Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[nodoginnafight]

No one has ever suggested that LGBT is a religion. You are garbling the legal contract of marriage and the religious sacrament of marriage.

Atheists have a right to enter into the legal contract of marriage too.

Until you can learn to separate church and state (and you've only had a couple of hundred years to wrap your mind around that) then you are not going to be able to understand the difference between the courts ruling that their is no legal justification to deny equal marriage rights and the church's right to offer their sacraments on their own terms.

 

[Kondor3]

LBGT is religious only in the disorganized intellect.

But if an organization does legally incorporate as the Church of the LGBT, there is nothing you can do about it, Sil, except yell.

Which is what you are doing now to little effect.

Aha! You're finally coming around to your senses. You KNOW they don't qualify for the 14th!

I would LOVE to see the cult of LGBT sell itself off as a legitimate religion. You know, with its messiah Harvey Milk and its belief in punishing and destroying heretics and anyone who doesn't blindly promote it as dominant to other long-established religions. Suddenly after decades of insisting they are "born that way", they decide to discard that for a faith-based ritualistic philosophy-lifestyle? Y'all certainly are flexible...I'll give you that..

Bring it on!

I can just see the clerical aspect of that shaping up...

Father Fudgepacker...

Mother Muncher...

Brother Butch...

Sister Swish...

Metrosexual Monastary...

Tribbing Trinity College...

Seafood Semenary...

The possibilities are endless...

All tucked safe-and-sound under a 501(c)(3) shell, of course...

 

[Silhouette]

LBGT is religious only in the disorganized intellect.

But if an organization does legally incorporate as the Church of the LGBT, there is nothing you can do about it, Sil, except yell.

Which is what you are doing now to little effect.

Aha! You're finally coming around to your senses. You KNOW they don't qualify for the 14th!

I would LOVE to see the cult of LGBT sell itself off as a legitimate religion. You know, with its messiah Harvey Milk and its belief in punishing and destroying heretics and anyone who doesn't blindly promote it as dominant to other long-established religions. Suddenly after decades of insisting they are "born that way", they decide to discard that for a faith-based ritualistic philosophy-lifestyle? Y'all certainly are flexible...I'll give you that..

Bring it on!

I can just see the clerical aspect of that shaping up...

Father Fudgepacker...

Mother Muncher...

Brother Butch...

Sister Swish...

Metrosexual Monastary...

Tribbing Trinity College...

Seafood Semenary...

The possibilities are endless...

All tucked safe-and-sound under a 501(c)(3) shell, of course...

I know, right? Can you imagine the terrible PR-work their spindoctors would have in that sell? We'd have to allow any and all cults a sanctioned religious status. The Warren Jeffs and Applewhites with squirming minds tucked away in shanty cabins from sea to shining sea will be giddy with joy..

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are delusional when you write, "You KNOW they don't qualify for the 14th!"

Twenty-one straight court rulings and eighteen states and DC defy your claim.

The post immediately above this reveals the absolution delusional state of the opponents to gay marriage.

 

[Silhouette]

You are delusional when you write, "You KNOW they don't qualify for the 14th!"

Twenty-one straight court rulings and eighteen states and DC defy your claim.

The post immediately above this reveals the absolution delusional state of the opponents to gay marriage.

And the US Supreme Court is foreshadowing how they're going to put an end to all that judicial activism. http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...photos-and-marriage-itself-foreshadowing.html

Hey, it ain't SCOTUS' fault that those activist-judges failed to read or refused to read the United States vs Windsor Opinion; or were too scared of what they erroneously believed was "overwhelming public opinion". As you know Jake, but are being once again intellectually-dishonest about, there is only ONE Court that matters for the purposes of this discussion... And they may be paying attention to polling data like this one with 86% opposed to gay marriage being force upon people who object to it, either at church or the polls. Look at the poll at the top. That's impressive.

 

[nodoginnafight]

SCOTUS is not bound by previous case law.

SCOTUS has reversed itself numerous times.

 

[Silhouette]

SCOTUS is not bound by previous case law.

SCOTUS has reversed itself numerous times.

