Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[JakeStarkey]

Bonzi, it depends on your state's accomodation laws.

 

[mdk]

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.

I was wondering when you were going to reintroduce this failed argument. Sovereign citizen bullshit with a religious twist, a land where a people get to choose which laws they follow, or not, based on their deeply held religious beliefs. Warren Jeffs should be released from prison b/c his religious beliefs says he can fuck children. After all, he answers to a higher authority. Where is The Liberty Council when you need them?

There is a difference between child abuse (breaking a law) and not marrying homosexuals (not breaking a law).
There is a difference between not selling a car to a homosexual (discrimination) and not marrying a homosexual couple in your church because it goes against you religious beliefs (not discrimination)

I have stated about 4,000 times in this dead horse of a thread that churches are free to marry, or not marry, any couple as they see fit. Not a single church has been forced to marry any couple, gay or otherwise, against their wishes. Sil only bumped this thread so she can falsely claim that the poll respondents don't support gay marriage (a lie) and support Kim Davis. (also a lie). She does this shit every couples months.

I triggered it so you can blame me.
If it leads to otherwise good discuss however, it's worth it.

No, Sil bumped this thread after it died for about two months. This is her go-to thread b/c the ones she starts are miserable failures. They are always riddled with idiotic legal gibberish and wild predictions that never come to pass.

 

[Bonzi]

Bonzi, it depends on your state's accomodation laws.

will check them out... thanks

If anyone else is interested, here is a link to find out what your State accommodation laws are:

http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/state-public-accommodation-laws.aspx

 

[daws101]

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.

No slap dick for not doing her job .

 

[daws101]

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.

really? lot's of heterosexuals either do or have tried anal sex.
so there goes your false comparison.

 

[daws101]

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.

I was wondering when you were going to reintroduce this failed argument. Sovereign citizen bullshit with a religious twist, a land where a people get to choose which laws they follow, or not, based on their deeply held religious beliefs. Warren Jeffs should be released from prison b/c his religious beliefs says he can fuck children. After all, he answers to a higher authority. Where is The Liberty Council when you need them?

There is a difference between child abuse (breaking a law) and not marrying homosexuals (not breaking a law).
There is a difference between not selling a car to a homosexual (discrimination) and not marrying a homosexual couple in your church because it goes against you religious beliefs (not discrimination)

it is against the law of the land.

 

[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.

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.

Oh? YOU can't imagine ANYONE thinking otherwise? How about an atheist or a gay person? Because to a gay person I'm sure they realize, if they haven't been brainwashed with religion, their behavior is completely natural and normal to them. If I'm a guy and I like dudes I have two places to show my affection. The hip and the lip. With a woman you have the vajayjay. And if you are having sex for the sake of having a baby, I strongly recommend it. But if you are looking for sexual healing and you don't have a vajayjay, the butt will do just fine.

And to us atheists, we just don't see what's wrong with two consenting adults doing whatever they want to do.

Now what I will agree with you on is both gay and straights sleeping around and not having protected sex. This is a problem in our society and there are consequences for your actions. Aids for example. But no hell for homos. That's just stupid ancient religions. And this is why the Catholic church is lightening up.

 

[Syriusly]

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..

For 'passively' refusing to obey the law- and the judge.

And what does the New Testament say about obeying the law- and authority? That by refusing to obey authority- she is disobeying God.


"Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore, he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves, for rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same, for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil. Wherefore, it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience's sake."

 

[Syriusly]

The problem dear kaz, is the mistaken premise. Since homosexuality is about ...hmm..here, let me emphasize this... BEHAVIORS...and not race,)

That is what you keep telling us- or I should say- it is the lie you keep making.

Homosexuality is about the attraction of a person to another person of the same gender- not about behavior.

Behavior would be choosing to believe in a god, or behaving illegally because of your belief in god.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Well Silhouette lies a lot.

No churches being forced to do anything.

Government officials are being forced to do their job.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

I was wondering when you were going to reintroduce this failed argument. Sovereign citizen bullshit with a religious twist, a land where a people get to choose which laws they follow, or not, based on their deeply held religious beliefs. Warren Jeffs should be released from prison b/c his religious beliefs says he can fuck children. After all, he answers to a higher authority. Where is The Liberty Council when you need them?

There is a difference between child abuse (breaking a law) and not marrying homosexuals (not breaking a law).
There is a difference between not selling a car to a homosexual (discrimination) and not marrying a homosexual couple in your church because it goes against you religious beliefs (not discrimination)

Not marrying homosexuals(or anyone) when a judge has specifically ordered that the marriages be performed- is breaking the law.

Churches have every right to discriminate within their church- but if they are renting out their facility for public accommodations, depending upon the state law they may be subject to the public accommodation laws. Religious institutions are normally specifically excluded.

 

[Clementine]

Freedom of religion, or any other freedom, seems to mean you are allowed to do whatever the tyrants say you can do these days. If they want you to have a freedom, they will give it to you. Gone are the days when government was sworn to protect our freedoms. Now they think they are in charge of doling out rights, and not evenly among all groups.

If you are a Christian business owner, you are a target. I suspect there is an effort underway by the fringe on the left to seek out and destroy all who refuse to obey the liberal rules.

When the bias and/or racism originates on the left, it's quickly dismissed.

