Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[OohPooPahDoo]

If a church RENTS their facilities for receptions and weddings also then they will be required to take anyone.
But even a dumbass can read The Constitution and know that the church is separate from government, something most of these religious kooks bitch about all the time, and can not require a church to go against their freedom of religion.
The Constitution has a deep rooted history of safeguarding those religious rights which allow them to refuse to perform weddings for gay couples for as long as they choose to.

Now government could step in and punish individual churches by taking away their tax exempt status as we all know religious institutions rely on not paying taxes so this is important to them. I doubt that will ever happen with the ceremony as case law does not support that.

But the government has NEVER used either power to tell religious groups who they have to marry.

And to correct the myth here about interracial marriages, when the court struck down state bans in Loving v. Virginia in 1967 there was NEVER any suggestion that private religious groups that would not perform interracial marriages would be shut down.

I offer that they cannot take away a tax-exempt status of a church refusing to perform gay marriages. Because that too would be an arbitrary favoritism of the government against a religion. And that can be construed as a violation of the 1st. A church may not be at once federally-recognized and at the same time punished for the faith it adheres to..

That's not punishing anyone for faith. Its punishing them for operating a business enterprise not in accord with the law.

Though you're probably right they can't take away tax-exempt status for it.

Also, race has NOTHING to do with this topic and I tire of hearing that false premise inserted time and again on the gay marriage subject. Gays are an incomplete grouping of sexually deviant behaviors. They are NOT a race of people. They are an as-yet unrecognized religion, de facto. A cult. And cults don't get special protections from the 14th or Loving or any of the rest of it.

Homosexuality is genetic just like race. Its not a cult, nor is homosexual sex per se deviant.

I'm pretty sure God intended our mouths for talking and eating (and for the right wingers - breathing) - so why do so many straight guys stick their penises in their girlfriend or wive's mouth? Sounds like deviant behavior to me! It can't possibly result in pregancy, thus it is an abomination before the lord! (woman on top also is deviant, but you know that I"m sure)

 

[Andylusion]

What part of "The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions" did you not get?

That's not what the first amendment actually says you ignorant moron. Pick up a Constitution, shut your stupid mouth, and try READING for a change.

You don't seem to grasp the heritage of the Christian world view do you?

Actually, I studied Christianity 1 hour a day, 5 days a week, 9 months a year, for 8 years total. However, unlike you - it wasn't the only thing I studied. So go fuck yourself.

Christians were slaughtered, torn apart by lions, thrown into freezing water, all because they were not willing to change their views, just because some arrogant windbags in society thought we had to be like them.

I like how your history of Christianity ends at Constantine! What an ignorant fucktwad you are! If you knew history you'd realize that Christians have quite a long history of murder in the name of God - in fact, they have quite a long history of murdered OTHER CHRISTIANS in the name of God. There's a place, maybe you've heard of it, called "England". You should check out their religious history!

I wouldn't worry one bit about gay weddings at your Church, BTW. Most of the gay people I know don't want to get married in a shit-hole operated by total morons. Its only the Churchs that actually provide a decent place for folks to get married that have to worry about the gays.

Would that make a difference?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

So do you see "unless they rent out the church for religious ceremonies" in there? If not, then what was the point of your complaint?

No... you don't. My argument has not changed.

Yet even then, what part of:

I do not care what you think about me... about my church.... about my views... or about the law. I will go to court... I will go to jail.... I will go to prison.... on this issue.

did you not grasp?

I don't care. Do you understand? I do not care.

Let's pretend for a moment that the constitution did say that we have accommodate everyone? I *STILL* do not care.

You need to grasp who you are talking to. I'm not a 'cultural christian', where I'm just christian because everyone I know, and all my neighbors are christians.

I'm not a 'social christian', where I'm only a christian, because all my friends and buddies are all christians, and I like to hang out and chat at the church.

I'm not a 'hereditary christian' where I'm just a christian because will my father was, and my grand father was, and therefore I am just because.... well that's what the family was.

I am an actual Christian. I believe that there was in fact a man named Jesus of Nazareth. That he was born of a virgin, killed on a cross, and rose up from the dead, and is waiting in Heaven for his coming return, which on an explicitly personal note, I think will happen in the next century.

