Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[GISMYS]

But all it takes is one Atheist to sue in court, and a Cross has to come down.

That's usually because it's in a place where it doesn't belong. I have no problem with all faiths sharing the public square, as long as all of them can, not just the majority faith as in the past.

" majority " RULES IN THE USA =ITS CALLED VOTING!!!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

And "marriage" is not a "right"..

Dear [MENTION=1528]Yurt[/MENTION] [MENTION=42632]Kosh[/MENTION]
Regardless if marriage is a right or not (which again is a political belief either way)

people BELIEVE in gay marriage or they don't
people BELIEVE in marriage going through govt or they don't
people BELIEVE in marriage equality or sanctity of traditional marriage or they don't

These are EQUAL BELIEFS
whether it is one person's political belief versus another

Last I checked the Constitution was supposed to recognize
equal religious freedom and equal protection of the laws
from discrimination by creed

[MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION]
if people don't have the same political beliefs
that the Court has the right to decide marriage laws for the people

how can you possible say that the ruling
by the Court is valid law or not?

Unless there is a consensus on that ruling coming out of that Court
* if the Court rules in favor of one political belief it is discriminating against the other
* if the Court rules in favor of the other political belief, the other belief is denied
equal protection and representation

There is no way to win because beliefs were involved in the first place

I would recommend that Courts require mediation and consensus
and only policies that meet public standards of representing all interests
and beliefs of the populations in those states can be enforced by govt

so either write an agreement, agree how to interpret laws, and/or separate and agree to separate policies per church or party or other institution; but don't endorse laws through govt unless the public agrees on writing/interpretation/enforcement policy where all beliefs are accommodated and no one is denied or discriminated against on the basis of creed

"Marriage" is not a "right". If the racist far left Obama drones could accept fact, then we would not have these problems.

Equal Before The law is the right, and why your side has lost this argument.

 

[Seawytch]

[MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION]
already there were photographers and bakers sued, harassed, fined or shut down
over forcing them to provide services against their faith

YES the force came from courts, and fines were through govt commissions

For the last time, a business is NOT A TAX EXEMPT CHURCH.

You know businesses can be fucking sued for not serving a Christian, a black, a cripple...but no church can be forced to marry them.

Gays are not more powerful than all the other minorities...despite the ever present fear of {duh, duh, duh}...THE

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION]
I noticed this list leaves out
"right to free choice of health care"

Isn't it a form of "political discrimination by creed" to use govt
to enforce only free choice of abortion for liberals who believe in that,
but to deny free choice of health care and free choice of reparative therapy
for those who have EQUAL BELIEFS about health care choices?

Why is it okay to regulate and penalize free choice of health care?

How does choosing to pay for health care for oneself and others
without using insurance "more harmful" than choosing abortion?

It is not a "right"!

Driving is not a "right"

voting is not a "right".

Fundamental Right
Examples of fundamental rights not specifically listed in the Constitution include the right to marry and the right to privacy, which includes a right to contraception and the right to interstate travel.​

You can have your own opinion, but not your own facts. It is a fact that marriage is a fundamental right.

So you find a racist far left wing blog to prove your point. Good for you!

Still doe snot make it a "right".

Just goes to show that the far left Obama drones do not understand the government is supposed to work via the constitution.

[MENTION=42632]Kosh[/MENTION]
gay marriage and marriage equality
is a BELIEF, or a Political Belief if you want

It is protected from discrimination by creed
by the Fourteenth Amendment

if we want the liberal Democrats to recognize
Natural Rights or Religious Liberty as a "BELIEF protected by law"
we must also recognize
Right to Health Care or Marriage Equality as a "BELIEF protected by law"

Instead of fighting to deny or discredit/discriminate AGAINST each other's beliefs,
the point is to argue
1. they cannot be IMPOSED by law because they are BELIEFS
2. they can only be DEFENDED by law from infringement because they are BELIEFS

To enforce Equal Protection of Constitutional Beliefs
we must acknowledge the others are equally defended beliefs,
and in doing so, establish in public these CANNOT BE IMPOSED BY LAW

 

[Seawytch]

It is not a "right"!

