Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[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.

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 ?

I'm not a man, therefore, I can only answer by what I've been told by my friends. They knew at an early age that they were different. They have followed their hearts, and I'm assuming someone like you doesn't know that love knows no boundaries. My friends are very intelligent, kind, compassionate, and most importantly, they stand behind their decisions and are responsible citizens.
Your repeated hateful vitriol only serves to make them stronger and more determined than ever to rise above your smut-filled air.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

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, a church or any place of worship should bot be forced to do anything when it come to weddings. A Church can refuse to wed someone if they are not from the same religion, so they can not be forced to perform a wedding if it is against the Preacher wishes.

Now if it is a Justice of the Peace then they will have to perform the wedding because they're a government official and not allow to object because of religious conviction...

 

[Syriusly]

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..

When you hear hoofbeats, you hear gay zebra's sharpening their knives.....

 

[Syriusly]

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 .

There is less evidence that being a homosexual is a choice (as in being attracted to the same gender) than being a Christian or a Buddhist is a choice.

We do not tell people who have religious faith that they must accept the consequences of their decision. Why would you tell homosexuals that?

 

[Syriusly]

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 ?

Really that crap claim again?

Are you really this stupid or really this ignorant?

Marriage is but one equal right that homosexuals have been pursuing for years- like the right not to get arrested for having sex.

Bigots like yourself fought Civil Unions tooth and nail- states like Georgia who banned gay marriage- also banned Civil Unions and recognition of Civil Unions. Why didn't the bigots accept Civil Unions?

Because the bigots thought that they would win and would be able to continue to discriminate.

There was no recourse through the courts to fight for Civil Unions- because there is no right to a Civil Union- but we all have the right to marriage. Which is why love won, and the bigots lost.

 

[Lilah]

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 .

There is less evidence that being a homosexual is a choice (as in being attracted to the same gender) than being a Christian or a Buddhist is a choice.

We do not tell people who have religious faith that they must accept the consequences of their decision. Why would you tell homosexuals that?

W-what?

 

[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 .

There is less evidence that being a homosexual is a choice (as in being attracted to the same gender) than being a Christian or a Buddhist is a choice.

We do not tell people who have religious faith that they must accept the consequences of their decision. Why would you tell homosexuals that?

You told the cake Baker, photographer, Phil of duck dynasty, the former Mrs. America contestant etc. that they must all face the consequences of their choices in life, and so you were saying?

 

[Silhouette]

You told the cake Baker, photographer, Phil of duck dynasty, the former Mrs. America contestant etc. that they must all face the consequences of their choices in life, and so you were saying?

But individuals don't enjoy the right to exercise freedom of religious beliefs. Only gatherings of them in a building do. Just like the Constitution says. And if it doesn't say that, don't worry, Justice Kennedy and pals are getting their quills sharpened to make the necessary changes, just like is their charge to do as the Judicial branch of government...

BTW, a fundamental structural change to marriage rendering kids in it fatherless or motherless IS NOT the same as the interracial marriage issue. LGBTs are now striving to make it the same as a defensive move and framing their argument for why Christians "must be forced" to participate in gay sex weddings. They're calling sex (a verb) a noun and passing it off that way, hoping nobody will notice.

 

[Silhouette]

But individuals don't enjoy the right to exercise freedom of religious beliefs. Only gatherings of them in a building do. Just like the Constitution says. And if it doesn't say that, don't worry, Justice Kennedy and pals are getting their quills sharpened to make the necessary changes, just like is their charge to do as the Judicial branch of government...

BTW, a fundamental structural change to marriage rendering kids in it fatherless or motherless IS NOT the same as the interracial marriage issue. LGBTs are now striving to make it the same as a defensive move and framing their argument for why Christians "must be forced" to participate in gay sex weddings. They're calling sex (a verb) a noun and passing it off that way, hoping nobody will notice.

