Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Peach]

This topic is classic fearmongering. No one has forced a church in America to perform a gay wedding.

Dur..... that was the poll at the start of this thread. Can't you read?

" Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?"

That was one of you people, writing that. It was a bunch of you people, supporting that.

We didn't make that up. You guys on the left did.

I'm just telling you up front.... not going to happen. In no ambiguous terms, that is not going to happen.... period.

I didn't say it did happen.... I just said... it won't. You people on the left, are not going to do it. Period.

"You people"; divide and fail to conquer, actually.

 

[koshergrl]

So you think they should be forced.

I know you think that by using the term "public opinion" you're somehow hiding the fact that you are saying that you think the churches should be forced, but it's all the same. Public opinion was AOK and 100 percent behind the "forcing" of Jews to get onto train cars, too. Those Jews voluntarily boarded those trains because they thought it was the right thing to do..because public opinion was against them.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So you think they should be forced.

I know you think that by using the term "public opinion" you're somehow hiding the fact that you are saying that you think the churches should be forced, but it's all the same. Public opinion was AOK and 100 percent behind the "forcing" of Jews to get onto train cars, too. Those Jews voluntarily boarded those trains because they thought it was the right thing to do..because public opinion was against them.

This is hyperbolic nonsense and demagoguery.

In its ruling today invalidating Utah's Amendment 3, which violated gay Americans' right to due process and equal protection of the law, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged the fact that the decision in no way compels religious institutions to accommodate same-sex couples, thus confirming the idiocy of the OP:

We also emphasize, as did the district court, that today’s decision relates solely to
civil marriage. See Kitchen, 961 F. Supp. 2d at 1214 (“[T]he court notes that its decision
does not mandate any change for religious institutions, which may continue to express
their own moral viewpoints and define their own traditions about marriage.”). Plaintiffs
must be accorded the same legal status presently granted to married couples, but religious
institutions remain as free as they always have been to practice their sacraments and
traditions as they see fit. We respect the views advanced by members of various religious
communities and their discussions of the theological history of marriage. And we
continue to recognize the right of the various religions to define marriage according to
their moral, historical, and ethical precepts. Our opinion does not intrude into that
domain or the exercise of religious principles in this arena.

http://extras.mnginteractive.com/li.../20140625_111714_utah-gay-marriage-ruling.pdf

 

[koshergrl]

I'm not interested in that.

The question, the OP, is whether or not YOU THINK the church should be forced.

We got our answer.

You do.

You can argue "but it's never happened" till the cows come home..that's not what the question was.

The question was not "Has it happened yet". It was "Do you want to force the church to serve homos".

And you do.

 

[RKMBrown]

I'm against this judge's ruling.

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



>>>>

Well that changes things. I agree with the ruling. The ruling recites:

Based on the foregoing, I CONCLUDE that respondent violated the LAD when it
refused to conduct a civil-union ceremony for Ms. Bernstein and Ms. Paster. Thus,
petitioners’ motion is GRANTED; respondent’s motion is DENIED

It would appear the article was incorrect about what the ruling entailed. I can only surmise there was confusion over the typo in the phrase "refused to conduct a civil-union ceremony." The ruling pertained to the renting of a non-religious pavilion for conduction of a civil union ceremony, not the marrying of the couple that wanted to rent the pavilion. Whoever wrote the ruling for the judge put a typo in there. Or it was a lib trying to change what the case was about using the typo.

The phrase should have said "refused a conduction of the civil-union ceremony at the pavilion."

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

The link you provided was in error. That judge did not force the church to marry the gay couple as was reported. There was a typo in the ruling. See my comments and read the actual ruling. If you need more detail I can explain.

Or switch to another link that provides an actual case where a church was forced to marry a gay couple.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I'm against this judge's ruling.

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



>>>>

Well that changes things. I agree with the ruling. The ruling recites:

Based on the foregoing, I CONCLUDE that respondent violated the LAD when it
refused to conduct a civil-union ceremony for Ms. Bernstein and Ms. Paster. Thus,
petitioners’ motion is GRANTED; respondent’s motion is DENIED

It would appear the article was incorrect about what the ruling entailed. I can only surmise there was confusion over the typo in the phrase "refused to conduct a civil-union ceremony." The ruling pertained to the renting of a non-religious pavilion for conduction of a civil union ceremony, not the marrying of the couple that wanted to rent the pavilion. Whoever wrote the ruling for the judge put a typo in there. Or it was a lib trying to change what the case was about using the typo.