Jesus is King. Jesus is Lord. And Jesus is G-d.

So when you say "The constitution doesn't say that".... I don't care.

The absolute highest authority in my life, is not the police, the Supreme Court, the President, or even the constitution. I obey all of those authorities up to the point where they conflict with G-d. The moment they conflict with G-d, G-d wins, they lose.

Lastly, did I not already tell you I don't care what you think of my church? Yet you try and insult something you have no information about. What does that say about you?

Here's the reality. My Church is a target, and that is one of the reasons this topic concerns me. My church is the largest in the area. We have some of the best facilities in our city. We have 20 acres of land, seating for 1000 people or more depending room configuration, a reception area, carpeted multipurpose room, child care facilities, and many other amenities I could list. There is no better place for a wedding than our church, which is exactly why people are willing to pay us to use it.

But we're not going to 'marry' homos. Marriage is between a man and a woman, as defined by G-d. It's not possible to marry two men or two women. Trying to do that is an abomination against G-d. We're not going to do it.

Period. Not going to do it. Not an option, not up for discussion, don't care what anyone says on the matter.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Oh...those churches will be a minority soon enough.

The Federal Government has no grounds to impose their views on a religious institution that dictates the government's view over the individual freedom of expression of one's own religious conscience - as clearly stated under the First Amendment. Those who feel that government CAN impose it's will over an individual's religious conscience, quite honestly has no knowledge of the foundational basis nor its historical significance surrounding the amendment's intended purpose. In short they need a lesson in American history, backed up with historical views of those Founders that were actually present where the Amendment was being drafted.

What are you blathering about? You response has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted.

Churches can NOT be forced to adapt to a behavior belief or lifestyle that contradicts with their own freedom of religious expression or conscience. I don't care if that behavior acceptance comes from a particular group or the Federal Government itself, it goes against the First Amendment and what our Founders had originally intended for "freedom of religion" without government intervention, that's what "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof" clearly states and those who drafted our Constitution intended. I sometimes wonder if people even bother to educate themselves in early American history. If they had, this thread would have been settled within the first few posts.

 

[Andylusion]

The Federal Government has no grounds to impose their views on a religious institution that dictates the government's view over the individual freedom of expression of one's own religious conscience - as clearly stated under the First Amendment. Those who feel that government CAN impose it's will over an individual's religious conscience, quite honestly has no knowledge of the foundational basis nor its historical significance surrounding the amendment's intended purpose. In short they need a lesson in American history, backed up with historical views of those Founders that were actually present where the Amendment was being drafted.

What are you blathering about? You response has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted.

Churches can NOT be forced to adapt to a behavior belief or lifestyle that contradicts with their own freedom of religious expression or conscience. I don't care if that behavior acceptance comes from a particular group or the Federal Government itself, it goes against the First Amendment and what our Founders had originally intended for "freedom of religion" without government intervention, that's what "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof" clearly states and those who drafted our Constitution intended. I sometimes wonder if people even bother to educate themselves in early American history. If they had, this thread would have been settled within the first few posts.

You have to remember, there is a large section of the population today that doesn't care about the rights they have, but rather, want rights that don't exist, and would even like to have the 'right' to force others to adapt to themselves.

It's not that they don't know, but that they actively wish to tare down.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Can you provide a concrete example of any time the United Sates (since we have a Constitution) government has forces a Church to perform a religious wedding ceremony...

1. ...in the case of interracial marriage when such marriage are claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?

2. ...in the case of interfaith marriage when such marriage are claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?

3. ...in the case of a marriage when one or more of the participants are divorced for reasons claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?

4. ...And since Same-sex Civil Marriage has been legal for a decade, the case of a same-sex marriage when such marriages are claimed to be against the religious beliefs of a Church?​

>>>>

In all those instances, the beliefs of the Churches were respected. Gays do not respect the beliefs of others and demand that religious principles be violated.

I doubt blacks respect Churches that deny them equal treatment also.

Interracial Couple Spurned - ABC News
Church bans interracial marriages; ?I am not racist? *said former pastor* - NY Daily News


>>>>

What you lefties never understand is that you do not have to respect - or like - the person in order to respect that person's rights. I neither respect nor like you. In fact, I think you're the (nominally) human equivalent of the stuff restaurants clean out of their grease traps. That in no way affects the fact that I recognize that you have rights, and respect your legal right to exercise those rights.