Driving is not a "right"

voting is not a "right".

Fundamental Right
Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights), or have been found under Due Process. Laws limiting these rights generally must pass strict scrutiny to be upheld as constitutional. Examples of fundamental rights not specifically listed in the Constitution include the right to marry and the right to privacy, which includes a right to contraception and the right to interstate travel.​

You can have your own opinion, but not your own facts. It is a fact that marriage is a fundamental right.

So you find a racist far left wing blog to prove your point. Good for you!

Still doe snot make it a "right".

Just goes to show that the far left Obama drones do not understand the government is supposed to work via the constitution.

Cornell Law is "leftist" blog? Are you really as stupid as the moron you portray on the internet?

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION]

Given that the liberals ARE using govt as their church,
they are forcing the govt to recognize the marriages against the
will of at least HALF the population that is opposed

I agree with removing BANS on gay marriage so churches can follow their beliefs.
But forcing govt to recognize gay marriage violate the beliefs of the
dissenting population. This is not something that can be resolved
constitutionally using majority rule or court order because it involves religious beliefs.

the people per state would have to agree on a policy,
and have govt follow that, NOT force a policy through govt against anyone's beliefs
or technically it is unconstitutional.

Citizens and govt should be trained to distinguish political beliefs
and how to mediate to resolve conflicts, BEFORE making laws that touch on these beliefs.

Otherwise you are going to violate someone's beliefs either way,
similar to Hindus and Muslims suing each other and asking Courts to pick
one over the other, and force all their members to follow the policy of the winning side

NOT CONSTITUTIONAL.

[MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION]
already there were photographers and bakers sued, harassed, fined or shut down
over forcing them to provide services against their faith

YES the force came from courts, and fines were through govt commissions

For the last time, a business is NOT A TAX EXEMPT CHURCH.

You know businesses can be fucking sued for not serving a Christian, a black, a cripple...but no church can be forced to marry them.

Gays are not more powerful than all the other minorities...despite the ever present fear of {duh, duh, duh}...THE

 

[Seawytch]

Dear [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION]
I noticed this list leaves out
"right to free choice of health care"

Isn't it a form of "political discrimination by creed" to use govt
to enforce only free choice of abortion for liberals who believe in that,
but to deny free choice of health care and free choice of reparative therapy
for those who have EQUAL BELIEFS about health care choices?

Why is it okay to regulate and penalize free choice of health care?

How does choosing to pay for health care for oneself and others
without using insurance "more harmful" than choosing abortion?

[MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION] I noticed you brought up a total non sequitur.

I believe in people's free choice to have Angel Therapy, but it shouldn't be in a major parties platform nor should it be paid for with taxpayer dollars.

I've also never heard of Angel Therapy being harmful like reparative therapy...

 

[DriftingSand]

You don't have to accept it, but the majority of your fellow citizens already have so when the invitations start to dry up or your kids find play-dates harder to get, start buying more boardgames since you will be yelling into the wind, mostly by yourself...

LOL. "The majority of my fellow citizens" have accepted "gay marriage?" That's total BS. Almost every state that has voted on the issue has voted it down. It's taken an activist Federal Judge to overturn the will of the people in almost every case. I don't personally know anyone who believes that "gay marriage" is normal or acceptable. You really do have mush for brains ... don't you!?

Learn to read polls, and when given a chance to vote, which they have no business doing, they vote for equality now. The war is over, you lost. Move on...

National Polls | MarriageEqualityUSA

I just did a poll today. 100% of the folks I polled were opposed to gay marriage. So I guess it all depends on who's conducting the poll and whether or not they have an agenda.

