Just thought I'd try speaking in a language that you speak fluently. First time I've ever gotten through to you.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Hmmm...I thought churches didn't have to worry about performing gay marriages...what about this...
- Thread starter 2aguy
- Start date
Just thought I'd try speaking in a language that you speak fluently. First time I've ever gotten through to you.
- Apr 5, 2010
- 80,789
- 32,651
- 2,300
no they didnt...Sounds like another rightwing load of bullshit
Someone let me know what the REAL story is
Too late for denial. Our usual same sex fascists already have responded to a thread on this, and go with the usual "submit or be punished" line of logic.
Yes, they did
Hmmm...I thought churches didn t have to worry about performing gay marriages...what about this... Page 9 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
- Apr 5, 2010
- 80,789
- 32,651
- 2,300
1. They run a for-profit business so that business doesn't get exemption;
2. They are in Idaho so they are looking for attention or else they could pay a couple hundred bucks, start a non-profit business, and gift their property to the church. instead they sued for something they have not been prosecuted for.
3. you would have a hard time convincing me that the "hitching post" is a religious enterprise
4. While I generally oppose public accommodation laws, they do exist and this place is subject to them like Walmart
1. show me where in the constitution that your freedom of religion goes away based on tax status.
2. Why should they accomodate others when others have a problem with them?
3. It's not your call, and neither is it the governments
4. Bad laws are bad laws, and should be fought.
- Apr 5, 2010
- 80,789
- 32,651
- 2,300
Is that the one where it turned out to not be a church but a for profit business?Sounds like another rightwing load of bullshit
Someone let me know what the REAL story is
Too late for denial. Our usual same sex fascists already have responded to a thread on this, and go with the usual "submit or be punished" line of logic.
How does ones tax status affect ones position as a minister? I forgot the part of the 1st amendment that states that....
Oh....I forgot
Corporations are now people
No, people are people.
- Apr 5, 2010
- 80,789
- 32,651
- 2,300
They are still ordained ministers and cannot be compelled to act against their morals.
So if they claim as 'ordained ministers' that their moral beliefs state that they cannot pay income taxes- they can't be compelled to pay income taxes?
Taxes and forcing some to perform a wedding by government fiat are two different things.
The claim was made:
They are still ordained ministers and cannot be compelled to act against their morals.
My question stands- can they be compelled to pay income taxes if they claim it would be against their morals?
The issue is exactly the same. Can anyone who claims to be a religious professional be forced by government to do anything that he or she claims is against his or her religious teachings?
For instance- can the government force a Seventh Day Adventist minister to allow blood transfusions to their children?
Tax paying is a required part of society, the burden placed on not being able to religiously pay taxes has to be extremely high, and considering most religions are 100% OK with it, this is a strawman and a non-issue.
The children/blood transfusion issue is more about the power of the government to be a guardian over parents of a minor, again, not relevant.
What we have here is government force on ordained ministers, in a non essential, easy to get elsewhere service.
As an edit, its Jehovah's Witnesses that refuse blood transfusions, not Seventh Day Adventists.
My apologies to Seventh Day Adventists.
The issue is not whether or not 'most' religions are comfortable with paying taxes- I go back to the same initial claim:
They are still ordained ministers and cannot be compelled to act against their morals.
What I think you are saying is that yes- ordained ministers can be compelled to act against what they claim to be their morals- but it depends on what the government demands that they do.
They have two options:
a) they can try to change State law or
b) they can go to court to try to change the law- which is of course what gay couples have done to overturn state laws against same gender marriage.
I am fine if they want to pursue either course. But at the moment- as business people- they have broken state law.
Hiding behind the "law is the law" is a cowardly way to avoid debating the issues behind the law, nothing more.
The difference is there is a explicit restriction on governments interfering in the practice of religion, there is no explicit restriction of state legislatures defining a marriage contract as they see fit.
Show me a religion that has a specific thing against paying taxes.
Seawytch
Information isnt Advocacy
But only recently have been used to force homosexual acceptance onto business owners. Did the law change or did the political agenda change? The fact that you think starting a business is a privilege granted by the state is the root of the difference. We are not subjects of the state. At least not yet.PA laws came into being in the 1960s. AAAAHHHH tyranny!
Yes the laws in SOME states also protect gays the same way blacks and Christians are protected in ALL 50. Get rid of all or quit sniveling because in some places they also protect gays.
SmarterThanTheAverageBear
Gold Member
- Aug 22, 2014
- 29,410
- 4,280
- 280
- Banned
- #248
But only recently have been used to force homosexual acceptance onto business owners. Did the law change or did the political agenda change? The fact that you think starting a business is a privilege granted by the state is the root of the difference. We are not subjects of the state. At least not yet.PA laws came into being in the 1960s. AAAAHHHH tyranny!
Yes the laws in SOME states also protect gays the same way blacks and Christians are protected in ALL 50. Get rid of all or quit sniveling because in some places they also protect gays.
Sounds good to me
Plasmaball
Gold Member
- Sep 9, 2010
- 20,629
- 2,194
- 175
no they didnt....This isnt a church.....Deal with it...we have laws for a reasonno they didnt...Sounds like another rightwing load of bullshit
Someone let me know what the REAL story is
Too late for denial. Our usual same sex fascists already have responded to a thread on this, and go with the usual "submit or be punished" line of logic.