I think the use to which you put your right to freedom of speech is abhorrent in its stupidity and arrogance, but I would never consider allowing the government to in any way prevent you from doing it.

Homosexuals need to stop gazing at their belly-buttons and petting their little woes . . . "sob, sob, I'm an outcast, I'm abused" . . . wrap their self-absorbed brains around the three facts that 1) they will never force everyone to like them, 2) they do not NEED to force everyone to like them, and 3) the more they try to force everyone to like them, or at least pretend that they do, the more people they convince to NOT like them, and then get the fuck on with their pathetic lives.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"We" are those of "us" who choose not to marry homos in our churches, cupcake.

Oh...those churches will be a minority soon enough.

It amuses me that lefties, desperate as they are for the illusion of popularity, inclusion, and normality, think that everyone in the world aspires to that. You really cannot grasp that the Church does not care, and has never cared, about whether they're "the minority" or not. They usually are, and that suits them fine. Your approbation is not required or requested, and frankly, the Church would prefer not to have it, since it would be seen as an indication that they're doing something wrong.

You really don't even bother to try to understand the people you vilify and demonize, do you? You're like a kid drawing horns on people's pictures: smear and move on. No thought required.

 

[Cecilie1200]

JIM NABORS ( GOMER PYLE )-THE IMPOSSIBLE DREAM - YouTube

Interesting that you post Jim Nabors singing "To Dream the Impossible Dream", a man that after a 38 year relationship with his long term partner was finally able to marry that partner a month after Same-sex Civil Marriage became legal in Washington State.

I guess he and his husbands dreams really did come true.


>>>>

He spent a lot of time dreaming about the approval of others, did he? Can't imagine why. Did it make his relationship more "real"?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

NO.
Why should the rights of one section of the community be forced upon the other, ignoring their rights?
The same goes in reverse, the church, whilst being able to remain free to live by the rules of their bible, should not force its opinions on sections of society that don't wish to follow those rules.
The same applies to all other religious groups.

I have to wonder why you felt the need to add the part about churches "forcing their opinions on others". Have you an example of that actually happening, or anyone even trying to make it happen, that required that caveat, or did you just think it made you sound "fair"?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Generally true until churches go into public sector businesses; they lose the cover of the 1st Amendment and rightfully so.

Unfortunately your reasoning is not historically accurate when you consider the bible was a part of required reading in "public" schools during our nation's early founding (even well after the US Constitution was passed). If your interpretational view was accurate, no religious book (especially the bible) would ever have been a part of required educational teaching in American history.

Of course the Bible was required reading in the nation's early days. It would never have been different. Books were expensive. Few people owned a book almost no one could buy a book for use in a school. Everyone had a Bible.

And, of course, the Bible has always been and continues to be the #1 source of reference material for other literature, which means you are going to lose a lot of understanding of those texts if you have no knowledge of the Bible.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I disagree with gay weddings but, with that in mind, why do you have to promote hatred of homosexuals, when I disagree with the idea but don't feel the need to hate anyone?

Perhaps Ben and a rapidly growing number of like minded people are tired of beimg manipulated by an organized gang of facist queers - who think they have the right to bulldoze over society and demand it be rebuilt it to suit their depraved desires.

And then there are the religious fascists who want to forcibly bring morals to groups who don't agree with religious values.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who looked in vain for the substantiated example that CERTAINLY was intended to follow that statement. Perhaps your computer accidentally cut that part of your post off?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Really?

How?

Easy, by banning gay marriage (officialy, not only religious), banning abortion, banning terminally ill patients to commit suicide with approval of a physician and some trying to mix religion and politics.

Uh huh. Saying, "You cannot do bad things to other people" is DEFINITELY equivalent to saying, "You must perform actions you do not agree with." Yup. Absolutely. As is saying, "You cannot force us to recognize and sanction things we do not agree with" is exactly the same as saying, "You must recognize and sanction things you do not agree with". You betcha.

Epic fail.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's always the same with social right-wingers. They ask you to provide examples and then don't reply anymore.