 

[Seawytch]

Dear [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION]

Given that the liberals ARE using govt as their church,
they are forcing the govt to recognize the marriages against the
will of at least HALF the population that is opposed

I agree with removing BANS on gay marriage so churches can follow their beliefs.
But forcing govt to recognize gay marriage violate the beliefs of the
dissenting population. This is not something that can be resolved
constitutionally using majority rule or court order because it involves religious beliefs.

the people per state would have to agree on a policy,
and have govt follow that, NOT force a policy through govt against anyone's beliefs
or technically it is unconstitutional.

Citizens and govt should be trained to distinguish political beliefs
and how to mediate to resolve conflicts, BEFORE making laws that touch on these beliefs.

Otherwise you are going to violate someone's beliefs either way,
similar to Hindus and Muslims suing each other and asking Courts to pick
one over the other, and force all their members to follow the policy of the winning side

NOT CONSTITUTIONAL.

Learn the difference between religious marriage and civil marriage. Denying me a marriage license because I'm gay is no different than denying me a driver's license for the same reason.

Churches have never been forced to perform an interracial or interfaith marriage have they? No, but the government "forced" recognition of interracial marriage on a population that was 80% opposed to it.

Civil marriage is secular, your religion, their religion have nothing to do with it.

 

[emilynghiem]

[MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION] I noticed you brought up a total non sequitur.

I believe in people's free choice to have Angel Therapy, but it shouldn't be in a major parties platform nor should it be paid for with taxpayer dollars.

I've also never heard of Angel Therapy being harmful like reparative therapy...

Hi [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION] thanks for an interesting link which I will explore and possibly refer to other friends.

I believe spiritual healing should replace any reference to "conversion therapy"
as the focus of medical and psychiatric research

If people are pushing for or against stem cell research,
or marijuana research, why not give taxpayers a choice to invest in more
NATURAL healing methods that are more cost effective with no risk of side effects?

What I am against with the ACA is that it mandates insurance as the ONLY
choice, and FINES other choices of covering health care for oneself and others

so it PRECLUDES penalizes and discriminates against these other choices

It would be one thing if people have free choice,
and we don't force anyone to fund spiritual practices.

But to force people and businesses to PURCHASE insurance as the ONLY CHOICE
and penalize any other forms of health care,
that is where I believe ACA mandates and regulations are Unconstitutional

You should not be "fined" for choosing to use Angel Therapy or other natural healing
instead of buying insurance. To me that is religious discrimination and unconstitutional.

 

[Seawytch]

[MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION] I noticed you brought up a total non sequitur.

I believe in people's free choice to have Angel Therapy, but it shouldn't be in a major parties platform nor should it be paid for with taxpayer dollars.

I've also never heard of Angel Therapy being harmful like reparative therapy...

Hi [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION] thanks for an interesting link which I will explore and possibly refer to other friends.

I believe spiritual healing should replace any reference to "conversion therapy"
as the focus of medical and psychiatric research

If people are pushing for or against stem cell research,
or marijuana research, why not give taxpayers a choice to invest in more
NATURAL healing methods that are more cost effective with no risk of side effects?

What I am against with the ACA is that it mandates insurance as the ONLY
choice, and FINES other choices of covering health care for oneself and others

so it PRECLUDES penalizes and discriminates against these other choices

It would be one thing if people have free choice,
and we don't force anyone to fund spiritual practices.

But to force people and businesses to PURCHASE insurance as the ONLY CHOICE
and penalize any other forms of health care,
that is where I believe ACA mandates and regulations are Unconstitutional

You should not be "fined" for choosing to use Angel Therapy or other natural healing
instead of buying insurance. To me that is religious discrimination and unconstitutional.

Oh for god's sake, start a thread on your "alternative medicine" theories. The ACA is private insurance. Find me a private insurance company anywhere that covers any of these kooky therapies.

 

[Silhouette]

Learn the difference between religious marriage and civil marriage. Denying me a marriage license because I'm gay is no different than denying me a driver's license for the same reason.

