Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[mdk]

Days Since a U.S. Church was Forced to Marry Any Couple Against Their Wishes:

View attachment 50182

I've been to a few weddings in my day, but I've never seen one where a building presided over them. I have seen individual Christians performing them though. Is that what you mean by "church"?

If that's the case, we just had a "church" jailed the other day for refusing to accomodate a gay wedding.

No, that is what you mean by church. How many times to do you have to make this foolish argument despite its obvious flaws? People are not churches. Don't believe me? Stop paying taxes and claim that as a church you are exempt. When you get jailed for tax evasion be sure claim your religious freedoms are being violated, idiots gobble that shit up. All the best.

 

[Silhouette]

No, that is what you mean by church. How many times to do you have to make this foolish argument despite its obvious flaws? People are not churches. Don't believe me? Stop paying taxes and claim that as a church you are exempt. When you get jailed for tax evasion be sure claim your religious freedoms are being violated, idiots gobble that shit up. All the best.

Oh, you mean tax breaks...for the organization of individual Christians. Or a building? What is an organization of individual Christians made up of again?

Will your "tax break status" be the litmus test of whether or not individual Christians enjoy 1st Amendment protections to be able to passively not participated in committing a mortal sin?

"Your honors, Christians only enjoy 1st Amendment protections when assembled in a group. Outside that we can require them to abdicate their mortal mandates to passively resist us if we want to force them to defy the warnings of mortal sin."


...which is the same thing as saying PA laws now dominate the 1st Amendment...then along came the 9th Amendment and rained on your little gay pride cult parade...

 

[mdk]

No, that is what you mean by church. How many times to do you have to make this foolish argument despite its obvious flaws? People are not churches. Don't believe me? Stop paying taxes and claim that as a church you are exempt. When you get jailed for tax evasion be sure claim your religious freedoms are being violated, idiots gobble that shit up. All the best.

Oh, you mean tax breaks...for the organization of individual Christians. Or a building? What is an organization of individual Christians made up of again?

Will your "tax break status" be the litmus test of whether or not individual Christians enjoy 1st Amendment protections to be able to passively not participated in committing a mortal sin?

"Your honors, Christians only enjoy 1st Amendment protections when assembled in a group. Outside that we can require them to abdicate their mortal mandates to passively resist us if we want to force them to defy the warnings of mortal sin."

"Your honor, if it pleases the court, I get to pick and choose whatever law I wish to follow on the basis of my faith. I don't even recognize this court as I only answer to God's authority. Your honor, please also take into account that I don't know what the fuck I am talking about"

Let me make this very plain, not a single church has been forced to marry any couple against their wishes in this nation. Not one. My litmus test is the law not whatever legal gibberish and bullshit you make up as you go along.

 

[Arizona Willie]

Churches --- NO

State clerks --- YES

 

[Silhouette]

Let me make this very plain, not a single church has been forced to marry any couple against their wishes in this nation. Not one. My litmus test is the law not whatever legal gibberish and bullshit you make up as you go along.

Let me make this very plain, a Christian, who makes up a church, was JUST JAILED A FEW DAYS AGO for not accomodating a "gay marraige".

Your freaky-fuck cult didn't waste even a quarter of a year before they pressured a judge into jailing a Christian for failing to bow properly at their rainbow altar. Hitler did similar things in the early days.

Do you suppose the SCOTUS would've ruled differently if it had known in June that before the leaves fell off the trees of the SAME YEAR, that your cult would be throwing a Christian in jail for passively refusing to bow at your altar?

 

[mdk]

Let me make this very plain, not a single church has been forced to marry any couple against their wishes in this nation. Not one. My litmus test is the law not whatever legal gibberish and bullshit you make up as you go along.

Let me make this very plain, a Christian, who makes up a church, was JUST JAILED A FEW DAYS AGO for not accomodating a "gay marraige".

Cute story, individual people are still not churches. This is the same sovereign citizen nonsense you trot out every couple months but with a religious twist. All she had to do was allow a deputy in her office to issue the license and she would have been accommodated. Davis believes her name on the paper, whether she signs it or not, is tantamount to an endorsement. Using that stupid logic she endorsed every single marriage and divorce that came through her office whether it was Biblically sanction or not. Either way, gays and straights are presently getting married Rowan County.


Remember, humanity depends on Kim Davis' case.

 

[Skylar]

The 14th is what applies to preventing the tyranny of the majority from depriving a minority of their rights.

Behaviors aren't a minority. Try again.

Sure they are. Religion is behavior...and the basis of being a minority. Political advocacy is a behavior....and the basis of being a minority.

Your argument that behaviors can't be the basis of rights is steaming horseshit. Assembly is a behavior. Bearing arms is a behavior. Speech is a behavior. And they're all protected.

Obliterating your latest piece of pseudo-legal nonsense.

 

[Skylar]

Let me make this very plain, not a single church has been forced to marry any couple against their wishes in this nation. Not one. My litmus test is the law not whatever legal gibberish and bullshit you make up as you go along.

Let me make this very plain, a Christian, who makes up a church, was JUST JAILED A FEW DAYS AGO for not accomodating a "gay marraige".

Kim Davis is not a church.

Ending your entire argument.

 

[WorldWatcher]

>

White men can marry.

Black women can marry.


White man wants to marry a black woman, that is a behavior. Yep, behaviors are covered.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

>

White men can marry.

Black women can marry.


White man wants to marry a black woman, that is a behavior. Yep, behaviors are covered

Nope, men and women aren't behaviors. Gay sex is though. And gay sex isn't "a racial issue".