The phrase should have said "refused a conduction of the civil-union ceremony at the pavilion."

Actually the phrase should have been "Non-Chruch entity violates civil contract by refusing Civil Union ceremony on property open to the public."



>>>>

 

[koshergrl]

For the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh time...

NOBODY asserted that the church had been forced to accommodate gays. The OP poses the question, in poll form....DO YOU THINK CHURCHES SHOULD BE FORCED to accommodate gays.

My link was not submitted as evidence that churches had been forced to accommodate gays. My link was submitted as evidence that there are people who seek to force the church to submit.

But the premise of the thread...once again...is SHOULD churches be forced.

It is NOT "churches are being forced!" It's "do you THINK churches should be forced"?

And you have all answered with a resounding "YES BUT IT HASN'T HAPPENED YET". As if we didn't know that, lol. Or as if it's even pertinent to the discussion.

It's not. We know it hasn't happened yet. And whether or not it has happened in this country, in the past, is completely irrelevant to the question, in poll form...

do you THINK the church should be FORCED to serve homosexuals?

And you do.

 

[koshergrl]

Do you people not understand the difference between statements and questions?

Between the words "should" and "did"? Because you seem to have difficulties with these concepts.

 

[Seawytch]

So you think they should be forced.

I know you think that by using the term "public opinion" you're somehow hiding the fact that you are saying that you think the churches should be forced, but it's all the same. Public opinion was AOK and 100 percent behind the "forcing" of Jews to get onto train cars, too. Those Jews voluntarily boarded those trains because they thought it was the right thing to do..because public opinion was against them.

Yes...just as churches were "forced" to perform interracial marriages...by public opinion. Remember the Mormons? They were among the last to be "forced" to accept blacks...by public opinion.

Really? Hitler?

 

[Silhouette]

When the state seeks to impose its will upon the churches of the land, bloodshed is a heartbeat away.

No. In our country, the state does not have the authority to dictate what the church must *allow*.

So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?

Race and deviant sexual behaviors are not the same thing. So your question is nonsensical. Of course behaviors can be regulated by the majority. Unless your cult of LGBT have applied for federal recognition? Do you have a tax-exempt status and federal recognition yet?

No?

Well then I guess you're out of luck. Mere minority behaviors don't qualify as "minorities".

 

[koshergrl]

So you think they should be forced.

I know you think that by using the term "public opinion" you're somehow hiding the fact that you are saying that you think the churches should be forced, but it's all the same. Public opinion was AOK and 100 percent behind the "forcing" of Jews to get onto train cars, too. Those Jews voluntarily boarded those trains because they thought it was the right thing to do..because public opinion was against them.

Yes...just as churches were "forced" to perform interracial marriages...by public opinion. Remember the Mormons? They were among the last to be "forced" to accept blacks...by public opinion.

Really? Hitler?

Churches were never forced to marry interracial couples, you nitwit.

You fail..and you keep on failing over and over and over again. I think perhaps you have drug induced brain damage.

 

[koshergrl]

BTW...why don't you provide me with a "force by public opinion" citation, reference and link.

 

[koshergrl]

I want to see that ebonics phrase used by some other idiot than yourself.

I know I won't, because it's a term you made up. What a tard.

 

[koshergrl]

I'm beginning to think all dykes are illiterate retards. There's you, and there's Bode...that's enough to convince me.

 

[Gadawg73]

No church is forced now to marry any heterosexual couples.
No church will ever be forced to marry anyone ever.

 

[koshergrl]

Nobody said they were. You're late to the party

The question is..do you think they SHOULD be. It's a poll. I know, it's confused all the other fags as well.

 

[Gadawg73]

What Christian church now is forced to conduct Jewish weddings?
What Jewish church is forced to conduct Muslim weddings.

You people are dumb as a box of rocks.

 

[koshergrl]

Er...it's a poll.

I take it you're already intoxicated. Usually we get to watch you get progressively more sodden..this time you've skipped the trip!

 

[Gadawg73]

Nobody said they were. You're late to the party

The question is..do you think they SHOULD be. It's a poll. I know, it's confused all the other fags as well.

Sticks and stones Ms. Piggy. I have been shot at, beat up and left for dead. Played 4 quarters against some of the best.
Married 37 years with 3 kids and grand kids.

Anyone that votes in a poll worded like this is an idiot.

"Hey, let us take a poll: Do you think Muslim churches should be forced to marry Midget Jews?"

You folks are dumb as a box of rocks.