Within a year or two of its own decision on Windsor? Well, you can hold your breath but I wouldn't recommend it.. The only hope the cult of LGBT has in overturning Windsor's findings that a state's broad consensus has the ultimate power to decide the quesition of gay marriage is if the 14th applies to their behaviors. It doesn't. So, yeah...

You are delusional when you write, "You KNOW they don't qualify for the 14th!"

Twenty-one straight court rulings and eighteen states and DC defy your claim.

The post immediately above this reveals the absolution delusional state of the opponents to gay marriage.

And the US Supreme Court is foreshadowing how they're going to put an end to all that judicial activism. http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...photos-and-marriage-itself-foreshadowing.html

Hey, it ain't SCOTUS' fault that those activist-judges failed to read or refused to read the United States vs Windsor Opinion; or were too scared of what they erroneously believed was "overwhelming public opinion". As you know Jake, but are being once again intellectually-dishonest about, there is only ONE Court that matters for the purposes of this discussion... And they may be paying attention to polling data like this one with 86% opposed to gay marriage being force upon people who object to it, either at church or the polls. Look at the poll at the top. That's impressive.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are getting it, finally, almost, about the 14th.

SCOTUS will say it applies to their person for marriage equality not behaviors.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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...

No one has been able to cite any biblical reference that speaks against interracial marriages because there is none. If you are going to speak against something being acceptable, I'm pretty sure you'd have to be able to prove you can back that point of view through specific scripture reference .. otherwise all your left with is your personal opinion of the subject.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Same sex marriages will achieve legal recognition in all 50 states long before all denominations accept it. So what? doesn't matter.

The legal picture is clear and bound by the Constitution.

The religious status is more murky and will be determined by each denomination on their own.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The only hope the cult of LGBT has in overturning Windsor's findings that a state's broad consensus has the ultimate power to decide the quesition of gay marriage...

They didn't say that, they said "The States’ interest in defining and regulating the marital relation, subject to constitutional guarantees, stems from the understanding that marriage is more than routine classification for purposes of certain statutory benefits."

They didn't not say the State "has the ultimate power".

is if the 14th applies to their behaviors. It doesn't. So, yeah...

They already ruled that homosexuals enjoy the same 14th Amendment protections as everyone else, see Romer v. Evans.



>>>>

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yep, but Sil, although she has been shown that dozens, of times is sure she is right.

So she is out of step with world, and the world is at fault.

 

[Silhouette]

You are getting it, finally, almost, about the 14th.

SCOTUS will say it applies to their person for marriage equality not behaviors.

Whose person? Just LGBTs or polygamists too? Any consenting adult "in love"?

Gonna have to work out that kink in the mean time, pun intended. And when you do, remember this thread: http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...-the-woman-s-vote-and-political-strategy.html

If you think the democratic party is going to get behind your movement even if it means losing millions of middle bloc women's votes, you may be in for a surprise. Will politicians sacrafice their elections for the LGBT agenda? I think we have arrived at the junction of "push" and "shove".

 

[Silhouette]

They didn't say that, they said "The States’ interest in defining and regulating the marital relation, subject to constitutional guarantees, stems from the understanding that marriage is more than routine classification for purposes of certain statutory benefits."

They didn't not say the State "has the ultimate power".

You're right. Their actual words in Windsor with regards to a state's right to define marriage for itself was "unquestioned authority" and "in the way the Framers of the Constitution intended".

Thanks for the correction!

 

[WorldWatcher]

They didn't say that, they said "The States’ interest in defining and regulating the marital relation, subject to constitutional guarantees, stems from the understanding that marriage is more than routine classification for purposes of certain statutory benefits."

They didn't not say the State "has the ultimate power".

You're right. Their actual words in Windsor with regards to a state's right to define marriage for itself was "unquestioned authority" and "in the way the Framers of the
Constitution intended".

Thanks for the correction!

The term "unquestioned authority" appears in exactly one place in the whole decision, so lets read what it says in context.

