Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[WorldWatcher]

"Section 7 of the SB 6239 says the following:
Consistent with the law against discrimination, chapter 49.60 RCW, no religious organization is required to provide accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage unless the organization offers admission, occupancy, or use of those accommodations or facilities to the public for a fee, or offers those advantages, privileges, services, or goods to the public for sale.
Let me break down this legalese. What this bill says is that if a church rents out its facilities for non-members to use for weddings, then it will be forced to allow a same-sex couple to use its facilities for a same-sex “marriage” ceremony"

Correct. This is inline with the SCOTUS decision of BSA v. Dale, if the Church want's to function as a private club they are free to do so. They can then restrict the usage of their facitlities. On the other hand when they function as a public business, i.e. renting their facilities to the general public, then those activities fall under Public Accommodation laws.

"a judge in New Jersey recently ordered that a church must allow its facilities to be used for same-sex “wedding” ceremonies despite the church’s religious beliefs against such relationships. The Judge’s rationale in ordering the church to open its facility to same-sex “weddings” was that the Constitution allows “some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals.”

You should try researching things from sites that will not lie to you:
http://www.adfmedia.org/files/OGCMA-BernsteinRuling.pdf?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

Did you read your link before posting beyond reading the incorrect title?


1. The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association is not a Church, it's a non-profit 501(c)3 organization.

2. The OGCMA was not asked to perform the ceremony. IIRC the ceremony was performed by the towns Mayor not a Church official.

3. The OGCMA association had applied for and received special tax exempt status for the pavilion in question and one of the the requirements was that the property be open to the public. The lesbian couple were/are members of the public and they were refused equal access to the property under the rules the OGCMA had agreed to when they made the request for the special tax exemption under the "Green Acres Program". THe Methodist Church was not sued and the Methodist Church did not loose it's religoius tax exempt status. A non-profit had a complaint filed for non-compliance with rules they agreed to when they applied for the program. The pavilion was not under a religious tax exemption.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

I'm against this judge's ruling.

Here is the actual ruling -->> http://www.adfmedia.org/files/OGCMA-BernsteinRuling.pdf?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1



>>>>

 

[JakeStarkey]

Schools are teaching tolerance.

kg is unhappy that the previously entitled evangelical Protestantism is not taught in school.

Tough to be you, kg, it sux.

 

[koshergrl]

She says this:

But my church will not marry them. And I will resist legislation meant to force my state to marry them.

And then in the same breath says this:

As you can see, the authoritarianism isn't on my part.

BWA-HA-HA-HA!

You just made yourself look like a complete idiot to absolutely everyone on this forum with a brain.

Me saying you can't make me marry a homo, is now me being authoritarian? Really... ? You idiot lol. Man, just when you think you've met the dumbest person on the forum, someone proves you wrong.

Oh, these morons are a dime a dozen. There are so many, and they are so uniformly stupid that I vacillate between thinking it's just one person with a thousand socks...or complete depressed hopelessness thinking that this calibre of human is what is being produced by our country, en masse.

 

[Seawytch]

They aren't teaching them to be tolerant of others.

They're teaching them the specifics of depraved sex acts.

Links to curriculum.

And yes, people are saying that churches should marry gays. Have you become a compulsive liar, or have you always been one?

Who is saying that? Churches will be "forced" to more inclusive through public opinion, not government intervention.

 

[koshergrl]

Good grief. How stupid ARE you?

I've posted multiple links to multiple examples of legislation that expresses the intent to exert state authority over churches, specifically, to force them to serve the homosexual community regardless of whether or not they want to.

Still, every couple of posts one of you assholes pops up and says "nobody has ever tried to force the churches to marry/put up with/serve faggots! Post the evidence!" So I do. And then another one pops up and says "Nobody is saying the church should be forced to accommodate queers!" Whereupon I say, "Yes they have, in this thread" whereupon they say "Post the evidence!" So I do...and two posts later...

Read the fucking thread.

You people are too stupid to breathe.

 

[koshergrl]

"
“Why would you put it in front of 13 year-old students?” he asked.
The poster, entitled, “How Do People Express Their Sexual Feelings?” lists sex acts such as: Oral Sex, Sexual Fantasy, Caressing, Anal Sex, Dancing, Hugging, Touching Each Other’s Genitals, Kissing, Grinding, and Masturbation."

Kansas Middle School: Poster Listing Sex Acts Part of 'Health and Science' Curriculum

 

[bendog]

They aren't teaching them to be tolerant of others.

They're teaching them the specifics of depraved sex acts.

Links to curriculum.

And yes, people are saying that churches should marry gays. Have you become a compulsive liar, or have you always been one?

Who is saying that? Churches will be "forced" to more inclusive through public opinion, not government intervention.

I don't think so seawytch. The episcopals have suffered from an anti-gay civil war, and not only is the church near broke but attendance dwindles. Perhaps some non-denomiationals will start up. But basically organized religion's response to gays and the politically powerless have had an enduring negative effect. The catholics will endure, as their laity has learned to just ignore Rome and the bishops.