In 2012, a judge refused to marry straight couples. I don't recall any fuss over this. People went elsewhere instead of protesting and filing lawsuits.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/gay-texas-judge-tonya-parker-won-perform-marriages-straight-couples-article-1.1027709


Just so judges didn't try to refuse gay couples. Funny how it's only an issue when gays are refused.

http://www.toledoblade.com/Courts/2015/08/11/Judges-can-t-refuse-to-wed-gay-couples.html


Judge investigated for refusing to marry gay couples. In Oregon, judges are not required to do wedding ceremonies and he opted to stop them altogether. Still being investigated.

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/oregon-judge-investigated-for-refusing-to-marry-gay-couples/


At least for now, churches still have the right to refuse people. I suspect some are already working to change that since it's been stated that Christians need to change or let go of their beliefs to go along with the liberal views. If you want religious freedom with no criticism or lawsuits, covert to Islam and you will be untouchable. Otherwise, prepare for a battle with the PC crowd.

 

[easyt65]

The Constitutional specifically provides for the protection of religious freedom and the EXERCSING of that religion.

Homosexuality and same-sex weddings are specifically against the christian religion, and the attempt to FORCE Christians to perform ceremonies in direct opposition to their faith is a violation of the Constitution. This isn't even a legitimate issue...it has been resolved.

It is the Liberal intent to force its will on everyone.
It is the Socialist intent to destroy everything people rely on and follow EXCEPT for the Federal Government

'Civil Unions' is the answer that would end all of this. A Civil Union, a non-religious union, between 2 people, recognized by a government for the purpose of receiving equal government-provided benefits. That is not good enough for the LGBT Liberal Socialists, though...they want to impose their will in regards to gay marriage as they have regarding abortions.

Liberals declare Christians / pro-lifers have no right to impose their values on THEM but then turn around and do the same thing to Christians / pro-lifers by making them pay for THEIR abortions! Abortions, except for life-threatening cases, is an ELECTIVE SUGERY. Have as many abortions as you want, but YOU PAY FOR IT!

 

[JakeStarkey]

easyt65 makes no sense. No one is forcing anyone to perform same sex weddings. But when a clerk denies licenses to certain people because she disagrees with their life styles, she is wrong. Period.

 

[easyt65]

easyt65 makes no sense. No one is forcing anyone to perform same sex weddings. But when a clerk denies licenses to certain people because she disagrees with their life styles, she is wrong. Period.

Correct me if I am wrong but the topic is "Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?"
I pointed out that the question is a non-issue because churches / Christians are already protected from having to do so by the Constitution. I never said churches WERE being forced to perform such ceremonies.

I agree with you that Davis is wrong by not doing her job according to the law. I simply pointed out the FACT that she is doing nothing Obama has not done or is continuing to do.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A false equivalency comparison, easy. Tell us to whom is Obama denying marriage licenses.

 

[Campbell]

Freedom of religion, or any other freedom, seems to mean you are allowed to do whatever the tyrants say you can do these days. If they want you to have a freedom, they will give it to you. Gone are the days when government was sworn to protect our freedoms. Now they think they are in charge of doling out rights, and not evenly among all groups.

If you are a Christian business owner, you are a target. I suspect there is an effort underway by the fringe on the left to seek out and destroy all who refuse to obey the liberal rules.

When the bias and/or racism originates on the left, it's quickly dismissed.

In 2012, a judge refused to marry straight couples. I don't recall any fuss over this. People went elsewhere instead of protesting and filing lawsuits.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/gay-texas-judge-tonya-parker-won-perform-marriages-straight-couples-article-1.1027709


Just so judges didn't try to refuse gay couples. Funny how it's only an issue when gays are refused.

http://www.toledoblade.com/Courts/2015/08/11/Judges-can-t-refuse-to-wed-gay-couples.html


Judge investigated for refusing to marry gay couples. In Oregon, judges are not required to do wedding ceremonies and he opted to stop them altogether. Still being investigated.

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/oregon-judge-investigated-for-refusing-to-marry-gay-couples/


At least for now, churches still have the right to refuse people. I suspect some are already working to change that since it's been stated that Christians need to change or let go of their beliefs to go along with the liberal views. If you want religious freedom with no criticism or lawsuits, covert to Islam and you will be untouchable. Otherwise, prepare for a battle with the PC crowd.

Gays don't have to be wed in a church....nobody else does either. A minister, a judge, a court clerk, or justices of the peace have authority to perform a marriage in most states and the wedding does not have to be held in a church.

 

[JakeStarkey]

But a church has every right to be the place of wedding.

 

[sealybobo]

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?

They should not only be forced to accomodate gay weddings the members of the church should be forced to watch the honeymoon.

 

[WorldWatcher]

'Civil Unions' is the answer that would end all of this. A Civil Union, a non-religious union, between 2 people, recognized by a government for the purpose of receiving equal government-provided benefits. That is not good enough for the LGBT Liberal Socialists, though...they want to impose their will in regards to gay marriage as they have regarding abortions.

Actually it was the anti-LGBT crowd that was against Civil Unions. A decade ago they were passing State Constitutional Amendments to ban not only Civil Marriage for same-sex couples but Civil Unions also.

It's only that now that same-sex Civil Marriage is a reality are suddenly "Civil Unions" suddenly an acceptable alternative.


Funny that...


>>>>