DOMA seeks to injure the very class New York seeks to protect. By doing so it violates
basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government.
See U. S. Const., Amdt. 5; Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U. S. 497 (1954). The Constitution’s
guarantee of equality “must at the very least mean that a bare congressional desire to
harm a politically unpopular group cannot” justify disparate treatment of that group.
Depart*ment of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U. S. 528, 534–535 (1973). In determining
whether a law is motived by an improper animus or purpose, “ [d]iscriminations of an
un-usual character’” especially require careful consideration. Supra, at 19 (quoting
Romer, supra, at 633). DOMA cannot survive under these principles. The responsibility
of the States for the regulation of domestic relations is an important indicator of the
substantial societal impact the State’s classifications have in the daily lives and customs
of its people. DOMA’s unusual deviation from the usual tradition of recognizing and
accepting state definitions of marriage here operates to deprive same-sex couples of
the benefits and responsibilities that come with the federal recognition of their
marriages. This is strong evidence of a law having the purpose and effect of
disapproval of that class. The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here in
question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who
enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States.​

#1 - You are on record as saying that only 3 States have legal Same-sex Civil Marriage becasue in only 3 States was it passed by a direct vote (Maine, Maryland, and Washington - with Minnesota voting not to put discrimination in it's State Constitution). Yet here the SCOTUS specifically acknowledges that Same-sex Civil Marriage is valid in New York and New York didn't vote on it at the ballot box.

#2 - When you read the use of "unquestioned authority" in context the court is clearly indicating the New York accepted SSCM and recognized it as valid under their law. That of course they could do, no question about it, they had "unquestioned authority". The paragraph DOES NOT say they they can discriminate against them. The paragraph says that because they choose not to discriminate, that there is no basis for the Federal government to overrule that acceptance and deny them equal treatment under the law.

#3 - You have said numerous times that homosexuals are not eligible for equal protection under the law as a "class". Yet Windsor points out that "DOMA seeks to injure the very class New York seeks to protect." and "This is strong evidence of a law having the purpose and effect of disapproval of that class." Right there is recognition that your "behavior" v. "biology" argument is invalid because the SCOTUS did recognize that the law was intended to injure a class of persons.

#4 - You have also repeatedly in the past said the SCOTUS has never recognized that homosexuals are due equal protection under the laws. As has been pointed out numerous times, that is false. The SCOTUS ruled unconstitutional Amendment 3 in Colorado which targeted homosexuals in the case of Romer v. Evans. That case is also sited in the paragraph above. ("In determining whether a law is motived by an improper animus or purpose, “ [d]iscriminations of an un-usual character’” especially require careful consideration. Supra, at 19 (quoting Romer, supra, at 633).")




How will the SCOTUS rule next year? I don't claim to know, but I do know it's not the slam dunk you think it is.



>>>>

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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"

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. You can't have it both ways.

Note this is just the facilities. I don't see anything that requires the priest or pastor of the Church perform the ceremony - unless of course he's in the business of performing wedding ceremonies for non-members for a fee.

Oh, okay. So it's okay to force the church to rent its facilities to someone it doesn't want to, as long as you don't ALSO force the pastor to participate in the event? So much for private property ownership. That church raised the money to build the building, pays the mortgage if there is one, and pays all the bills and upkeep, but the building REALLY belongs to the government and anyone who can convince the government to expropriate it for them.

Your response also leads towards a very interesting point. We have a group (and if they have their way, even the Federal Government) that believes pastors and the church should be FORCED to recognize the "world view" of same sex marriage. This would include the view of forcing churches to perform same sex ceremonies. However, at the same time, the church as a whole is not allowed to pray at public events or make reference to Jesus' name. For an unbeliever to be exposed to prayer, even so much as seeing a cross or nativity scene, is to FORCE them to have to tolerate a view which is contrary to their own ... and what the secular world is willing to accept. So the church is to express an open door policy to what the world condones and believes, yet the world has no tolerance at all towards a church that shares and expresses any point of view different from their own. So the world wants to present themselves as a group of hypocrites, while demanding that the church become the "tolerant" ones to accept what the world wants to see.

 

[Andylusion]

They didn't say that, they said "The States’ interest in defining and regulating the marital relation, subject to constitutional guarantees, stems from the understanding that marriage is more than routine classification for purposes of certain statutory benefits."