Yes, they did
Hmmm...I thought churches didn t have to worry about performing gay marriages...what about this... Page 9 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
- Apr 5, 2010
- 80,789
- 32,651
- 2,300
no they didnt....This isnt a church.....Deal with it...we have laws for a reasonno they didnt...Sounds like another rightwing load of bullshit
Someone let me know what the REAL story is
Too late for denial. Our usual same sex fascists already have responded to a thread on this, and go with the usual "submit or be punished" line of logic.
Yes, they did
Hmmm...I thought churches didn t have to worry about performing gay marriages...what about this... Page 9 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Again, you are concentrating on the building, not the people, who are ordained ministers. And yes, their position is submit or be punished.
Do you enjoy being a lying hacky twat?
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,518
- 2,165
- Banned
- #251
The wedding chapel charges for renting the premises. The minister does not charge for his services. A gratuity is suggested. Gays are going to lose this one.Sounds like another rightwing load of bullshit
Someone let me know what the REAL story is
The real story was covered, at length, in previous threads on this stupidity.
They are NOT "ministers", they're business men, running a for-profit business.
They broke the law. It has nothing at all to do with being "liberal" except that RWs are in favor of breaking equality laws.
If they did not charge for their services, then there is a violation of the government intruding on their religion.
Since they do charge, then they are subject to different laws.
The last thing is, that I would not go to a minister and ask them to preform a wedding for me, if his beliefs were not in align with mine. The homosexuals are being petty.
The gratuity addendum may be the way to go for the husband and wife pastors.
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,518
- 2,165
- Banned
- #252
So both extremes are being silly here.
Congrats to the pastors for making the payment for pastor services gratuitous.
Of course, if the wedding chapel is a business, the gays can demand the owners to provide a pastor who will marry them.
Congrats to the pastors for making the payment for pastor services gratuitous.
Of course, if the wedding chapel is a business, the gays can demand the owners to provide a pastor who will marry them.
Imagine the fate of the pastor who gives in to demands to perform inter-species marriages but won't allow animals into the church.
the are also proprietors of a public business.no they didnt....This isnt a church.....Deal with it...we have laws for a reasonno they didnt...Sounds like another rightwing load of bullshit
Someone let me know what the REAL story is
Too late for denial. Our usual same sex fascists already have responded to a thread on this, and go with the usual "submit or be punished" line of logic.
Yes, they did
Hmmm...I thought churches didn t have to worry about performing gay marriages...what about this... Page 9 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Again, you are concentrating on the building, not the people, who are ordained ministers. And yes, their position is submit or be punished.
Do you enjoy being a lying hacky twat?
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,518
- 2,165
- Banned
- #255
And Henry is a example of the extreme species of the far right.Imagine the fate of the pastor who gives in to demands to perform inter-species marriages but won't allow animals into the church.
- Apr 5, 2010
- 80,789
- 32,651
- 2,300
the are also proprietors of a public business.no they didnt....This isnt a church.....Deal with it...we have laws for a reasonno they didnt...Too late for denial. Our usual same sex fascists already have responded to a thread on this, and go with the usual "submit or be punished" line of logic.
Yes, they did
Hmmm...I thought churches didn t have to worry about performing gay marriages...what about this... Page 9 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Again, you are concentrating on the building, not the people, who are ordained ministers. And yes, their position is submit or be punished.
Do you enjoy being a lying hacky twat?
And again, where in the constitution does it say you lose your rights if a business is public?
that does not appear to be the case.The wedding chapel charges for renting the premises. The minister does not charge for his services. A gratuity is suggested. Gays are going to lose this one.Sounds like another rightwing load of bullshit
Someone let me know what the REAL story is
The real story was covered, at length, in previous threads on this stupidity.
They are NOT "ministers", they're business men, running a for-profit business.
They broke the law. It has nothing at all to do with being "liberal" except that RWs are in favor of breaking equality laws.
If they did not charge for their services, then there is a violation of the government intruding on their religion.
Since they do charge, then they are subject to different laws.
The last thing is, that I would not go to a minister and ask them to preform a wedding for me, if his beliefs were not in align with mine. The homosexuals are being petty.
http://hitchingpostweddings.com/wedding/packages/
the packages include the minister.
- Apr 5, 2010
- 80,789
- 32,651
- 2,300
So both extremes are being silly here.
Congrats to the pastors for making the payment for pastor services gratuitous.
Of course, if the wedding chapel is a business, the gays can demand the owners to provide a pastor who will marry them.
They should be told to go pound fucking sand, and you statists should be buried up to your eyeballs in said sand.
nodoginnafight
No Party Affiliation
A REAL Christian pastor would say "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone."
you don't, but the commerce clause and the 14th amendment say that the government can make public accommodation laws.the are also proprietors of a public business.no they didnt....This isnt a church.....Deal with it...we have laws for a reason
Again, you are concentrating on the building, not the people, who are ordained ministers. And yes, their position is submit or be punished.
Do you enjoy being a lying hacky twat?
And again, where in the constitution does it say you lose your rights if a business is public?
Similar threads
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 505
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 494
- Replies
- 16
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 401
- Replies
- 7
- Views
- 591
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 31
- Views
- 191
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 46
- Replies
- 75
- Views
- 141
- Replies
- 65
- Views
- 413
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8149
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 472
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-