 

[WorldWatcher]

>

White men can marry.

Black women can marry.


White man wants to marry a black woman, that is a behavior. Yep, behaviors are covered

Nope, men and women aren't behaviors. Gay sex is though. And gay sex isn't "a racial issue".

A white men wanting to marry a black woman, sure are behaviors.

As such white men can be limited to marrying white woman and black men to marrying black women.


Ohhh - wait a minute that behavior is protected.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

A white men wanting to marry a black woman, sure are behaviors.

As such white men can be limited to marrying white woman and black men to marrying black women.

OK, I'll dance with your strawman for awhile...

..So you say a white man wanting to marry a black woman is a behavior. Would you also say a brother wanting to marry a sister is a behavior? Also, how about a man wanting to marry 6 wives...is that a behavior also according to your tangent?

Then how would you deny brothers marrying sisters or a man marrying 6 wives? And please refrain from using the words "icky" or "socially unacceptable" or "just plain wrong"...words to that effect. Because those same phrases could be used to describe ass-sex marrying and playing "mom and dad" to kids who ultimately know better.

So, why do just "gay" special deviant behaviors get the legal red carpet while the others are locked out?

Let me speed this up a bit. I'll answer for you using the only possible answer after logical deduction: According to the very loopholes you cite in the 14th to declare "gay marriage is legal in all 50 states" is the very same argument any incest or polygamy marriage could argue.

Ergo, polygamy and incest marriage...and any other conceivable behavior marriage is NOW ALREADY LEGAL. I cite the word "equality" in emphatically declaring this is so.

 

[Skylar]

A white men wanting to marry a black woman, sure are behaviors.

As such white men can be limited to marrying white woman and black men to marrying black women.

OK, I'll dance with your strawman for awhile...

..So you say a white man wanting to marry a black woman is a behavior. Would you also say a brother wanting to marry a sister is a behavior? Also, how about a man wanting to marry 6 wives...is that a behavior also according to your tangent?

Would you say that speech is a behavior? That practicing religion is a behavior? That bearing arms is a behavior?

Your entire premise that 'behaviors' aren't protected under the constitution is obviously wrong. Remember, Sil.....you simply don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Silhouette]

Would you say that speech is a behavior? That practicing religion is a behavior? That bearing arms is a behavior?

Your entire premise that 'behaviors' aren't protected under the constitution is obviously wrong. Remember, Sil.....you simply don't know what you're talking about.

That wasn't the question oh artful dodger...

...the question was: which behaviors would you or could you, or anyone else exclude from marriage now legally?

And it's even more important twin question:

"Who would decide that and why?"

 

[Skylar]

Would you say that speech is a behavior? That practicing religion is a behavior? That bearing arms is a behavior?

Your entire premise that 'behaviors' aren't protected under the constitution is obviously wrong. Remember, Sil.....you simply don't know what you're talking about.

That wasn't the question oh artful dodger...

That behaviors aren't constitutionaly protected was the basis of your silly argument.

Its nonsense. There are a litany of behaviors that are protected. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Silhouette]

That behaviors aren't constitutionaly protected was the basis of your silly argument.

Its nonsense. There are a litany of behaviors that are protected. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

Are polygamy and incest marriage legal now Skylar, if "equality" was the basis for mandating gay marriage? (remember, we are talking about behaviors getting rights here)

Take your time...it's OK, we all know the answer to the question because there is only one answer possible.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The 14th is what applies to preventing the tyranny of the majority from depriving a minority of their rights.

Behaviors aren't a minority. Try again.

The SCOTUS proved you wrong.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You mean a small vocal minority who do not understand the meaning of a constitutional republic and the rule of law.

A constitutional republic abides by the Constitution. When you get a minute, read the 1st and 9th Amendments...

The 14th is what applies to preventing the tyranny of the majority from depriving a minority of their rights.

By most surveys, homophobes are a minority. Hmmm.

Who is denying homophobes their right to express their anger, hatred and bigotry?

 

[dblack]

By most surveys, all bigots are a minority (except in the south). Some, like bigoted Christians, are even a protected minority...

That's where we are. Special protections trumping equal rights.

Yes, we know how you feel about PA laws...what are you DOING about them?

Try to raise awareness among people who think about such things.

BTW, you always ask that question as though it's some kind of trump card. What is it that you think it implies or proves?

It proves that a lot of people bitch about the PA laws but NOBODY is doing a damn thing about them...except trying to get carve outs for anti gay bigotry.

Special carve outs follow the same corporatist principles that PA laws are based on, and they're just as wrong.

"Bitching" about things that we think are wrong, or rather discussing them with others and building consensus, is the first step in solving any societal problem. Right now, there is very little awareness or understanding of the problems I'm pointing out. Most people have a hard time seeing beyond personal circumstance and the daily headlines. Pretty much any important social change starts with people bitching about something.

 

[dblack]

You mean a small vocal minority who do not understand the meaning of a constitutional republic and the rule of law.

A constitutional republic abides by the Constitution. When you get a minute, read the 1st and 9th Amendments...

The 14th is what applies to preventing the tyranny of the majority from depriving a minority of their rights.

By most surveys, homophobes are a minority. Hmmm.

Who is denying homophobes their right to express their anger, hatred and bigotry?

Do you care? I mean, does it really matter who is suppressing their rights? Or are you just trying to suggest that people shouldn't have the right to express anger, hatred and bigotry?