Churches have never been forced to perform an interracial or interfaith marriage have they? No, but the government "forced" recognition of interracial marriage on a population that was 80% opposed to it.

Civil marriage is secular, your religion, their religion have nothing to do with it.

No, you are being denied a marriage license because the sexual behavior and the people you choose to want to play-marriage at are of your same gender. Ergo you do not qualify. We all make choices in life. Your behaviors don't get to rewrite the framework of the description of the PRIVELEGE of marriage. Marriage is not a right. It isn't because not only you cannot legally marry still in California, neither can incest couples, polygamists or minors. None of you qualify.

Just like blind people do not qualify for the PRIVELEGE of driving. Driving requires sight. Marriage requires opposite gender, only two people, people not related closely by blood and adult people to boot. The two examples you cannot layer one atop the other as "denying you a driver's license because you're gay". Unless you're finally in the advanced stages of AIDS, I can't see for the life of me how your being gay affects your ability to drive. Likewise, I cannot for the life of me see how even though blind people cannot drive, why we should deny them marriage licenses as long as they are one man and one woman.

Your desire to completely rewrite the construct of the institution you're applying for acceptance to is unacceptable to the majority. Ergo, you will soon find that Windsor will once again aver that your case is to convince each sovereign state, state by state, that you changing that construct is a good idea beneficial to the state.

Marriage, like driving, is not a "right" that is a false premise. Either you qualify state by state or you don't.

 

[emilynghiem]

Learn the difference between religious marriage and civil marriage. Denying me a marriage license because I'm gay is no different than denying me a driver's license for the same reason.

Churches have never been forced to perform an interracial or interfaith marriage have they? No, but the government "forced" recognition of interracial marriage on a population that was 80% opposed to it.

Civil marriage is secular, your religion, their religion have nothing to do with it.

Like I said before
I agree that BANS are unconstitutional because not all people agree to ban gay marriage

* marriages/civil contracts recognized through the STATE should be AGREED upon by the people: in the terms using in writing, the interpretation and enforcement
as long as it is through GOVT -- there must be agreement

* marriage/ceremonies/etc recognized through Churches can be done according to those beliefs, and people DO NOT need to agree, they can go through their own churches/etc.

* if people don't agree to ban certain things through the State, they can't be banned
and likewise
* if people don't agree to endorse certain things through the State, they can be forced

Either way, if you take your beliefs about marriage
and "impose that through the State against the beliefs of others"
that is unconstitutional

The State can neither BAN nor IMPOSE a policy against other people's beliefs.

[MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION] I think the problem here is that some people do have political beliefs.
They believe in traditional marriage only, but want to impose that through the State.
If they kept it separate through their church only, then NO marriages would
be through the State.

This is why I'm saying as soon as a political belief is involved,
which crosses the line and involves both church and state,
consensus is necessary to represent/include all beliefs equally
or it causes discrimination against the opposing creed.

If people cannot agree on a consensus policy, they should pull marriage
completely out of the State level and keep it private only.

 

[emilynghiem]

the point is not to have to go through insurance at all

but to directly access the choices, regardless of buying insurance which remains an option

I believe ACA should be OPTIONAL
so that all choices are legal with no fines or penalties for
NOT going through insurance as ACA requires.

I believe you should have equal free choice to access health care provisions DIRECTLY
and are not PENALIZED for "not buying insurance" because you get coverage without this

Oh for god's sake, start a thread on your "alternative medicine" theories. The ACA is private insurance. Find me a private insurance company anywhere that covers any of these kooky therapies.

????
Who says you have to go through insurance as the only way?
Who says you have to go through ACA as the only way?

The fines/penalties in the mandates are imposed by federal govt!
This is ALREADY not a free choice.

I'm sorry Seawytch I am totally misunderstanding you

It sounds like you "accept the regulations set up under ACA"
then complain the choices are not under it
and not the fault of govt because it is private insurance?

