Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[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?

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.

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.

Perhaps you can explain the marches, protests and riots that took place. Not to mention, that in 965 a plurality of Americans believed the civil rights organizations had been infiltrated by communists. Doors to colleges were blocked.
How is it a separate issue when disenfranchised/minorities are still being discriminated against?

 

[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?

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 ?

No, and that's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. Why should churches get to skip out on taxes, or not have to follow the laws the rest of us have to follow. How is that equal protection?

 

[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 ?

No, and that's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. Why should churches get to skip out on taxes, or not have to follow the laws the rest of us have to follow. How is that equal protection?

I think it's because they are not considered a business. There a plenty of churches and religions who willingly embrace same-sex couples, the one that don't show themselves for who they are and what their true beliefs about love are. I'd rather the transparency.

 

[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?

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 ?

No, and that's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. Why should churches get to skip out on taxes, or not have to follow the laws the rest of us have to follow. How is that equal protection?

I think it's because they are not considered a business. There a plenty of churches and religions who willingly embrace same-sex couples, the one that don't show themselves for who they are and what their true beliefs about love are. I'd rather the transparency.

Agreed, but the same could be said of bakers and photographers, eh?

 

[Yarddog]

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?

We have the freedom to practice religion in the way we choose, forcing churches or mosques to accomodate gay weddings would be equal to the state telling people What they should believe. and not acceptable

People who are gay and wish to be married also have freedom of religion, but are not free to force
their beliefs on others, just as muslims and christians do not have a right to force aspects of their beliefs on each other.

If gays also have freedom to practice religion in the way they want, then lets not take it away from them, the solution is simple and obvious. It doesn't need to be spelled out

 

[Judgetk]

Clergy, ships captains, mayors are all permitted to perform marriages, but they are not required to do so. Why would it be any different for same sex marriage?

 

[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 ?

No, and that's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. Why should churches get to skip out on taxes, or not have to follow the laws the rest of us have to follow. How is that equal protection?

I think it's because they are not considered a business. There a plenty of churches and religions who willingly embrace same-sex couples, the one that don't show themselves for who they are and what their true beliefs about love are. I'd rather the transparency.

Agreed, but the same could be said of bakers and photographers, eh?

I don't think they are tax exempt and I don't think the service they are offering is salvation.

 

[Silhouette]

Clergy, ships captains, mayors are all permitted to perform marriages, but they are not required to do so. Why would it be any different for same sex marriage?

Because people are already being forced by lawsuits to assit gay weddings even when their faith tells them not to. In Britain (always a harbinger for American laws in the area of progressivism), two gay dudes are suing to force the church there to perform their "wedding". Pity their "sharp" barristers couldn't have predicted that with their crystal ball..

More on that here: Legal Quagmire Hobby Lobby v Gay Marriage Showdown at the SCOTUS Corral Page 2 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[dblack]

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 ?

No, and that's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. Why should churches get to skip out on taxes, or not have to follow the laws the rest of us have to follow. How is that equal protection?

I think it's because they are not considered a business. There a plenty of churches and religions who willingly embrace same-sex couples, the one that don't show themselves for who they are and what their true beliefs about love are. I'd rather the transparency.

Agreed, but the same could be said of bakers and photographers, eh?

I don't think they are tax exempt and I don't think the service they are offering is salvation.

Well, the offering in question is marriage. But you're not answering the question.

 

[Michelle420]

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 ?

No, and that's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. Why should churches get to skip out on taxes, or not have to follow the laws the rest of us have to follow. How is that equal protection?

I think it's because they are not considered a business. There a plenty of churches and religions who willingly embrace same-sex couples, the one that don't show themselves for who they are and what their true beliefs about love are. I'd rather the transparency.

Agreed, but the same could be said of bakers and photographers, eh?

I don't think they are tax exempt and I don't think the service they are offering is salvation.

Well, the offering in question is marriage. But you're not answering the question.

My is no can't be said the same.

 

[dblack]

No, and that's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. Why should churches get to skip out on taxes, or not have to follow the laws the rest of us have to follow. How is that equal protection?