Hey, dimwit, when you're posting after midnight, you might want to consider that people GO TO BED. Just because your life revolves around the Internet doesn't mean other people don't have to get up the next morning.

Why don't you try not being such a spoiled, demanding little punk and fucking wait until people get around to the incredibly low place you occupy on their priority lists?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Easy, by banning gay marriage (officialy, not only religious), banning abortion, banning terminally ill patients to commit suicide with approval of a physician and some trying to mix religion and politics.

1. You force babies to die,

2.you want to also kill the old, infirm, weak, and confused...

3. and you force us to subsidize a huge population of disgusting, criminal, and diseased freaks.

4. I think your days of forcing need to come to an end. It is time you were brought to heel. As humans, we abide by a code of honor and behavior..if you do not wish to abide by it...then by all means, remove yourself from our society. Create your own. Elsewhere. With your own kind.

1. No, I believe in the woman's right to abortion. Forcing a mother to have a baby will not work.

You must not be a woman. I've had three children, and the only thing "forcing" me to have them was Mother Nature, when those contractions started. Your view is the equivalent of me saying that the state is "forcing" me to be divorced because it won't let me kill my ex-husband. Illogical much?

2. No, people who are very ill and are in a lot of pain who know that they will die in 3 weeks should have the right to end their suffering. Nobody forces them to die, it's their own choice. It's more humane than forcing the ill to stay alive and suffer.

They already have the "right" to "end their suffering". What are we going to do, have a seance and put their ghosts on trial? You wanna die? Off yourself, with my blessing. That's not the same as making it okay and legal for someone else to kill you, even if you want them to because you're too damned chickenshit to do it yourself. Butch up and stop trying to drag other people into your fuckery.

3. No, just giving the same rights to a group of people, I don't like discrimination.

Yes, I have no doubt that you have an utterly miserable time making decisions, judging by the standards of thought and logic exhibited here.

What "right" is it you think you're trying to award homosexuals that you think other people have? And despite your lack of experience in doing so, think carefully about your answer.

4. Totally BS, I don't force anyone anything. Instead, I support freedom to let people decide their own lifes and do not support a theocracy that decides how people should live their lifes. Your group of religious fundamentalists who want to their force their values onto the rest of society are by far a minority.

Riiiiight. You're just ALL about live-and-let-live . . . until someone wants their life to include acting in a way that you don't approve of, and don't even bother to try to deny it. You'll just embarrass yourself.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There are gay churches all over the place. That's not good enough. It's way more fun to force someone.

Can you provide a concrete example of any time the United Sates (since we have a Constitution) government has forces a Church to perform a religious wedding ceremony...

1. ...in the case of interracial marriage when such marriage are claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?

2. ...in the case of interfaith marriage when such marriage are claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?

3. ...in the case of a marriage when one or more of the participants are divorced for reasons claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?

4. ...And since Same-sex Civil Marriage has been legal for a decade, the case of a same-sex marriage when such marriages are claimed to be against the religious beliefs of a Church?​

>>>>

In all those instances, the beliefs of the Churches were respected. Gays do not respect the beliefs of others and demand that religious principles be violated.

Ignorant nonsense and demagoguery.

Gay Americans seek only their comprehensive civil liberties, in particular the right to access marriage law they're eligible to participate in, having nothing whatsoever to do with private organizations such as churches, who remain at liberty to practice their faith as they see fit, absent interference from the state.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Can you provide a concrete example of any time the United Sates (since we have a Constitution) government has forces a Church to perform a religious wedding ceremony...

1. ...in the case of interracial marriage when such marriage are claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?

2. ...in the case of interfaith marriage when such marriage are claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?

3. ...in the case of a marriage when one or more of the participants are divorced for reasons claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?

4. ...And since Same-sex Civil Marriage has been legal for a decade, the case of a same-sex marriage when such marriages are claimed to be against the religious beliefs of a Church?​

>>>>

In all those instances, the beliefs of the Churches were respected. Gays do not respect the beliefs of others and demand that religious principles be violated.

Ignorant nonsense and demagoguery.

Gay Americans seek only their comprehensive civil liberties, in particular the right to access marriage law they're eligible to participate in, having nothing whatsoever to do with private organizations such as churches, who remain at liberty to practice their faith as they see fit, absent interference from the state.