They didn't not say the State "has the ultimate power".

You're right. Their actual words in Windsor with regards to a state's right to define marriage for itself was "unquestioned authority" and "in the way the Framers of the
Constitution intended".

Thanks for the correction!

The term "unquestioned authority" appears in exactly one place in the whole decision, so lets read what it says in context.

DOMA seeks to injure the very class New York seeks to protect. By doing so it violates
basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government.
See U. S. Const., Amdt. 5; Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U. S. 497 (1954). The Constitution’s
guarantee of equality “must at the very least mean that a bare congressional desire to
harm a politically unpopular group cannot” justify disparate treatment of that group.
Depart*ment of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U. S. 528, 534–535 (1973). In determining
whether a law is motived by an improper animus or purpose, “ [d]iscriminations of an
un-usual character’” especially require careful consideration. Supra, at 19 (quoting
Romer, supra, at 633). DOMA cannot survive under these principles. The responsibility
of the States for the regulation of domestic relations is an important indicator of the
substantial societal impact the State’s classifications have in the daily lives and customs
of its people. DOMA’s unusual deviation from the usual tradition of recognizing and
accepting state definitions of marriage here operates to deprive same-sex couples of
the benefits and responsibilities that come with the federal recognition of their
marriages. This is strong evidence of a law having the purpose and effect of
disapproval of that class. The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here in
question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who
enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States.​

#1 - You are on record as saying that only 3 States have legal Same-sex Civil Marriage becasue in only 3 States was it passed by a direct vote (Maine, Maryland, and Washington - with Minnesota voting not to put discrimination in it's State Constitution). Yet here the SCOTUS specifically acknowledges that Same-sex Civil Marriage is valid in New York and New York didn't vote on it at the ballot box.

#2 - When you read the use of "unquestioned authority" in context the court is clearly indicating the New York accepted SSCM and recognized it as valid under their law. That of course they could do, no question about it, they had "unquestioned authority". The paragraph DOES NOT say they they can discriminate against them. The paragraph says that because they choose not to discriminate, that there is no basis for the Federal government to overrule that acceptance and deny them equal treatment under the law.

#3 - You have said numerous times that homosexuals are not eligible for equal protection under the law as a "class". Yet Windsor points out that "DOMA seeks to injure the very class New York seeks to protect." and "This is strong evidence of a law having the purpose and effect of disapproval of that class." Right there is recognition that your "behavior" v. "biology" argument is invalid because the SCOTUS did recognize that the law was intended to injure a class of persons.

#4 - You have also repeatedly in the past said the SCOTUS has never recognized that homosexuals are due equal protection under the laws. As has been pointed out numerous times, that is false. The SCOTUS ruled unconstitutional Amendment 3 in Colorado which targeted homosexuals in the case of Romer v. Evans. That case is also sited in the paragraph above. ("In determining whether a law is motived by an improper animus or purpose, “ [d]iscriminations of an un-usual character’” especially require careful consideration. Supra, at 19 (quoting Romer, supra, at 633).")




How will the SCOTUS rule next year? I don't claim to know, but I do know it's not the slam dunk you think it is.



>>>>

I have never argued that homos shouldn't have the same equality under the law, that everyone else has.

They simply want more rights than being equal.

Being equal means that everyone is under the same laws.

They *ARE* under the same laws.

They want to change the law to fit their personal views. That's where I tend to have a problem.

When I run around saying this is the new color RED when clearly it's not red, and saying "Equal protection! This is my version of red! You can't tell me my personal preferences are wrong!"

I'm not being 'oppressed by society, or the law'.... I'm being moron.

Equally, when you run around saying there is not equality under the law, when you follow the exact same laws everyone else does.... you are not being oppressed.... you are being an idiot.

In order for you to claim that you are not being treated equally under the law, you have to prove there is something that one group can do, than anther group can not.

Can you prove that? Er... no?

Say that you, or whoever, is the homo, and I'm me.
Tell me...

Can the homo not marry a member of the opposite sex (which is what marriage is, and always has been) just like I can, or anyone else?

Yes. So we are both treated equally.