I think it's because they are not considered a business. There a plenty of churches and religions who willingly embrace same-sex couples, the one that don't show themselves for who they are and what their true beliefs about love are. I'd rather the transparency.

Agreed, but the same could be said of bakers and photographers, eh?

I don't think they are tax exempt and I don't think the service they are offering is salvation.

Well, the offering in question is marriage. But you're not answering the question.

My is no can't be said the same.

Why not? I'd wager there are plenty of bakers and photographers sympathetic to gay marriage. Do you have data to the contrary?

 

[Michelle420]

I think it's because they are not considered a business. There a plenty of churches and religions who willingly embrace same-sex couples, the one that don't show themselves for who they are and what their true beliefs about love are. I'd rather the transparency.

Agreed, but the same could be said of bakers and photographers, eh?

I don't think they are tax exempt and I don't think the service they are offering is salvation.

Well, the offering in question is marriage. But you're not answering the question.

My is no can't be said the same.

Why not? I'd wager there are plenty of bakers and photographers sympathetic to gay marriage. Do you have data to the contrary?

Well read all my previous posts, that's my reason why.

 

[dblack]

Agreed, but the same could be said of bakers and photographers, eh?

I don't think they are tax exempt and I don't think the service they are offering is salvation.

Well, the offering in question is marriage. But you're not answering the question.

My is no can't be said the same.

Why not? I'd wager there are plenty of bakers and photographers sympathetic to gay marriage. Do you have data to the contrary?

Well read all my previous posts, that's my reason why.

Heh... No thanks. I haven't seen any posts here, including mine, worth reading for posterity. If you aren't willing to defend your views, I'll take it for what it's worth.

 

[Michelle420]

I don't think they are tax exempt and I don't think the service they are offering is salvation.

Well, the offering in question is marriage. But you're not answering the question.

My is no can't be said the same.

Why not? I'd wager there are plenty of bakers and photographers sympathetic to gay marriage. Do you have data to the contrary?

Well read all my previous posts, that's my reason why.

Heh... No thanks. I haven't seen any posts here, including mine, worth reading for posterity. If you aren't willing to defend your views, I'll take it for what it's worth.

Ok. shrug.

 

[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.

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.

Perhaps you can explain the marches, protests and riots that took place. Not to mention, that in 965 a plurality of Americans believed the civil rights organizations had been infiltrated by communists. Doors to colleges were blocked.
How is it a separate issue when disenfranchised/minorities are still being discriminated against?

It's not the same issue, and being gay is not being disenfranchised from society, but rather it is a choice that is being made by the individuals involved where as in that choosing they choose to go in that direction freely, and to accept the consequences of it freely (where as all do not accept that lifestyle and they know it). Now unless someone is manipulated by another to make bad choices in life, it is a choice that is being made freely, and it should not be that everyone must be forced to be involved in that choice per government say so. There is no choice as to ones color in life, so that issue had to be settled and set right finally. Tying the issues together is a ploy to gain the power of the other issue, and to take that power to empower something that is altogether different. This can just keep rolling on today, and so where does it stop if the people have no say in any of these things any longer ? The fear is that if you allow one baker to refuse, then how many more will follow right ? So instead of taking that chance, it is that the government must absolutely force compliance now.

 

[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?

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.

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.

Perhaps you can explain the marches, protests and riots that took place. Not to mention, that in 965 a plurality of Americans believed the civil rights organizations had been infiltrated by communists. Doors to colleges were blocked.
How is it a separate issue when disenfranchised/minorities are still being discriminated against?

It's not the same issue, and being gay is not being disenfranchised from society, but rather it is a choice that is being made by the individuals involved where as in that choosing they choose to go in that direction freely, and to accept the consequences of it freely (where as all do not accept that lifestyle and they know it). Now unless someone is manipulated by another to make bad choices in life, it is a choice that is being made freely, and it should not be that everyone must be forced to be involved in that choice per government say so. There is no choice as to ones color in life, so that issue had to be settled and set right finally. Tying the issues together is a ploy to gain the power of the other issue, and to take that power to empower something that is altogether different. This can just keep rolling on today, and so where does it stop if the people have no say in any of these things any longer ? The fear is that if you allow one baker to refuse, then how many more will follow right ? So instead of taking that chance, it is that the government must absolutely force compliance now.