 

[koshergrl]

"Module 2 of the program, which is called “Understanding Adolescent Sexuality and Abstinence,” offers “an overview of reproductive anatomy, discusses messages about sex, discusses how people express themselves sexually [apparently reinforced by the poster], and the benefits of abstinence.”

"According to HHS, in the original study that explored the effectiveness of the Making A Difference program, the participants were African-Americans, aged 11-13.
Nevertheless, Ellis thinks the curriculum should change.
“This has nothing to do with abstinence or sexual reproduction, actually, a lot of these things,” he said. “I would like to see that this particular portion of the curriculum is removed from the school.” "

Kansas Middle School: Poster Listing Sex Acts Part of 'Health and Science' Curriculum

 

[Seawytch]

"
“Why would you put it in front of 13 year-old students?” he asked.
The poster, entitled, “How Do People Express Their Sexual Feelings?” lists sex acts such as: Oral Sex, Sexual Fantasy, Caressing, Anal Sex, Dancing, Hugging, Touching Each Other’s Genitals, Kissing, Grinding, and Masturbation."

Kansas Middle School: Poster Listing Sex Acts Part of 'Health and Science' Curriculum

You'll have to link to the actual curriculum, I won't click on Breitbart.

 

[Seawytch]

They aren't teaching them to be tolerant of others.



They're teaching them the specifics of depraved sex acts.

Links to curriculum.

And yes, people are saying that churches should marry gays. Have you become a compulsive liar, or have you always been one?

Who is saying that? Churches will be "forced" to more inclusive through public opinion, not government intervention.

I don't think so seawytch. The episcopals have suffered from an anti-gay civil war, and not only is the church near broke but attendance dwindles. Perhaps some non-denomiationals will start up. But basically organized religion's response to gays and the politically powerless have had an enduring negative effect. The catholics will endure, as their laity has learned to just ignore Rome and the bishops.

There has been a 10% increase in gay friendly churches from 2009 to 2013. Young people aren't attending church and the number one reason? Not inclusive enough.

Churches will adapt or die.

 

[Redfish]

Links to curriculum.









Who is saying that? Churches will be "forced" to more inclusive through public opinion, not government intervention.

I don't think so seawytch. The episcopals have suffered from an anti-gay civil war, and not only is the church near broke but attendance dwindles. Perhaps some non-denomiationals will start up. But basically organized religion's response to gays and the politically powerless have had an enduring negative effect. The catholics will endure, as their laity has learned to just ignore Rome and the bishops.

There has been a 10% increase in gay friendly churches from 2009 to 2013. Young people aren't attending church and the number one reason? Not inclusive enough.

Churches will adapt or die.

churches have lost members because they have failed to live up to the principles of their religions, sorry, wytch, but it has nothing to do with gay people. Damn but you are

 

[Seawytch]

Good grief. How stupid ARE you?

I've posted multiple links to multiple examples of legislation that expresses the intent to exert state authority over churches, specifically, to force them to serve the homosexual community regardless of whether or not they want to.

Still, every couple of posts one of you assholes pops up and says "nobody has ever tried to force the churches to marry/put up with/serve faggots! Post the evidence!" So I do. And then another one pops up and says "Nobody is saying the church should be forced to accommodate queers!" Whereupon I say, "Yes they have, in this thread" whereupon they say "Post the evidence!" So I do...and two posts later...

Read the fucking thread.

You people are too stupid to breathe.

The thread is bullshit. No church in the US will ever be forced to perform a religious ceremony contrary to the tenants of their faith. This is an absolute.

Public Accommodation laws regarding businesses is another topic altogether and has NOTHING to do with civil marriage equality. (Neither does religious marriage for that matter)

 

[koshergrl]

No, I won't have to do anything.

I said the schools are teaching our children the details of depraved sex.

And I have proven it.

That fact that you're an idiot really has no bearing on anything.

"
District spokeswoman, Leigh Anne Neal, says the poster needs to be viewed in the context of a bigger curriculum, which she calls abstinence-based for students in middle school.
“The poster that you reference is actually part of our middle school health and science materials, and so it is a part of our district approved curriculum,” Neal said. “However the item is meant to be part of a lesson, and so certainly as a standalone poster without the context of a teacher-led discussion, I could see that there might be some cause for concern.”
She said that the approved curriculum is in line with what other schools around the country do as well.
“The curriculum it is a part of, it aligns with national standards around those topics, and it’s part of our curriculum in the school district,” she said.
But Ellis thinks if that’s the case, the curriculum needs to change.
“This has nothing to do with abstinence or sexual reproduction,” he said. “I would like to see that this particular portion of the curriculum is removed from the school.”

Father upset with terms on school?s sexual education poster | fox4kc.com

 

[koshergrl]

Good grief. How stupid ARE you?

I've posted multiple links to multiple examples of legislation that expresses the intent to exert state authority over churches, specifically, to force them to serve the homosexual community regardless of whether or not they want to.