....and the hypocrite speaks. And, as usual is full of shit.

 

[Crystalclear]

It's always the same with social right-wingers. They ask you to provide examples and then don't reply anymore.

Hey, dimwit, when you're posting after midnight, you might want to consider that people GO TO BED. Just because your life revolves around the Internet doesn't mean other people don't have to get up the next morning.



Why don't you try not being such a spoiled, demanding little punk and fucking wait until people get around to the incredibly low place you occupy on their priority lists?

Wrong 2 times. It's not that my life revolves around the Internet. I come from Europe, so we have a time difference . For me, it is now late in the morning.
Included the fact that the one I was talking to kept responding on other posts, but tried real hard to ignore my post.

 

[Seawytch]

"We" are those of "us" who choose not to marry homos in our churches, cupcake.

Oh...those churches will be a minority soon enough.

It amuses me that lefties, desperate as they are for the illusion of popularity, inclusion, and normality, think that everyone in the world aspires to that. You really cannot grasp that the Church does not care, and has never cared, about whether they're "the minority" or not. They usually are, and that suits them fine. Your approbation is not required or requested, and frankly, the Church would prefer not to have it, since it would be seen as an indication that they're doing something wrong.

You really don't even bother to try to understand the people you vilify and demonize, do you? You're like a kid drawing horns on people's pictures: smear and move on. No thought required.

It's really adorable that you think Churches don't care. Of course they care. There were plenty of churches that swore they'd never let a good, god fearing white person marry one of those N words in their church, but they did.

It's just a matter of time...

 

[Seawytch]

Perhaps Ben and a rapidly growing number of like minded people are tired of beimg manipulated by an organized gang of facist queers - who think they have the right to bulldoze over society and demand it be rebuilt it to suit their depraved desires.

And then there are the religious fascists who want to forcibly bring morals to groups who don't agree with religious values.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who looked in vain for the substantiated example that CERTAINLY was intended to follow that statement. Perhaps your computer accidentally cut that part of your post off?

Blue Laws

 

[Freewill]

Oh...those churches will be a minority soon enough.

It amuses me that lefties, desperate as they are for the illusion of popularity, inclusion, and normality, think that everyone in the world aspires to that. You really cannot grasp that the Church does not care, and has never cared, about whether they're "the minority" or not. They usually are, and that suits them fine. Your approbation is not required or requested, and frankly, the Church would prefer not to have it, since it would be seen as an indication that they're doing something wrong.

You really don't even bother to try to understand the people you vilify and demonize, do you? You're like a kid drawing horns on people's pictures: smear and move on. No thought required.

It's really adorable that you think Churches don't care. Of course they care. There were plenty of churches that swore they'd never let a good, god fearing white person marry one of those N words in their church, but they did.

It's just a matter of time...

I will bet money that for every 1 "church" that may have taken a position against bi-racial marriage 10 fought the fight against discrimination. Just as if it were not for the "church" the democrat party would still be putting the black man in chains. Homosexuality is different then being born of a certain color. Homosexuality is not natural thus it goes against the natural laws. Which means that society can just accepts the behavior but for the "church" it is obviously harder to accept that which goes against God's natural law.

 

[Gadawg73]

"We" are those of "us" who choose not to marry homos in our churches, cupcake.

Oh...those churches will be a minority soon enough.

It amuses me that lefties, desperate as they are for the illusion of popularity, inclusion, and normality, think that everyone in the world aspires to that. You really cannot grasp that the Church does not care, and has never cared, about whether they're "the minority" or not. They usually are, and that suits them fine. Your approbation is not required or requested, and frankly, the Church would prefer not to have it, since it would be seen as an indication that they're doing something wrong.

You really don't even bother to try to understand the people you vilify and demonize, do you? You're like a kid drawing horns on people's pictures: smear and move on. No thought required.

I R NOT a "leftie"

Own 3 businesses and vote Republican since 1972. Voted against Carter TWICE.

As hard as you folks keep to trying to make this thing a "conservative versus leftie" thing the stupider it makes the GOP look.

This is a rights issue. Gay folk want equal rights.

And it is absurd that anyone would rally around a political party to force government to deny them equal rights.

Ridiculous is the only word that comes to mind.
Focus on winning elections and leave the rest to God.