Since you speak as an authority figure, I'm assuming you have scientific proof that being gay is a choice.
If being gay is not a disenfranchisement, explain why gays are having to fight for equality. Why, until June 26th, 2015, were gays not allowed to marry in all 50 states? Why were gay couples not allowed to be listed on each other's insurance policies as dependents? Why were gays not allowed to be the beneficiaries of their partners social security benefits, etc.
I hope you will be gracious enough to explain why your rights and freedoms should be superior.

 

[beagle9]

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.

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.

Perhaps you can explain the marches, protests and riots that took place. Not to mention, that in 965 a plurality of Americans believed the civil rights organizations had been infiltrated by communists. Doors to colleges were blocked.
How is it a separate issue when disenfranchised/minorities are still being discriminated against?

It's not the same issue, and being gay is not being disenfranchised from society, but rather it is a choice that is being made by the individuals involved where as in that choosing they choose to go in that direction freely, and to accept the consequences of it freely (where as all do not accept that lifestyle and they know it). Now unless someone is manipulated by another to make bad choices in life, it is a choice that is being made freely, and it should not be that everyone must be forced to be involved in that choice per government say so. There is no choice as to ones color in life, so that issue had to be settled and set right finally. Tying the issues together is a ploy to gain the power of the other issue, and to take that power to empower something that is altogether different. This can just keep rolling on today, and so where does it stop if the people have no say in any of these things any longer ? The fear is that if you allow one baker to refuse, then how many more will follow right ? So instead of taking that chance, it is that the government must absolutely force compliance now.

Since you speak as an authority figure, I'm assuming you have scientific proof that being gay is a choice.
If being gay is not a disenfranchisement, explain why gays are having to fight for equality. Why, until June 26th, 2015, were gays not allowed to marry in all 50 states? Why were gay couples not allowed to be listed on each other's insurance policies as dependents? Why were gays not allowed to be the beneficiaries of their partners social security benefits, etc.
I hope you will be gracious enough to explain why your rights and freedoms should be superior.

Why did Gay's not worry about all that to the end, and instead go after Marriage as the most important to them ? Civil unions was addressing all the other stuff, but that wasn't good enough for the broader agenda was it ?

I think it's because there is an agenda far greater than those things involved, and so it really doesn't involve those other things as being the utmost important to the group must be, but Marriage is eh ?

 

[beagle9]

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.

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.

Perhaps you can explain the marches, protests and riots that took place. Not to mention, that in 965 a plurality of Americans believed the civil rights organizations had been infiltrated by communists. Doors to colleges were blocked.
How is it a separate issue when disenfranchised/minorities are still being discriminated against?

It's not the same issue, and being gay is not being disenfranchised from society, but rather it is a choice that is being made by the individuals involved where as in that choosing they choose to go in that direction freely, and to accept the consequences of it freely (where as all do not accept that lifestyle and they know it). Now unless someone is manipulated by another to make bad choices in life, it is a choice that is being made freely, and it should not be that everyone must be forced to be involved in that choice per government say so. There is no choice as to ones color in life, so that issue had to be settled and set right finally. Tying the issues together is a ploy to gain the power of the other issue, and to take that power to empower something that is altogether different. This can just keep rolling on today, and so where does it stop if the people have no say in any of these things any longer ? The fear is that if you allow one baker to refuse, then how many more will follow right ? So instead of taking that chance, it is that the government must absolutely force compliance now.

Since you speak as an authority figure, I'm assuming you have scientific proof that being gay is a choice.
If being gay is not a disenfranchisement, explain why gays are having to fight for equality. Why, until June 26th, 2015, were gays not allowed to marry in all 50 states? Why were gay couples not allowed to be listed on each other's insurance policies as dependents? Why were gays not allowed to be the beneficiaries of their partners social security benefits, etc.
I hope you will be gracious enough to explain why your rights and freedoms should be superior.