Still, every couple of posts one of you assholes pops up and says "nobody has ever tried to force the churches to marry/put up with/serve faggots! Post the evidence!" So I do. And then another one pops up and says "Nobody is saying the church should be forced to accommodate queers!" Whereupon I say, "Yes they have, in this thread" whereupon they say "Post the evidence!" So I do...and two posts later...

Read the fucking thread.

You people are too stupid to breathe.

The thread is bullshit. No church in the US will ever be forced to perform a religious ceremony contrary to the tenants of their faith. This is an absolute.

Public Accommodation laws regarding businesses is another topic altogether and has NOTHING to do with civil marriage equality. (Neither does religious marriage for that matter)

The OP isn't bullshit. It's a question. It doesn't assert anything.

Though through it, we have asserted that the anti-christian hysterics are a bunch of morons.

 

[Seawytch]

No, I won't have to do anything.

I said the schools are teaching our children the details of depraved sex.

And I have proven it.

That fact that you're an idiot really has no bearing on anything.

"
District spokeswoman, Leigh Anne Neal, says the poster needs to be viewed in the context of a bigger curriculum, which she calls abstinence-based for students in middle school.
“The poster that you reference is actually part of our middle school health and science materials, and so it is a part of our district approved curriculum,” Neal said. “However the item is meant to be part of a lesson, and so certainly as a standalone poster without the context of a teacher-led discussion, I could see that there might be some cause for concern.”
She said that the approved curriculum is in line with what other schools around the country do as well.
“The curriculum it is a part of, it aligns with national standards around those topics, and it’s part of our curriculum in the school district,” she said.
But Ellis thinks if that’s the case, the curriculum needs to change.
“This has nothing to do with abstinence or sexual reproduction,” he said. “I would like to see that this particular portion of the curriculum is removed from the school.”

Father upset with terms on school?s sexual education poster | fox4kc.com

Is Kookbart the only link you have?

The curriculum is fine for middle schools. You can opt out you know. (Your kids will talk to other kids though )

 

[Seawytch]

Good grief. How stupid ARE you?

I've posted multiple links to multiple examples of legislation that expresses the intent to exert state authority over churches, specifically, to force them to serve the homosexual community regardless of whether or not they want to.

Still, every couple of posts one of you assholes pops up and says "nobody has ever tried to force the churches to marry/put up with/serve faggots! Post the evidence!" So I do. And then another one pops up and says "Nobody is saying the church should be forced to accommodate queers!" Whereupon I say, "Yes they have, in this thread" whereupon they say "Post the evidence!" So I do...and two posts later...

Read the fucking thread.

You people are too stupid to breathe.

The thread is bullshit. No church in the US will ever be forced to perform a religious ceremony contrary to the tenants of their faith. This is an absolute.

Public Accommodation laws regarding businesses is another topic altogether and has NOTHING to do with civil marriage equality. (Neither does religious marriage for that matter)

The OP isn't bullshit. It's a question. It doesn't assert anything.

Though through it, we have asserted that the anti-christian hysterics are a bunch of morons.

It's a stupid question since it's never going to happen in the United States.

 

[koshergrl]

No, I won't have to do anything.

I said the schools are teaching our children the details of depraved sex.

And I have proven it.

That fact that you're an idiot really has no bearing on anything.

"
District spokeswoman, Leigh Anne Neal, says the poster needs to be viewed in the context of a bigger curriculum, which she calls abstinence-based for students in middle school.
“The poster that you reference is actually part of our middle school health and science materials, and so it is a part of our district approved curriculum,” Neal said. “However the item is meant to be part of a lesson, and so certainly as a standalone poster without the context of a teacher-led discussion, I could see that there might be some cause for concern.”
She said that the approved curriculum is in line with what other schools around the country do as well.
“The curriculum it is a part of, it aligns with national standards around those topics, and it’s part of our curriculum in the school district,” she said.
But Ellis thinks if that’s the case, the curriculum needs to change.
“This has nothing to do with abstinence or sexual reproduction,” he said. “I would like to see that this particular portion of the curriculum is removed from the school.”

Father upset with terms on school?s sexual education poster | fox4kc.com

Is Kookbart the only link you have?

The curriculum is fine for middle schools. You can opt out you know. (Your kids will talk to other kids though )

No, you moron. The link I provided here was to the local television station.

The list of sex acts was posted in the common areas of the school. Undoubtedly by a teacher of indeterminate sexual orientation looking for recruits.

 

[koshergrl]

The thread is bullshit. No church in the US will ever be forced to perform a religious ceremony contrary to the tenants of their faith. This is an absolute.

Public Accommodation laws regarding businesses is another topic altogether and has NOTHING to do with civil marriage equality. (Neither does religious marriage for that matter)

The OP isn't bullshit. It's a question. It doesn't assert anything.

Though through it, we have asserted that the anti-christian hysterics are a bunch of morons.

It's a stupid question since it's never going to happen in the United States.

Oh, ok.

 

[JakeStarkey]

kg, the village idiot, thinks others believe her position on this is real.

Only if churches violate public accommodation laws will they be vulnerable to such suits.

As they should be.