Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[JakeStarkey]

Remember that Daws101 is very sensitive.

 

[daws101]

Remember that Daws101 is very sensitive.

I'm devastated!..

 

[koshergrl]

How odd...the black lez judge in Texas who refused to marry anyone until she could marry fags...she didn't get slammed in jail. She refused for three years.

 

[JakeStarkey]

How odd...the black lez judge in Texas who refused to marry anyone until she could marry fags...she didn't get slammed in jail. She refused for three years.

If that were the case, she should be in jail still. Get elected or appointed, do the job, hey.

 

[sealybobo]

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..

They should have just fired her. Can't do your government job? She'll do better in the private sector.

 

[sealybobo]

How odd...the black lez judge in Texas who refused to marry anyone until she could marry fags...she didn't get slammed in jail. She refused for three years.

If that were the case, she should be in jail still. Get elected or appointed, do the job, hey.

I'm more OK with a judge pushing the envelope than I am a county clerk.

 

[WorldWatcher]

They should have just fired her. Can't do your government job? She'll do better in the private sector.

You can't "just fire" an elected official. She must be impeached by the legislature to be removed from office.


>>>>

 

[daws101]

How odd...the black lez judge in Texas who refused to marry anyone until she could marry fags...she didn't get slammed in jail. She refused for three years.

I

 

[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..

They should have just fired her. Can't do your government job? She'll do better in the private sector.

Fire her? For her religious convictions? They don't want a lawsuit for violation of civil rights.

We aren't talking about race here. We're talking about a waffling cult of deviant sex behaviors.

 

[sealybobo]

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..

They should have just fired her. Can't do your government job? She'll do better in the private sector.

Fire her? For her religious convictions? They don't want a lawsuit for violation of civil rights.

We aren't talking about race here. We're talking about a waffling cult of deviant sex behaviors.

Gay isn't a sin or perversion anymore. It's not wrong.

 

[dblack]

Unless there is a contractual obligation, no one should be required to "accommodate" anyone else for any reason. But equal protection is a crucial requirement for a healthy democracy. Laws - bad or otherwise - should be enforced equally or not at all.

 

[Silhouette]

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

I wasn't aware that buildings had 1st Amendment rights. I could've sworn that the 1st Amendment was about INDIVIDUAL people's rights to exercize of religion. So: groups of Christians in a building have rights but individual Christians at work do not. I wasn't aware of that fine print in the Constitution.

 

[dblack]

They should have just fired her. Can't do your government job? She'll do better in the private sector.

You can't "just fire" an elected official. She must be impeached by the legislature to be removed from office.


>>>>

Right. That's the problem here. It's analogous to a police officer making up their own laws. It really can't be tolerated in any way.

 

[dblack]

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..

They should have just fired her. Can't do your government job? She'll do better in the private sector.

Fire her? For her religious convictions? They don't want a lawsuit for violation of civil rights.

We aren't talking about race here. We're talking about a waffling cult of deviant sex behaviors.

Gay isn't a sin or perversion anymore. It's not wrong.

Clearly, some people believe it is. Do they have a right to their beliefs? Do they have a right to live their lives by those beliefs?

 

[beagle9]

Unless there is a contractual obligation, no one should be required to "accommodate" anyone else for any reason. But equal protection is a crucial requirement for a healthy democracy. Laws - bad or otherwise - should be enforced equally or not at all.

Bad laws should not be obeyed or enforced period. The people should finally decide what they are gonna do, and not let a rogue judiciary decide it for them.

 

[dblack]

Unless there is a contractual obligation, no one should be required to "accommodate" anyone else for any reason. But equal protection is a crucial requirement for a healthy democracy. Laws - bad or otherwise - should be enforced equally or not at all.

Bad laws should not be obeyed or enforced period.

I tend to agree. But if they are enforced, we shouldn't allow government officials the power to pick and choose who has to follow them and who gets special permission not to.

 

[skye]

if people live in a tyranny of political correctness they have no choice ...otherwise they might be sent to the "gulag" so to speak...and that is coming to USA....

Nobody should be forced to do such a thing..

but ...things are about to change in USA ....in fact are changing right now...for the worst

get ready ...that's all

 

[beagle9]

Unless there is a contractual obligation, no one should be required to "accommodate" anyone else for any reason. But equal protection is a crucial requirement for a healthy democracy. Laws - bad or otherwise - should be enforced equally or not at all.

Bad laws should not be obeyed or enforced period.

I tend to agree. But if they are enforced, we shouldn't allow government officials the power to pick and choose who has to follow them and who gets special permission not to.

The people should rebel against a government gone rogue, and it trying to force bad law or it's will upon them if it is bad. Period.

 

[Freewill]

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..

They should have just fired her. Can't do your government job? She'll do better in the private sector.

Fire her? For her religious convictions? They don't want a lawsuit for violation of civil rights.

We aren't talking about race here. We're talking about a waffling cult of deviant sex behaviors.

Gay isn't a sin or perversion anymore. It's not wrong.

Depends on definitions doesn't it? Sodomizing someone in any book is perverse in comparison to heterosexual sex. I can't imagine one person thinking otherwise. But then again the SCOTUS can change the definition of marriage why not the defintion of perversion? Besides, the gay marriage didn't make sodomy not illegal that happen way before the SCOTUS ruling.

 

[Bonzi]

I would say NO because it is against their beliefs.
Has nothing to do with AMERICA - but with the beliefs of the Church.
A Minister/Pastor etc. that has made a vow to honor God and keep his commands should not be forced to break that vow.