So your saying that a man cannot choose to be a man or follow a man's hetero lifestyle and path if he has fem qualities about himself ? What if he has fem qualities about himself, but he chooses to be a hetero sexual male who wants women and not men ? Is this not a choice he would make, even though others may suggest differently to him along his path in life ? What if he made the choice to go after men instead, is that not also the other choice to make in life, even though others would suggest to him otherwise ? At some point a person must become responsible for the choices they make in their life, so isn't that right ?

 

[Lilah]

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.

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.

Perhaps you can explain the marches, protests and riots that took place. Not to mention, that in 965 a plurality of Americans believed the civil rights organizations had been infiltrated by communists. Doors to colleges were blocked.
How is it a separate issue when disenfranchised/minorities are still being discriminated against?

It's not the same issue, and being gay is not being disenfranchised from society, but rather it is a choice that is being made by the individuals involved where as in that choosing they choose to go in that direction freely, and to accept the consequences of it freely (where as all do not accept that lifestyle and they know it). Now unless someone is manipulated by another to make bad choices in life, it is a choice that is being made freely, and it should not be that everyone must be forced to be involved in that choice per government say so. There is no choice as to ones color in life, so that issue had to be settled and set right finally. Tying the issues together is a ploy to gain the power of the other issue, and to take that power to empower something that is altogether different. This can just keep rolling on today, and so where does it stop if the people have no say in any of these things any longer ? The fear is that if you allow one baker to refuse, then how many more will follow right ? So instead of taking that chance, it is that the government must absolutely force compliance now.

Since you speak as an authority figure, I'm assuming you have scientific proof that being gay is a choice.
If being gay is not a disenfranchisement, explain why gays are having to fight for equality. Why, until June 26th, 2015, were gays not allowed to marry in all 50 states? Why were gay couples not allowed to be listed on each other's insurance policies as dependents? Why were gays not allowed to be the beneficiaries of their partners social security benefits, etc.
I hope you will be gracious enough to explain why your rights and freedoms should be superior.

Why did Gay's not worry about all that to the end, and instead go after Marriage as the most important to them ? Civil unions was addressing all the other stuff, but that wasn't good enough for the broader agenda was it ?

I think it's because there is an agenda far greater than those things involved, and so it really doesn't involve those other things as being the utmost important to the group must be, but Marriage is eh ?

Civil marriage is the only way to make sure gay & lesbian couples have the same legal protections as other married couples. Blacks wanted to be treated like first-class citizens. Are you a first-class citizen?

 

[beagle9]

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.

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.

Perhaps you can explain the marches, protests and riots that took place. Not to mention, that in 965 a plurality of Americans believed the civil rights organizations had been infiltrated by communists. Doors to colleges were blocked.
How is it a separate issue when disenfranchised/minorities are still being discriminated against?

It's not the same issue, and being gay is not being disenfranchised from society, but rather it is a choice that is being made by the individuals involved where as in that choosing they choose to go in that direction freely, and to accept the consequences of it freely (where as all do not accept that lifestyle and they know it). Now unless someone is manipulated by another to make bad choices in life, it is a choice that is being made freely, and it should not be that everyone must be forced to be involved in that choice per government say so. There is no choice as to ones color in life, so that issue had to be settled and set right finally. Tying the issues together is a ploy to gain the power of the other issue, and to take that power to empower something that is altogether different. This can just keep rolling on today, and so where does it stop if the people have no say in any of these things any longer ? The fear is that if you allow one baker to refuse, then how many more will follow right ? So instead of taking that chance, it is that the government must absolutely force compliance now.

Since you speak as an authority figure, I'm assuming you have scientific proof that being gay is a choice.
If being gay is not a disenfranchisement, explain why gays are having to fight for equality. Why, until June 26th, 2015, were gays not allowed to marry in all 50 states? Why were gay couples not allowed to be listed on each other's insurance policies as dependents? Why were gays not allowed to be the beneficiaries of their partners social security benefits, etc.
I hope you will be gracious enough to explain why your rights and freedoms should be superior.

Not superior, but equally respected and honored right ?