Can *I* marry a member of the same sex, like you or the homo can not?

Nope... I can't either.

So we are both treated equally under the law.

There is nothing that I can do, that you can not, under the law.

So don't tell me, homos are not treated equally. They are. That's the problem. They want special treatment. They want to redefine a fundamental institution of civilized society.

They want to normalize what is sick and disgusting, and causes health problems, and suicide.

They want to force others to accept whatever they 'make up' is marriage.

Well... you might get some politicians to do that... but you'll never get us to do it.

 

[Gadawg73]

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. You can't have it both ways.

Note this is just the facilities. I don't see anything that requires the priest or pastor of the Church perform the ceremony - unless of course he's in the business of performing wedding ceremonies for non-members for a fee.

Oh, okay. So it's okay to force the church to rent its facilities to someone it doesn't want to, as long as you don't ALSO force the pastor to participate in the event? So much for private property ownership. That church raised the money to build the building, pays the mortgage if there is one, and pays all the bills and upkeep, but the building REALLY belongs to the government and anyone who can convince the government to expropriate it for them.

Your response also leads towards a very interesting point. We have a group (and if they have their way, even the Federal Government) that believes pastors and the church should be FORCED to recognize the "world view" of same sex marriage. This would include the view of forcing churches to perform same sex ceremonies. However, at the same time, the church as a whole is not allowed to pray at public events or make reference to Jesus' name. For an unbeliever to be exposed to prayer, even so much as seeing a cross or nativity scene, is to FORCE them to have to tolerate a view which is contrary to their own ... and what the secular world is willing to accept. So the church is to express an open door policy to what the world condones and believes, yet the world has no tolerance at all towards a church that shares and expresses any point of view different from their own. So the world wants to present themselves as a group of hypocrites, while demanding that the church become the "tolerant" ones to accept what the world wants to see.

Lot of what ifs and maybes in that argument.
No church is forced to marry anyone now and never will be.
What Jewish rabbi is forced to marry a Muslim now?
Come on man.

 

[Gadawg73]

You're right. Their actual words in Windsor with regards to a state's right to define marriage for itself was "unquestioned authority" and "in the way the Framers of the
Constitution intended".

Thanks for the correction!

The term "unquestioned authority" appears in exactly one place in the whole decision, so lets read what it says in context.

DOMA seeks to injure the very class New York seeks to protect. By doing so it violates
basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government.
See U. S. Const., Amdt. 5; Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U. S. 497 (1954). The Constitution’s
guarantee of equality “must at the very least mean that a bare congressional desire to
harm a politically unpopular group cannot” justify disparate treatment of that group.
Depart*ment of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U. S. 528, 534–535 (1973). In determining
whether a law is motived by an improper animus or purpose, “ [d]iscriminations of an
un-usual character’” especially require careful consideration. Supra, at 19 (quoting
Romer, supra, at 633). DOMA cannot survive under these principles. The responsibility
of the States for the regulation of domestic relations is an important indicator of the
substantial societal impact the State’s classifications have in the daily lives and customs
of its people. DOMA’s unusual deviation from the usual tradition of recognizing and
accepting state definitions of marriage here operates to deprive same-sex couples of
the benefits and responsibilities that come with the federal recognition of their
marriages. This is strong evidence of a law having the purpose and effect of
disapproval of that class. The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here in
question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who
enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States.​

#1 - You are on record as saying that only 3 States have legal Same-sex Civil Marriage becasue in only 3 States was it passed by a direct vote (Maine, Maryland, and Washington - with Minnesota voting not to put discrimination in it's State Constitution). Yet here the SCOTUS specifically acknowledges that Same-sex Civil Marriage is valid in New York and New York didn't vote on it at the ballot box.

#2 - When you read the use of "unquestioned authority" in context the court is clearly indicating the New York accepted SSCM and recognized it as valid under their law. That of course they could do, no question about it, they had "unquestioned authority". The paragraph DOES NOT say they they can discriminate against them. The paragraph says that because they choose not to discriminate, that there is no basis for the Federal government to overrule that acceptance and deny them equal treatment under the law.