And now a woman sits in jail for passively refusing to accomodate a gay wedding.

Remember this thread folks? Last post in it was just two months ago. My how much changes in just a matter of a handful of weeks..

 

[JakeStarkey]

One woman refuses to follow the law and is in contempt of court.

She is the one with problems, not the system.

 

[Silhouette]

A Christian woman sitting in jail for passively refusing to accomodate a gay wedding pretty much settles the question of this thread, doesn't it?

With 80% still opposed.

The new question is how do you think this is going to pan out for democrats in election 2016?

 

[kaz]

But individuals don't enjoy the right to exercise freedom of religious beliefs. Only gatherings of them in a building do. Just like the Constitution says. And if it doesn't say that, don't worry, Justice Kennedy and pals are getting their quills sharpened to make the necessary changes, just like is their charge to do as the Judicial branch of government...

BTW, a fundamental structural change to marriage rendering kids in it fatherless or motherless IS NOT the same as the interracial marriage issue. LGBTs are now striving to make it the same as a defensive move and framing their argument for why Christians "must be forced" to participate in gay sex weddings. They're calling sex (a verb) a noun and passing it off that way, hoping nobody will notice.

And now a woman sits in jail for passively refusing to accomodate a gay wedding.

Remember this thread folks? Last post in it was just two months ago. My how much changes in just a matter of a handful of weeks..

I"m not sure I see a connection between a government employee refusing to do their job and a private church being forced by government to conduct a gay wedding.

I respect her views, but your alternative for an employer you don't want to support is to quit, not to take the money and refuse to do your job.

There is no doubt the Supreme Court ruling is a Constitutional abomination, so I agreed with your post on that point. But she needs to quit and then protest, she's going about it the wrong way

 

[JakeStarkey]

The majority racially, ethnically, by education, by age, etc., all support Marriage Equality.

Sil, you lose.

 

[Silhouette]

The problem dear kaz, is the mistaken premise. Since homosexuality is about ...hmm..here, let me emphasize this... BEHAVIORS...and not race, the whole mechanism for arriving at the mistaken law derived therefrom is flawed. The 5 people in DC who unilaterally rewrote the US Constitution to make behaviors = race and then went from there to jail a Christian for refusing to play along with those behaviors, are in violation of their duty of Office. A US Supreme Court Justice can not rewrite the Constitution. Only Congress can create a brand new class of people to be protected. This is the first time in US history where a waffling group of deviant sex practitioners rose to the level of race and religion in protections without the consent of the governed.

So behaviors = race = a Christian sitting in jail because she doesn't want her immortal soul to be condemned to Hell for eternity for bowing to the altar of a cult.

The majority racially, ethnically, by education, by age, etc., all support Marriage Equality.
Sil, you lose.

The majority, 80% of them here of 200-something voters patently disagree that a woman should be sitting in jail as a Christian for refusing to participate in a "gay wedding".

You lose. And just wait for November 2016 to see how big it is that you lose (hint, look at the results in the poll at the top of this page)

 

[kaz]

The problem dear kaz, is the mistaken premise. Since homosexuality is about ...hmm..here, let me emphasize this... BEHAVIORS...and not race, the whole mechanism for arriving at the mistaken law derived therefrom is flawed. The 5 people in DC who unilaterally rewrote the US Constitution to make behaviors = race and then went from there to jail a Christian for refusing to play along with those behaviors, are in violation of their duty of Office. A US Supreme Court Justice can not rewrite the Constitution. Only Congress can create a brand new class of people to be protected. This is the first time in US history where a waffling group of deviant sex practitioners rose to the level of race and religion in protections without the consent of the governed.

So behaviors = race = a Christian sitting in jail because she doesn't want her immortal soul to be condemned to Hell for eternity for bowing to the altar of a cult.

