are plenty of churches that don't mind at all.

The title of this thread must now be changed to
"How Long Until Churches Are Forced To Accomodate For Homosexual Weddings?"

I can hear the Rainbow-Reicht's lawyers sharpening their knives as we speak..

That's because you're a delusional, paranoid loon.

Churches will never be 'forced' to afford same-sex couples religious marriage rituals.

Indeed, should a given jurisdiction attempt to do so through force of law, those who fought to protect the right of same-sex couples to due process and equal protection of the law would work to defend the right of religious institutions to reject same-sex couples.

 

[beagle9]

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.

No, but it forces individuals who are part of a church and belief system in the nation, to now have to participate in something that is totally against their belief system or religion in the nation, and in which these things that they have believed in were well established by this nation prior to as being good within the nation by a majority who saw it as being good in that to have a religious belief system that is honored and respected within the nation. It's only that when the gay's began the attempt to highjack and force individual Christians to participate in their situation, is when what was once regarded as something good and well respected in the nation (religious beliefs), has now since become bad in the nation yet all according. Now where does it all end I wonder ? What else that is considered to be good in the nation right now, but only maybe within a few days or weeks from now, will of course become bad because of a group who will say that it is bad in their opinion of, and so they will get the government to say also that it is bad in order to abolish it or ban the use of it ? Just take your pick on the issues, because everything will be up for grabs now.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

No, but it forces individuals who are part of a church and belief system in the nation, to now have to participate in something that is totally against their belief system or religion in the nation, and in which these things that they have believed in were well established by this nation prior to as being good within the nation by a majority who saw it as being good in that to have a religious belief system that is honored and respected within the nation. It's only that when the gay's began the attempt to highjack and force individual Christians to participate in their situation, is when what was once regarded as something good and well respected in the nation (religious beliefs), has now since become bad in the nation yet all according. Now where does it all end I wonder ? What else that is considered to be good in the nation right now, but only maybe within a few days or weeks from now, will of course become bad because of a group who will say that it is bad in their opinion of, and so they will get the government to say also that it is bad in order to abolish it or ban the use of it ? Just take your pick on the issues, because everything will be up for grabs now.

Nonsense.

The ruling does no such thing.

 

[Lilah]

Its the bakers who made that determination when they denied them service.

And they did so stating their Reasons, which are specifically protected as being a right that government is expressly forbidden from infringing upon.

There is no right which requires another to accept one's perverse behavior. What's more the very concept of 'right' precludes the means to FORCE others to accept anything that they reject based upon fundamental principle.

Are you sure about that?

 

[dblack]

The title of this thread must now be changed to
"How Long Until Churches Are Forced To Accomodate For Homosexual Weddings?"

I can hear the Rainbow-Reicht's lawyers sharpening their knives as we speak..

That's because you're a delusional, paranoid loon.

Churches will never be 'forced' to afford same-sex couples religious marriage rituals.

Indeed, should a given jurisdiction attempt to do so through force of law, those who fought to protect the right of same-sex couples to due process and equal protection of the law would work to defend the right of religious institutions to reject same-sex couples.

Maybe some of them. But those who don't understand how PA laws actually violate these principles aren't likely to.

 

[dblack]

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.

Right. And we're asking, why should the be exempted from laws that other public services are obliged to follow. Which raises the more general question of why they should be exempted from any laws. That's certainly not part of the First Amendment. It's something we made up after the fact.

And for at least the 10th time, churches aren't businesses nor is religion commerce. And PA laws apply to businesses and commerce. You feel that churches are businesses and commerce. Our law doesn't recognize them as such, nor ever has.

For at least the 9th time, the question is - should they? Why should churches be excluded from laws government other public accommodations?

I'm not disagreeing with what you state. You've correctly captured the current legal statute. But it has no relevance to the question, and I'm honestly not sure why you keep repeating it.

 

[dblack]

No, churches that don't want to shouldn't have to. There are plenty of churches that don't mind at all.

Should it be any different for anyone else? Bakers, photographers, etc?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

For at least the 9th time, the question is - should they?

And for at least the 9th time, it's a meaningless, ridiculous, inane question that doesn't warrant a response.

 

[dblack]

For at least the 9th time, the question is - should they?

And for at least the 9th time, it's a meaningless, ridiculous, inane question that doesn't warrant a response.

Then don't respond. But please stop trying to derail the thread.

 

[beagle9]

Its the bakers who made that determination when they denied them service.

And they did so stating their Reasons, which are specifically protected as being a right that government is expressly forbidden from infringing upon.

There is no right which requires another to accept one's perverse behavior. What's more the very concept of 'right' precludes the means to FORCE others to accept anything that they reject based upon fundamental principle.

Are you sure about that?

Separate issue, and it was settled where millions upon millions of Americans agreed that this was wrong and that was that. Not the case in other issues we are seeing now.

 

[Michelle420]

No, churches that don't want to shouldn't have to. There are plenty of churches that don't mind at all.

Should it be any different for anyone else? Bakers, photographers, etc?

Are bakers and photographers tax exempt religions, can they refuse to serve people of color, women or disabled people based on their tax exempt religious status ?