#3 - You have said numerous times that homosexuals are not eligible for equal protection under the law as a "class". Yet Windsor points out that "DOMA seeks to injure the very class New York seeks to protect." and "This is strong evidence of a law having the purpose and effect of disapproval of that class." Right there is recognition that your "behavior" v. "biology" argument is invalid because the SCOTUS did recognize that the law was intended to injure a class of persons.

#4 - You have also repeatedly in the past said the SCOTUS has never recognized that homosexuals are due equal protection under the laws. As has been pointed out numerous times, that is false. The SCOTUS ruled unconstitutional Amendment 3 in Colorado which targeted homosexuals in the case of Romer v. Evans. That case is also sited in the paragraph above. ("In determining whether a law is motived by an improper animus or purpose, “ [d]iscriminations of an un-usual character’” especially require careful consideration. Supra, at 19 (quoting Romer, supra, at 633).")




How will the SCOTUS rule next year? I don't claim to know, but I do know it's not the slam dunk you think it is.



>>>>

I have never argued that homos shouldn't have the same equality under the law, that everyone else has.

They simply want more rights than being equal.

Being equal means that everyone is under the same laws.

They *ARE* under the same laws.

They want to change the law to fit their personal views. That's where I tend to have a problem.

When I run around saying this is the new color RED when clearly it's not red, and saying "Equal protection! This is my version of red! You can't tell me my personal preferences are wrong!"

I'm not being 'oppressed by society, or the law'.... I'm being moron.

Equally, when you run around saying there is not equality under the law, when you follow the exact same laws everyone else does.... you are not being oppressed.... you are being an idiot.

In order for you to claim that you are not being treated equally under the law, you have to prove there is something that one group can do, than anther group can not.

Can you prove that? Er... no?

Say that you, or whoever, is the homo, and I'm me.
Tell me...

Can the homo not marry a member of the opposite sex (which is what marriage is, and always has been) just like I can, or anyone else?

Yes. So we are both treated equally.

Can *I* marry a member of the same sex, like you or the homo can not?

Nope... I can't either.

So we are both treated equally under the law.

There is nothing that I can do, that you can not, under the law.

So don't tell me, homos are not treated equally. They are. That's the problem. They want special treatment. They want to redefine a fundamental institution of civilized society.

They want to normalize what is sick and disgusting, and causes health problems, and suicide.

They want to force others to accept whatever they 'make up' is marriage.

Well... you might get some politicians to do that... but you'll never get us to do it.

******* wanted special rights also.
That was the argument we heard in the 50s and 60s.

"They can marry their own now and interracial marriage is giving the ******* special rights"

Give it up.

 

[Andylusion]

Oh, okay. So it's okay to force the church to rent its facilities to someone it doesn't want to, as long as you don't ALSO force the pastor to participate in the event? So much for private property ownership. That church raised the money to build the building, pays the mortgage if there is one, and pays all the bills and upkeep, but the building REALLY belongs to the government and anyone who can convince the government to expropriate it for them.

Your response also leads towards a very interesting point. We have a group (and if they have their way, even the Federal Government) that believes pastors and the church should be FORCED to recognize the "world view" of same sex marriage. This would include the view of forcing churches to perform same sex ceremonies. However, at the same time, the church as a whole is not allowed to pray at public events or make reference to Jesus' name. For an unbeliever to be exposed to prayer, even so much as seeing a cross or nativity scene, is to FORCE them to have to tolerate a view which is contrary to their own ... and what the secular world is willing to accept. So the church is to express an open door policy to what the world condones and believes, yet the world has no tolerance at all towards a church that shares and expresses any point of view different from their own. So the world wants to present themselves as a group of hypocrites, while demanding that the church become the "tolerant" ones to accept what the world wants to see.

Lot of what ifs and maybes in that argument.
No church is forced to marry anyone now and never will be.
What Jewish rabbi is forced to marry a Muslim now?
Come on man.

I can remember when people said "you are crazy! no one is going to try and force people to eat health! They'll never ban food and drinks"

Then suddenly large soda drinks were banned in New York, and all the nay sayers quietly disappeared.

We'll see.