I am saying don't be forced by govt to go through ACA as the only choice to begin with!

If people set up a separate network that you could access these service through,
then you get the health care through that NOT ACA NOT govt regulations
NOT through private insurance that doesn't offer it.

You get those choices directly. Create your own health coop if you need
to but you get what you want and don't pay for programs you don't want.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi [MENTION=44514]Silhouette[/MENTION]
1. for your beliefs about why or why not, that part is not believed by all people
so it counts as either religious belief, or as political where it involves govt policy
2. your beliefs are equally protected from infringement
as beliefs in gay marriage

So neither one should be imposed by the state
As long as YOU do not believe in gay marriage, it is a belief, cannot be imposed
by the state, and you have the right to defend and include your beliefs equally

Likewise, if [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION] believes in gay marriage equality
this is a religious belief, or political when it involves state policy
And her belief can neither be banned or imposed by law,
but can be defended equally on the same level as belief in traditional marriage

both beliefs are equal, and neither can be imposed on the other by the state

Learn the difference between religious marriage and civil marriage. Denying me a marriage license because I'm gay is no different than denying me a driver's license for the same reason.

Churches have never been forced to perform an interracial or interfaith marriage have they? No, but the government "forced" recognition of interracial marriage on a population that was 80% opposed to it.

Civil marriage is secular, your religion, their religion have nothing to do with it.

No, you are being denied a marriage license because the sexual behavior and the people you choose to want to play-marriage at are of your same gender. Ergo you do not qualify. We all make choices in life. Your behaviors don't get to rewrite the framework of the description of the PRIVELEGE of marriage. Marriage is not a right. It isn't because not only you cannot legally marry still in California, neither can incest couples, polygamists or minors. None of you qualify.

Just like blind people do not qualify for the PRIVELEGE of driving. Driving requires sight. Marriage requires opposite gender, only two people, people not related closely by blood and adult people to boot. The two examples you cannot layer one atop the other as "denying you a driver's license because you're gay". Unless you're finally in the advanced stages of AIDS, I can't see for the life of me how your being gay affects your ability to drive. Likewise, I cannot for the life of me see how even though blind people cannot drive, why we should deny them marriage licenses as long as they are one man and one woman.

Your desire to completely rewrite the construct of the institution you're applying for acceptance to is unacceptable to the majority. Ergo, you will soon find that Windsor will once again aver that your case is to convince each sovereign state, state by state, that you changing that construct is a good idea beneficial to the state.

Marriage, like driving, is not a "right" that is a false premise. Either you qualify state by state or you don't.

 

[Silhouette]

1. for your beliefs about why or why not, that part is not believed by all people
so it counts as either religious belief, or as political where it involves govt policy
2. your beliefs are equally protected from infringement
as beliefs in gay marriage

So neither one should be imposed by the state
As long as YOU do not believe in gay marriage, it is a belief, cannot be imposed
by the state, and you have the right to defend and include your beliefs equally

Likewise, if [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION] believes in gay marriage equality
this is a religious belief, or political when it involves state policy
And her belief can neither be banned or imposed by law,
but can be defended equally on the same level as belief in traditional marriage

both beliefs are equal, and neither can be imposed on the other by the state

The people of any state vote on laws that impose their beliefs that govern behavior and how others behave and interact within that discreet community. Read Windsor, that's almost verbatim what they said.

You may have heard that we live in a democracy where the majority rules and regulates the behaviors of themselves and how they interact and what norms are preserved and promoted on a daily basis. The only exceptions to that majority rule is the provisions in the 14th. Gay behaviors, incomplete and arbitrary with a contested theory of genesis, do not qualify for the 14th. So unless the LGBTs can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that theirs are not behaviors, or, failing that, they apply for federal recognition as a religion, they are not going to get to set a precedent where behaviors in minority get to dictate to the majority [democracy] rule.