You realize I agreed the ruling was a Constitutional abomination, no? What you just said doesn't address my point. As a private citizen, fighting for the Constitution is totally our jobs. When you work for an employer, you do as they ask or you quit. Even when you work for government. We can't have employees deciding what laws they will follow and what they won't ... as employees ... Whether she's in the right as a citizen, she is in the wrong in terms of disobeying the policies of her employer

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil's preise has been rejected at all levels.

Let's move on.

 

[mdk]

The problem dear kaz, is the mistaken premise. Since homosexuality is about ...hmm..here, let me emphasize this... BEHAVIORS...and not race, the whole mechanism for arriving at the mistaken law derived therefrom is flawed. The 5 people in DC who unilaterally rewrote the US Constitution to make behaviors = race and then went from there to jail a Christian for refusing to play along with those behaviors, are in violation of their duty of Office. A US Supreme Court Justice can not rewrite the Constitution. Only Congress can create a brand new class of people to be protected. This is the first time in US history where a waffling group of deviant sex practitioners rose to the level of race and religion in protections without the consent of the governed.

So behaviors = race = a Christian sitting in jail because she doesn't want her immortal soul to be condemned to Hell for eternity for bowing to the altar of a cult.

The majority racially, ethnically, by education, by age, etc., all support Marriage Equality.
Sil, you lose.

The majority, 80% of them here of 200-something voters patently disagree that a woman should be sitting in jail as a Christian for refusing to participate in a "gay wedding".

You lose. And just wait for November 2016 to see how big it is that you lose (hint, look at the results in the poll at the top of this page)

80% of the people polled support Kim Davis!? The last post before you bumped this dead horse was in July. Why do you have to lie all the time about shit?

 

[daws101]

Church and state are separate.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The problem dear kaz, is the mistaken premise. Since homosexuality is about ...hmm..here, let me emphasize this... BEHAVIORS...and not race, the whole mechanism for arriving at the mistaken law derived therefrom is flawed. The 5 people in DC who unilaterally rewrote the US Constitution to make behaviors = race and then went from there to jail a Christian for refusing to play along with those behaviors, are in violation of their duty of Office. A US Supreme Court Justice can not rewrite the Constitution. Only Congress can create a brand new class of people to be protected. This is the first time in US history where a waffling group of deviant sex practitioners rose to the level of race and religion in protections without the consent of the governed.

So behaviors = race = a Christian sitting in jail because she doesn't want her immortal soul to be condemned to Hell for eternity for bowing to the altar of a cult.

The majority racially, ethnically, by education, by age, etc., all support Marriage Equality.
Sil, you lose.

The majority, 80% of them here of 200-something voters patently disagree that a woman should be sitting in jail as a Christian for refusing to participate in a "gay wedding".

You lose. And just wait for November 2016 to see how big it is that you lose (hint, look at the results in the poll at the top of this page)

80% of the people polled support Kim Davis!? The last post before you bumped this dead horse was in July. Why do you have to lie all the time about shit?

POLL: Should Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis be forced to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples?

Across the river in WV, the poll is 3 to 1 to issue the licenses, Kim Davis.

 

[Political Junky]

But individuals don't enjoy the right to exercise freedom of religious beliefs. Only gatherings of them in a building do. Just like the Constitution says. And if it doesn't say that, don't worry, Justice Kennedy and pals are getting their quills sharpened to make the necessary changes, just like is their charge to do as the Judicial branch of government...

BTW, a fundamental structural change to marriage rendering kids in it fatherless or motherless IS NOT the same as the interracial marriage issue. LGBTs are now striving to make it the same as a defensive move and framing their argument for why Christians "must be forced" to participate in gay sex weddings. They're calling sex (a verb) a noun and passing it off that way, hoping nobody will notice.

And now a woman sits in jail for passively refusing to accomodate a gay wedding.

Remember this thread folks? Last post in it was just two months ago. My how much changes in just a matter of a handful of weeks..

The subject of the thread was churches being forced to perform marriages, not a government employee refusing to do their job.