That would be a horrific precedent to set. You can't limit it JUST to LGBT once the precedent for "it feels good so we have rights" is set.

 

[emilynghiem]

Equal Before The law is the right, and why your side has lost this argument.

1. "My side" is believing in CONSENSUS
so it loses no matter which side loses!

* progay winning over antigay VIOLATES MY BELIEFS IN ISONOMY/consensus
* antigay winngin over progay VIOLATES MY BELIEFS IN ISONOMY/consnesus

Banning or Imposing one belief over the other through govt is
UNEQUAL
it is denying equal protection of the law to the other belief

So EITHER WAY it violates my Constitutional beliefs in Equal Protection
from discrimination by creed

My belief [MENTION=47594]PaintMyHouse[/MENTION] is in ISONOMY
so I am NOT represented EITHER WAY

As long as one side wins and one side loses
I am denied MY BELIEF IN EQUAL protection of BOTH VIEWS in EITHER CASE:

The only way I can have MY VIEWS included is
by a consensus AGREEMENT between the other two

BOTH SIDES WOULD HAVE TO WIN BEFORE "MY SIDE" WINS
because I treat them equally as protected beliefs/creeds under law

 

[JakeStarkey]

Emily and the rest of you who have trouble with majority rule and SCOTUS.

Our Rule of Law is not going to change.

Opine all you want, but our society changes in these ways and always has and will except once when the far right reactionaries got out of hand. They will never do that again

This is how it is done.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi [MENTION=44514]Silhouette[/MENTION]
1. Yes, if all people in a state agree to subject their BELIEFS to majority rule

in the case of ACA/health care, and gay marriage, NO they DON'T agree

there are BELIEFS involved which both sides DO NOT agree to compromise
to majority rule

2. for normal issues or areas where people AGREE to majority rule,
YES what you say applies

3. Would you and I agree that if the majority of the state voted to impose gay marriage over all other people's beliefs, or voted to impose Muslim law? NO, because beliefs
are not subject to state imposing by majority

The people of any state vote on laws that impose their beliefs that govern behavior and how others behave and interact within that discreet community. Read Windsor, that's almost verbatim what they said.

You may have heard that we live in a democracy where the majority rules and regulates the behaviors of themselves and how they interact and what norms are preserved and promoted on a daily basis. The only exceptions to that majority rule is the provisions in the 14th. Gay behaviors, incomplete and arbitrary with a contested theory of genesis, do not qualify for the 14th. So unless the LGBTs can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that theirs are not behaviors, or, failing that, they apply for federal recognition as a religion, they are not going to get to set a precedent where behaviors in minority get to dictate to the majority [democracy] rule.

That would be a horrific precedent to set. You can't limit it JUST to LGBT once the precedent for "it feels good so we have rights" is set.

4. YES that is why you can't go by majority rule and let BELIEFS of others be imposed this way.

ACA ALREADY set a horrible precedent by allowing a Majority of Congress
and a Court ruling to impose "Political Beliefs" in right to govt health care
above equal political beliefs in Free Market health care.

So this trend of imposing Political Beliefs through Majority rule or Courts
needs to be addressed and stopped. it is unconstitutional.

 

[Kosh]

Fundamental Right
Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights), or have been found under Due Process. Laws limiting these rights generally must pass strict scrutiny to be upheld as constitutional. Examples of fundamental rights not specifically listed in the Constitution include the right to marry and the right to privacy, which includes a right to contraception and the right to interstate travel.​

You can have your own opinion, but not your own facts. It is a fact that marriage is a fundamental right.

So you find a racist far left wing blog to prove your point. Good for you!

Still doe snot make it a "right".

Just goes to show that the far left Obama drones do not understand the government is supposed to work via the constitution.

Cornell Law is "leftist" blog? Are you really as stupid as the moron you portray on the internet?

Yes and your highlighted section shows why it is a far left blog site!

"Marriage" is not a "right"...